FUTURE ROLES OF TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 EDUCATION …christiannegolesky.com/uploads/DISSERTATION.pdf · disadvantages of technology in application, ways technology will support education,

FUTURE ROLES OF TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 EDUCATION IN

CONNECTICUT

CHRISTIANNE CLARK HANES GOLESKY, Ed.D.

M.A., Columbia University, 2006

B.S., Fairfield University, 2003

Mentor

John W. Mulcahy, Ph.D., LL.D.

Readers

George Goens, Ph.D.

Robert Kirschmann, Ph.D.

DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF BRIDGEPORT

CONNECTICUT

December 3, 2010

ii

UNIVERSITY OF BRIDGEPORT

Committee Approval of a Dissertation

Submitted by

Christianne Clark Hanes Golesky

I have read this dissertation and have found it to be of satisfactory quality for a doctoral degree.

_________________________ _____________________________

Date Dr. John W. Mulcahy, Chairperson

Dissertation Committee

I have read this dissertation and have found it to be of satisfactory quality for a doctoral degree.

_________________________ _____________________________

Date Dr. George Goens, Member

Dissertation Committee

I have read this dissertation and have found it to be of satisfactory quality for a doctoral degree.

_________________________ _____________________________

Date Dr. Robert Kirschmann, Member

Dissertation Committee

iii

Abstract

This study investigated the underlying factors that will determine the future roles of

technology in K-12 education in Connecticut. As school districts look towards technology for

answers to budget concerns and rising accountability standards, the way superintendents of

schools in Connecticut define these future roles have many far-reaching implications.

Adopting a modified Delphi technique, this study surveyed Connecticut superintendent‘s

of schools to investigate the future roles of technology in K-12 education. Using an online

survey, respondents expressed their levels of agreement with preference statements relating to

future roles of technology in K-12 education. The superintendents of schools were asked for their

views on applications of technology in education, advantages of technology in education,

disadvantages of technology in application, ways technology will support education, and policy

changes required by future roles of technology in education.

The findings indicated superintendents of schools in Connecticut saw value in redefining

the education process to include technology. While respondents did express interest in creating

virtual schools, they indicated it would not be an advantage to replace teachers with technology.

Advantages included using data to inform and differentiate instruction. However,

superintendents were concerned by the costs of such technologies as well as the quality of online

instruction.

The superintendents expressed great interest in redefining education, but did not see

connections between technology in education and producing good citizens, promoting wisdom,

promoting character development and improving student ethical behavior. However, all

superintendents agreed it will be necessary to change existing policies to fit these new roles of

technology in K-12 education

iv

Acknowledgements

A very wise man, who also happened to be my father, repeatedly asked me, ―How hard

can it be?‖ I would frequently ask him for his advice on whatever endeavor I was interested in

pursuing, and this was his classic response. No matter what the task, he had complete faith in my

abilities and instilled a belief in me of the unlimited possibilities of my potential.

As I pursued my doctoral degree of education at the University of Bridgeport, I was

retracing my father‘s footsteps from over twenty years prior. In the 1980s, Thomas Hanes began

the data center and later served as the Dean of Computing at UB. His love of technology shaped

my own and inspired this research study. I wish he were here to celebrate, but I know he is

looking down on me with a smile.

There are numerous individuals who have contributed their support, time and effort

throughout the completion of this study who have my thanks and gratitude.

To my husband, Jason, I thank you for your unwavering support of me and this goal. You

have always reminded me that without sacrifice, there is no victory.

In my case, it took an entire family to support a doctoral student. I am blessed to have had

my family beside me each step of the way. Without the support and encouragement specifically

from my mother, father, brother, aunt, uncle and grandparents, the directions my career has taken

would not have been possible. You continue to inspire me.

I extend a very special thank you to all the members of my family, my friends and my

colleagues from Fairfield Ludlowe High School. The access to your time, bookshelves and

thoughts made all the difference.

It is with deep appreciation and gratitude that I thank Dr. John W. Mulcahy for his role as

my dissertation committee chair and advisor. His wonderful feedback and insights were

incredibly valuable throughout this process. I would also like to thank Dr. Robert Kirschmann

for his role as a member of my dissertation committee as well as an excellent professor.

I also thank Dr. George Goens for taking on the role of dissertation committee member.

He has continued to shape the path of my research and my career. I will forever remember his

words of wisdom and advice.

I would like to thank the esteemed members of the jury of experts outside of my

committee who assisted the construction of a valid survey instrument used for this study: Dr.

John Tindall-Gibson, Superintendent of Schools, Naugatuck, Connecticut, Dr. Ann Clark,

Superintendent of Schools, Fairfield, Connecticut. Your input was wonderful and I thank you

again for your time.

v

Dedication

To My Father

Thomas Clark Hanes

1952-2008

vi

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

Dedication v

List of Tables ix

List of Figures xi

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of the Problem 4

Research Questions 4

Significance of the Study 5

Definition of Terms 5

Limitations of the Study 10

Organization of the Study 10

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 12

Theory 12

Technology in Education 16

Technology Policies in Education 28

The Delphi Method 31

Summary 33

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 34

Design of the Study 34

The Population 34

The Materials 38

vii

Demographic Data Sheet 39

Preference Statements 39

Directions 40

The Procedures 40

Development of the Problem 40

Development of the Questionnaire 41

Selection of the Subjects 41

Collection of the Data 42

Statistical Procedure 42

Validity 42

Summary 42

IV. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 43

Final Modal Responses 44

Applications 44

Advantages 49

Disadvantages 58

Support Education 77

Policy 89

Summary of Modes 93

Summary of Statements 93

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 98

Summary 98

Conclusions 103

viii

Recommendations 105

References 107

Appendices 112

APPENDIX A: Questionnaire 112

APPENDIX B: Jury of Experts 119

APPENDIX C: Email Letter 121

APPENDIX D: Demographic Data Sheet 123

APPENDIX E: Responses by Urban, Suburban and Rural 126

APPENDIX F: Responses by Small, Medium and Large 132

APPENDIX G: Responses by Elementary, K-12 and Regional 138

APPENDIX H: Responses by Years of Experience 143

APPENDIX I: Responses by Gender 149

ix

List of Tables

Table 1: Applications of Technology in Education 47

Table 2: Demographics – Applications 50

Table 3: Advantages of Technology in Education 57

Table 4: Demographics – Advantages 59

Table 5: Disadvantages of Technology in Education 66

Table 6: Demographics – Disadvantages 68

Table 7: Ways Technology Will Support Education 81

Table 8: Demographics – Support Education 83

Table 9: Future Policy Changes 92

Table 10: Demographics – Policy 94

Table 11: Summary of Preferences 95

Table A1: Applications by Urban, Suburban and Rural 127

Table A2: Advantages by Urban, Suburban and Rural 128

Table A3: Disadvantages by Urban, Suburban and Rural 129

Table A4: Support Education by Urban, Suburban and Rural 130

Table A5: Policy Changes by Urban, Suburban and Rural 131

Table A6: Applications by Small, Medium and Large 133

Table A7: Advantages by Small, Medium and Large 134

Table A8: Disadvantages by Small, Medium and Large 135

Table A9: Support Education by Small, Medium and Large 136

Table A10: Policy Changes by Small, Medium and Large 137

Table A11: Applications by Elementary, K-12 and Regional 139

x

Table A12: Advantages by Elementary, K-12 and Regional 140

Table A13: Disadvantages by Elementary, K-12 and Regional 141

Table A14: Support Education by Elementary, K-12 and Regional 142

Table A15: Policy Changes by Elementary, K-12 and Regional 143

Table A16: Applications by Experience 145

Table A17: Advantages by Experience 146

Table A18: Disadvantages by Experience 147

Table A19: Support Education by Experience 148

Table A20: Policy Changes by Experience 149

Table A21: Applications by Gender 151

Table A22: Advantages by Gender 152

Table A23: Disadvantages by Gender 153

Table A24: Support Education by Gender 154

Table A25: Policy Changes by Gender 155

xi

List of Figures

Figure 1: Problem Based Learning 21

Figure 1: Years of Experience 35

Figure 2: Gender 36

Figure 3: District Designation 36

Figure 4: District Enrollment 37

Figure 5: District Type 37

1

Chapter One

Introduction

The infusion of technology has spread to every aspect of daily life. An entire

virtual world exists where individuals can communicate, work, shop, and even learn. The

work environment is no longer confined to a specific building or desk. Individuals can

work from anywhere they can receive a wireless signal to their computer or phone.

Leaving the home to interact with others and secure the essentials of daily living is no

longer necessary. Perched on the verge of obsolescence, land based phone lines are being

replaced with the more advantageous options of cell phones and voice over IP addresses.

While technology innovations have radically reconstructed the faces of business

and culture, K-12 education, as an institution, has remained almost the same (Tapscott,

2008). Some states, such as Michigan and Florida, have embraced educational technology

and are changing the process of education to meet the demands of today‘s society. The

roles of technology have transformed institutions of higher education into global

communities. Technology platforms such as Second Life and iTunes University are now

used worldwide.

Online learning has transitioned from post-secondary use to K-12 education. As

virtual learning becomes available to K-12 schools, the role this technology will take

continues to be defined. Technology can provide many learning opportunities for

students, but what those opportunities should be, and who can provide them, continues to

be a source of contention at the local, state, and national level. While state wide

initiatives in Connecticut have been developed to provide direction for districts,

individual schools continue to develop their own alternatives.

2

Students can find almost anything on the web and center their lives on the

efficient use of technology. Students can text message each other during class and spend

countless hours instant messaging at home, but trying to have a class discussion can be

difficult. However, in many school settings, students are restricted in their technology use

(Tapscott, 2008). They remove their headphones, put away their PDAs, turn off cell

phones, and in some cases even leave their laptops at home. They are transported from

the world of technology, into a barren classroom that is traditionally dependent upon

pencil and paper (Tapscott, 2008).

The model of education calling for memorization and recall has begun to shift

towards constructivism (Prensky, 2001), yet the fundamental aspects of education have

not changed in over two hundred years. Even though learning is taking place in different

ways than in the past, classrooms look very similar to the ones from fifty years ago. The

traditional delivery methods offered by current classrooms limits the learning which can

take place within (Prensky, 2001). While today‘s students are technologically savvy, they

struggle with traditional skills. Future roles of technology should incorporate both

technological and traditional literacy skills.

Educators have spent many years grappling with the roles technology can play in

education. The addition of computers to classrooms was viewed as having several

possible purposes. For some, computers were a way to complete more complex tasks,

create a product, or take the place of the teacher. A more modern interpretation is using

the computer and other educational technologies as instructional tools, instead of

supplemental resources (Moallem, 2008). Technology provides access to education for

those students with disabilities (Jonassen et al. 2003). Specifically, online delivery of

3

instruction allows convenient modification of instruction and materials to meet the needs

of students with special needs (Wiburg & Butler, 2003). Traditional education presents

physical barriers for some students, which prevents them from fully accessing

curriculum. Differentiation of course materials in an online environment is more seamless

and affords greater educational opportunities for those who experience barriers in a

traditional classroom (Moallem, 2008).

There are many models of educational technology use and it has been difficult for

school district‘s to determine which technology to purchase and integrate, as well as the

rationale of the decision (Prensky, 2001). Many decisions regarding policy are made out

of a fear of loss of control. For each possible benefit technology brings to education,

there is always at least one disadvantage. Rather than simply purchasing technology

without having a larger plan, it will be necessary for school districts to be very conscious

of the direction they are choosing to pursue for technology in education. The important

question to ask is not what technologies are available for use in education, but what the

educational needs to be met are and what the vision for education in the future will be

which needs to be determined.

Too often, technology decisions are made without this larger picture being

defined. As the state of Connecticut looks toward increasing graduation requirements and

the future of the virtual learning initiatives, the role of technology are integral to the

shape and definition of these issues.

Consistency is necessary in forming future policies for online learning, in order to

be in line with larger changes in education. In 2008, the CT Virtual Learning Center was

created as a statewide program. The purpose of the CT Virtual Learning Center was to

4

provide districts with online classes as resources for: credit remediation, compensatory

education, enrichment, advanced study, and homebound education (CT State Department

of Education, 2009). Some districts in the state of Connecticut embraced the virtual high

school concept, while others have not. These virtual offerings can serve as supplemental

offerings to school course offerings, yet the issues of funding, support and existing

district policies provide barriers (CT State Department of Education, 2009).

These issues have sparked the question of how do school superintendents view

the role of technology in the future. Education is at a cross roads as districts are faced

with the rising costs of education. Districts have begun looking to technology for

answers. The future roles of technology in K-12 education have many far-reaching

implications for school superintendents regarding policy and practice. This study

investigated the underlying factors that will determine the role of technology in K-12

education in Connecticut in the future.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to examine the future roles of technology in K-12

education in Connecticut according to superintendents of schools.

Research Questions

Specifically, this study sought to answer the following:

1. What will be the applications of technology in education?

2. What will be the advantages of technology in education?

3. What will be the disadvantages of technology in education?

4. What ways will technology support education?

5

5. What will be the changes in policies required by technology in education?

Significance of the Study

A study of the future roles of technology in K-12 education in Connecticut is

important to educators in the state making policy decisions. This study provided an

overview of the perception of these future roles according to the current superintendents

of schools within the state of Connecticut. The findings of this study provided a

meaningful context of the contributing factors to form a future picture from the survey

results of the roles of technology in education. These results can structure future

dialogues among educational leaders within the Connecticut Association for Public

School Superintendents (CAPSS) as well as the Connecticut Association of Boards of

Education (CABE). The predicted future roles of technology in education can inform the

CT Distance Learning Consortium and the regional education service centers. The results

of this study are also significant to teacher preparation programs as well as the

Connecticut State Department of Education.

Definition of Terms

Assistive technology. Technologies designed to give assistance with everyday tasks

to individuals with disabilities.

Asynchronous online course. A course delivered online via the Internet using an

online learning platform in which students proceed at different paces. The course

allows for students to enroll at different points throughout the semester. The course

does not incorporate any activities where all students are engaged in an activity at the

same time.

6

Banking education. View of students as receptacles to be filled with knowledge by a

teacher.

Blog. An online journal.

Chat room. A virtual space where two or more individuals can type text to one

another in the form of a ―chat.‖

CIPA. Child Internet Protection Act of 2000.

Class credit. Carnegie units awarded towards completion of graduation credits.

Computer. Originally a person, and later a technological device, which computes

data.

Computer lab. A classroom containing computers where students complete word

processing tasks, Internet searches and create products.

Compensatory education. Education which focuses on basic skills.

Computer network. A group of computers linked together to share resources.

Constructivist learning. Student centered education with teacher acting as a

facilitator.

Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE). Organization of school

board members within the state of Connecticut which offers training and workshops.

Connecticut Association of Public Superintendents of Schools (CAPSS).

Organization for CT public school superintendents which offers training and workshops.

Connecticut Virtual High School. Created in January 2008 by the CT Distance

Learning Consortium as a statewide initiative to provide online opportunities to

Connecticut students. The CT Virtual High School was originally created as a pilot

program where the state offered funding for students to attend.

7

COPA. Child Online Protection Act of 1998.

Course. A course of study as designated by a curriculum document approved by the

district.

Course management software application. An online website designed to host

courses which provide a variety of learning activities. These platforms also serve as

communication tools for the school community.

Course website. A website containing class information, grades, assignments and

supplemental resources.

Curriculum. A document describing course components aligned with state standards.

Credit remediation. The process of taking either the same or an additional course to

gain credits towards graduation.

Data mining. The process of using computer databases to store and analyze student

performance data.

Digital native. An individual who grows up using technology (Presnsky, 2001).

Digital immigrant. An individual who adapts to using technologies either already

developed or those created during their lifetime (Prensky, 2001).

Discussion board/forum. A place online where individuals can post topics and

receive replies from others in the form of a threaded discussion.

Distance learning. When students take a course which is physically being offered at

another location through the use of video or other media.

E-mail. An electronic form of mail correspondence.

8

E-Text. An electronic copy of a print text which can be delivered and accessed over

the internet. E-texts can be read on the computer screen or through a digital text reading

device.

Educational software. Computer software specifically designed for educational

purposes.

Educational technology. Technology used for the purpose of education such as

computers, electronic devices, cameras, LCD projectors and software.

Filter. A set of rules applied to the internet which are put in place for a network to

ensure inappropriate content is not accessed by minors.

Graduation requirements. The number of Carnegie units required by the CT State

Department of Education for a student to graduate from high school.

Hardware. The system components of a computer (DeVeau, 1995).

Homeschooling. When students are educated in the home environment instead of a

public or private school.

Human computer interface. A device, containing a computer, such as a cell phone,

which a human interacts with.

Laptop computer. A portable microcomputer.

Microcomputer. A smaller version of a technological computer able to be purchased

and used by an individual. Microcomputers are commonly referred to as simply

―computers.‖

Multi-media. The use of text, graphics and sound.

New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC). Association sets the

accreditation standards for schools.

9

No Child Left Behind Legislation (NCLB). Legislation from 2002 which requires

integration of technology standards.

Online learning. Learning which occurs while using the internet.

Personal communication device. A device used by individuals for communication,

such as laptop computers, cell phones, smart phones and pagers.

Personal digital assistant (PDA). A PDA is a lightweight electronic device used for

managing contacts, calendars and email.

Podcast. A podcast is an audio recording file posted to the internet.

Problem based learning. Technology integration strategy where students work in

teams to use technology to solve a set problem.

Problem posing education. Education focused on a realistic problem facing students

to make connections between learning and reality.

School day. The length of time students are physically present in the school building.

Superintendent of Schools. The chief executive administrator for a school district.

Synchronous online course. A course delivered online via the internet using an

online learning platform in which students proceed at the same pace. The course

incorporates activities where all students are engaged in an activity at the same time.

The Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act. A law

from 2002 allowing educators to utilize digital copyrighted content for online learning

courses.

Teacher contract. An agreement between an organization of teachers regarding

working conditions and wages and the local board of education.

10

Text messaging. Text sent from one mobile phone to another mobile phone or

multiple phones.

Virtual gaming. The playing of video games online against other players who are

also connected virtually.

Virtual schools. A virtual school is an online learning environment on the internet

which offers courses and functions as an online school community.

Web based communication tools. Tools such as e-mail, discussion forums and blogs

communicate with others through the internet.

Web quests. An online assignment where students are given a task and a set of

instructions to solve their quest using websites.

Wikis. An online database which can be contributed to by many individuals.

Wireless Local Area Network (W-LAN). A computer network of connected

computers which are able to share software and information. This is made available to

users through wireless technology, eliminating the need for cables (DeVeau, 1995).

Limitations of the Study

The limitations of this study included the population of one hundred thirty nine

superintendents of schools and the responding sample of 72, the data gathering sample of

72 and the instrument used. The study was limited to the data analysis plan, the data

gathering plan and the content, construct and face validity of the modified Delphi Method

(Appendix A).

Organization of the Study

This research study was presented in five chapters. Chapter one presented the

introduction to the roles of technology in K-12 education, the statement of the problem,

11

the research questions, the significance of the study, the definition of terms, the

limitations of the study, and the organization of the study. Chapter two presented the

review of the literature on: applications of technology in education, advantages and

disadvantages of technology in education, types of education supported by technology,

educational technology policy, and the Delphi Method. Chapter three presented the

subjects, materials, procedures, and research methodology. Chapter four presented the

analysis of the findings of this research. Chapter five presented the conclusions,

implications and recommendations for future research based upon the findings presented

in chapter four.

12

Chapter Two

Review of Literature

Introduction

The review of literature was divided into four sections. These sections were

theory, technology in education, technology policies in education and the Delphi method.

Theory

During the 1960s, Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire wrote about his experiences

and observations while educating minority workers. Freire‘s works focused on the

changes needed in educational theory. Freire‘s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970)

detailed the limitations of educational practice in relation to power and struggles for

freedom. The ―banking‖ concept of education, as described by Freire (1970), has been the

cornerstone of education in the past. In this model, the student is a receptacle which

needs to have knowledge placed inside by teachers. The process of learning was viewed

as a transaction with the teacher being the central holder of currency (Freire, 1970/2000).

As a result, the student was presented with an education that did not hold relevance to

their daily lives. The purpose of education was to change the nature of the student to

become more acceptable to the surrounding society. ―The educated individual is the

adapted person, because she or he is better fit for the world,‖ (Freire, 1970 p. 24). In this

model, the student is not acceptable in their original form and must strive to reach an

ideal set by those with power. Freire (1970) outlined the banking model of education as:

(a) the teacher teaches and the students are taught;

(b) the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing;

(c) the teacher thinks and the students are thought about;

(d) the teacher talks and the students listen — meekly;

13

(e) the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined;

(f) the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply;

(g) the teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action

of the teacher;

(h) the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who were not

consulted) adapt to it;

(i) the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his or her own

professional authority, which she and he sets in opposition to the freedom of the

students;

(j) the teacher is the Subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere

objects

(Freire, 1970 p.22)

The banking model of education does not meet the needs of students in achieving

the necessary power to be successful. ―Education must begin with the solution of the

teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both

are simultaneously teachers and students,‖ (Freire, 1970 p.22). These poles refer to the

traditional role of students and teachers under the banking model where teachers hold the

power of knowledge and then through lecture or memorization, impart the knowledge to

the students. This positions teachers and students at opposite poles where neither group

understands the other.

Problem-posing education is offered as the alternative model in which students

are empowered because education begins where the students are, not where they ―should‖

be.―This means, ultimately, that the educator must not be ignorant of, underestimate, or

reject any of the ‗knowledge of the living experience‘ with which educands come to

school.‖ (Freire, 1995 p.47) According to Freire (1995), the current reality perceived by

teachers is not the same reality seen by the students; to them, it is the reality of the past.

(Freire, 1995).

14

Freire was not the first educational theorist to recognize ―interest‖ on the part of

the student as a key component of education. Dewey (1913) emphasized the principle of

interest as central to effective education. ―The genuine principle of interest is the

principle of the recognized identity of the fact to be learned or the action proposed with

the growing self that it lies in the direction of the agent's own growth and is therefore

imperiously demanded if the agent is to be himself,‖ (Dewey, 1913 p.7). The only

safeguard to ensure students use their energies to pursue the mastering of content is to

secure the interest of the student. According to Dewey (1913), discipline was not

successful as a way to approach educational tasks. The unwillingness of the child was a

barrier to learning which could be overcome by securing interest. Freire (1970)

advocated, in extension, for student interest and relativity to the world of the student to be

at the forefront of education.

In 2001, Prensky wrote Digital Natives which gave a new definition of today‘s

student by looking at the context of their surroundings in a digital age. According to

Prensky (2001), these digital natives act, think and learn differently than the students who

came before them and require a different approach to teaching. A digital native is

someone who grew up using technology intuitively and fluently speaks the language of

computers and technology. A digital immigrant is someone who adapted and learned to

use technology at a later point in their life. Prensky (2001) stressed the importance of

being cognizant of these differences in students and teachers to ensure a successful

education process.

In a time of standards based education and increased accountability of schools,

Prensky (2001) called for a new understanding of students and the roles of technology in

15

their education. Through combining the environment of the student as well as the

interests of the students, Prensky (2001) stated, ―Today‘s students are no longer the

people our educational system was designed to teach. It is now clear that as a result of

this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it, today‘s

students think and process information fundamentally differently from their

predecessors,‖ (p.1). The technological world of the digital native has changed the way

student‘s learn and process information and must also transform the way education is

delivered (Prensky, 2001). Student achievement will not be impacted by technology

unless teacher practices are fully integrated (Nadolny, 2008).

Gomez (2006) made connections between Freire and these new types of learners.

Digital education or literacy, within the context of Freire's education, refers to

both the recognition of basic knowledge and the learning of information

technology skills, such as the operation of network connected computers and the

critical understanding of reality. Thus, independent from the education or basic

preparation of a person, a critical understanding of the knowledge embedded in

the digital world is indispensable.

(Gomez, 2006 p.54)

The understanding of the digital world discussed by Gomez (2006) changed the

concept of knowledge. Jackson & Davis (2000) have moved away from their previous

recommendation for a core of common knowledge ―because it implies a prescribed, fixed

universe of knowledge, a concept inappropriate for the information age,‖ (p. 31). Aligned

with the pedagogy of Freire, ―teachers must use equitable and excellent instructional

methods that meet students where they are and get the students where the standards say

they should go,‖ (Jackson & Davis, 2000 p.65).

16

Brooks-Young (2006) considered the various reports on the state of schools such

as, A Nation at Risk and What Work Requires of Schools. Brooks-Young (2006) outlined

the necessary shift in educational focus for the twenty-first century. The demands of

society far exceed content literacy and following directions. Instead, students need to be

lifelong learners capable of thinking critically, working in teams, and using technology

(Brooks-Young, 2006).

Technology in Education

While technology is a term used consistently in education today to describe

computers and related applications, technology in education did not begin with the

computer. Jonassen, Howland, Moore & Marra (2003) traced the roots of technology

used in education to 17th

century illustrations in textbooks, later 18th

century uses of slate

chalkboards and 19th

century lantern-slide projectors. The 20th

century saw the

introduction of television and radio programming specifically for education in the 1950s

and 60s. ―The students‘ role was to learn the information presented by the technology,

just as they learned information presented from the teacher,‖ (Jonassen, Howland, Moore

& Marra, 2003 p.10). According to Jonassen et al. (2003), this was the first true type of

educational technology for it was designed specifically to impart learning. Following this

pattern, students were meant to learn from the technology. Willis (2003) discussed the

way each invention of technology was purported to revolutionize education each time,

yet no significant changes were seen. Campbell-Kelly & Aspray (2004) traced this trend

through the evolution of the computer in the last century.

17

The 1890 census was a catalyst for the invention of what are now called

computers. Herman Hollerith invented a machine to mechanically count the census,

instead of having actual individuals work as human computers to tabulate the data.

Utilizing punch cards, this system laid the future foundation for IBM, a computer

company giant of the future (Campbell-Kelly & Aspray, 2004). When computers were

first introduced, these mainframe systems were utilized in similar ways, as a way of

performing mathematical computations (Campbell-Kelly & Aspray, 2004). Technology

in education from the 1940s through the late 1960s involved large systems used to create

computation tables and solve complex mathematical problems. Outside of the university

and government realms, the computer was not accessible to the average person

(Campbell-Kelly & Aspray, 2004).

The role of computers and related technology continued to evolve over time.

During the 1950s, the role of the computer evolved to include data processing in order to

appeal to businesses. Originally a government project for computation, the ENIAC

(electronic numerical integrator and computer) was a prototype for future computer

innovation (Weik, 1961). Many versions of these early computer mainframes were

developed by companies such as IBM, and each successive invention improved on the

shortcomings of the earlier models (Campbell-Kelly & Aspray, 2004). In the area of

software innovation, the RAND Corporation was awarded the contract to write the

software for the SAGE Air Defense Program for the government in 1955 (Campbell-

Kelly & Aspray, 2004).

Computers were first used on a larger scale in education in the late 1950s at the

university level (Moursund, 2003). Students used computers to learn programming

18

languages and punch cards. These first computers were used as data machines. The

computer main frames were enormous in size, difficult to maintain, very costly and

limited to the government and some universities (Wiburg & Butler, 2003). During this

time, university students were able to learn BASIC, instead of the more difficult

FORTRAN computing language used by scientists and engineers, and write their own

programs to solve basic problems (Moursund, 2003). The role of the computer in

education was as a productivity tool. While the possibilities of computing were exciting,

the actual applications were very limited.

These large systems were followed by microcomputers, which were easily

adapted by educators for drill and practice applications (Jonassen et al., 2003). However,

the quality of the software available to educators, as discussed by Campbell-Kelly &

Aspray (2004), was very limited and often of poor quality. Large software companies

were not developing educational software, and much of the education tools available

were created by educators themselves (Campbell-Kelly & Aspray, 2004).

As noted by Jonassen et al. (2003), the use of technology in education followed

traditional patterns of how teachers interacted with students. This was in direct contrast

with the way technology revolutionized the functioning on the American business office

(Campbell-Kelly & Aspray, 2004). When the Industrial Revolution began, America was

mainly an agricultural country and lagged behind the other countries where business had

already been firmly established. As a result, when technology and computing began to

adapt itself to the business consumer, American companies were open to these

innovations, while their overseas counterparts had a more difficult time adapting

(Campbell-Kelly & Aspray, 2004). This comparison can be continued to the roles of

19

technology in education. While the European business models had not been firmly

entrenched in the American culture, making change possible, the traditional system of

education was firmly in place and proved very resistant to change (Campbell-Kelly &

Aspray, 2004). When new technologies became available, the education system sought

ways for the technology to support existing practices, not to replace or change them.

It was not until the microcomputer was specifically marketed to educators that

computers had a presence in K-12 education. ―With the help of two college dropouts,

Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, microcomputers also became available to schools and to

teachers and students in the form of the Apple computer,‖ (Wiburg & Butler, 2003 p.9).

Apple recognized several key factors in marketing their computers that other companies

had overlooked. It was essential for the computer to be nicely encased as to appear

unthreatening to users (Campbell-Kelly & Aspray, 2004). Schools and colleges were the

first organizations, beside the government, to purchase personal computers on a large

scale, yet only the computer systems themselves were of great quality (Campbell-Kelly &

Aspray, 2004). The educational software market did not take hold for another decade and

the options for educators were limited in terms of how computers could be used in the

classroom. As more software became available, these technologies were then later

utilized as productivity tools, in addition to their drill and practice roles (Campbell-Kelly

& Aspray, 2004).

Educators began to use technology to complete tasks more efficiently. Computer

assisted instruction in the 1970s was the result of this mindset. Computers were used to

replace the role of the teacher for drill and practice. According to Moursund (2003), the

1970s introduced the microcomputer to schools. One of the main goals for this

20

investment of schools was to make education more affordable. Technology which can

replace or redefine the roles of teachers is often attractive in terms of cost, (Wiburg &

Butler, 2003). ―In 1983, it was estimated that in K-12 education there was approximately

one microcomputer for every 125 students,‖ (Moursund, 2003 p.79).

The first academic program in computing in education at a graduate school of

education was founded by Robert Taylor at Columbia University Teacher‘s College in

1976. Taylor originally worked with Bell Laboratories to learn the SNOBOL

computer language and went on to become one of the leading experts on computing in

education. Taylor was called to testify during a 1983 Congressional hearing by the

House Committee on Science and Technology regarding the future of technology (A

Legacy of Firsts). He testified, ―If introduced appropriately into schools, computing

will transform many aspects of education. In particular, it will increase the role of

graphics, force us to be more aware of the process nature of real learning, and make

formal learning environments more richly interactive than books, lectures and

traditional classes alone can ever be,‖ (US Congressional Hearing, 1983).

Cognitive psychology expanded to include the field of computing in the 1980s.

The area of human computer interface (HCI) design became necessary in designing

technologies. HCI is now integral to the development of educational technologies as the

ways students learn is integral to technology in education (Carroll, 2003). John Black, a

cognitive psychologist, worked with Taylor at Teacher‘s College to further define

computing in education from a cognitive standpoint. Black (2003) noted the importance

of the mental model of a piece of software or hardware as integral to the learning and

productive capabilities of the user.

21

During the 1980s and 1990s, the concept of Problem Based Learning (PBL) was

explored by Taylor & Budin (1992). PBL was an early educational technology strategy

where teams of students could use technology in teams, providing more contact time and

exposure to the technologies for the students with limited machines for use. Figure 1

below details the PBL model according to Moursund (2005).

Taylor and Budin (1992) worked with New York City school teachers to develop

programs using computers to enhance a problem solving approach to education. Their

work resulted in a three stage approach to technology integration. It was first necessary to

train the teachers on technologies which they currently had access to in their homes, then

apply these skills to areas where the technologies could be integrated with the curriculum,

and finally to assist teachers with the actual implementation the program (Taylor &

Budin, 1992). While PBL is still widely used in education today in the form of wikis,

Problem-Solving,

Task-Accomplishing

Team

Tools to extend

mental capabilities.

Tools to extend

physical capabilities.

Formal and informal education and training to build mental and physical capabilities and one‘s

knowledge and skills to effectively use mental and physical tools individually and as a team member.

Figure 1. Problem Based Learning Diagram. Adapted from ―Project-based learning: Using

information technology” (2nd

ed.) by D. Moursund, 2003, p. 5. Copyright 2003 by

International Society for Technology in Education.

Problem Based Learning

22

web quests and virtual gaming, the affordability of technologies has made them more

accessible to students and educators, taking away from the team approach (Moursund,

2005).

Computing in education underwent a radical shift in the mid 1990s with

―inexpensive multimedia computers and the eruption of the Internet,‖ (Jonassen,

Howland, Moore & Marra, 2003 p.10). While the capabilities of the available

technologies changed, the nature of the educational applications did not. ―In its early

days, the Internet allowed users to send and access text documents only. In 1993, the first

widely adopted browser with a graphical interface (Mosaic) was created,‖ (Jonassen et

al., 2003 p.34). As a result of these advances, the numbers of computers in classrooms

grew exponentially and the quality of educational software began to improve (Campbell-

Kelly & Aspray, 2004).

―For more than three decades, the world has witnessed an exponential rate of

growth in the amount of computing power that has been made available…15 years from

now will be 8,000 times the current level [of computing power],‖ (Moursund, 2003 p.80).

―It is not just a shift in how we compute or communicate. Rather, it is a potentially

radical shift in who is in control – of information, experience and resources,‖ (Shapiro,

1999 p. xi). As technologies became more affordable, the access to these technologies

represented a shift in power from large corporations and wealthy individuals to small

businesses and average citizens. Although, a digital divide still exists which must be

addressed (Wiburg & Butler, 2003). ―Technology has transformed nearly every aspect of

our personal and professional lives,‖ (Manternach-Wigans, 1999 p.1). However,

technology is only beginning to transform education (Campbell-Kelly & Aspray, 2004).

23

As educators looked forward to the possible uses for technology in education, amidst

federal encouragement, The International Society for Technology Education established a

set of national standards to be implemented in K-12 education (ISTE). The national

standards are divided into six categories:

1. Basic operations and concepts

2. Social, ethical and human issues

3. Technology productivity tools

4. Technology communication tools

5. Technology research tools

6. Technology problem-solving and decision-making tools

Barron, Orwig, Ivers & Lilavois (2002) stressed the importance of determining

educational goals and objectives first, and then investigating appropriate technologies to

support these goals and objectives.

Jonassen et al. (2003) outlined ways technology supports education. Technology

in education functions as tools to represent student knowledge construction as well as an

information vehicle to explore the applications of this knowledge. Technologies can

provide a context to support constructivist learning where the technology helps form the

initial learning as well as aids in applying new learning. These applications are furthered

with the ability for technologies to provide students with access to social mediums among

knowledge based communities. These applications allow for students to engage

technologies as intellectual partners to support their learning (Jonassen et al., 2003).

―Classroom technologies can best support problem solving by helping learners to access

information, model the problems, and make decisions,‖ (Jonassen et al., 2003 p.12).

24

Brooks-Young (2006) described a world which relies heavily on technology to

convey information. Therefore, the nature of literacy has changed to include visual

literacy, as well as fundamental technology literacy in addition to other content areas.

―Due to the dependency on computers, it has become necessary to prepare children by

integrating this technology into their curriculum,‖ (V. Black, 2006 p.1). The basic

concept of literacy has been altered as a result of the surrounding literacy contexts,

(Gallagher, 2007).

It is not enough to select the appropriate technologies in education, but to ensure

staff are given appropriate professional development for full utilization (Manternach-

Wigans, 1999). Barriers to technology integration are the result of issues with teacher

preparation to fully use such technologies (McRea, 2001). ―New technologies are

constantly emerging that present schools with less expensive opportunities to improve

teaching and learning and assist students in meeting standards,‖ (Fritz, 2005 p.3).

However, Fritz (2005) noted that cost is one of the main barriers to technology in

schools. ―When computers are available, every student should have opportunities to use

technology to support higher-order thinking skills,‖ (Jackson & Davis, 2000 p.86).Wilson

(2007) noted in addition to cost as a barrier, the ability for teachers to integrate

technology is in direct relation to teacher training and professional development.

Technology in education has changed the roles of teachers and administrators revealing

multiple interpretations of their roles (Nguyen, 2007).

―Computer mediated communication tools like email, discussion forums, and chat

rooms available in course web sites make it possible to continue course discussions

beyond the time and space of the classroom,‖ (Kumar, 2007).

25

Online learning, often called distance learning, began as correspondence courses.

Beginning in the 1920s, these courses were offered to adult learners and this format has

evolved to offer opportunities within K-12 education. However, ―full blown distance

learning courses often require a level of self-direction many K-12 students do not yet

possess,‖ (Brooks-Young, 2006). It is possible for distance learning to not utilize

necessary learning and communication features if not designed well. ―Discussion boards

have primarily been used in online courses, where a course management is the sole

means of delivering a course and web-based communication tools are of the main means

of communication between the instructor and student among students,‖ (Kumar, 2007

p.10) While distance learning is attractive in terms of cost and convenience, it is

necessary to ―recognize that schools and teachers (face to face teachers) are truly unique

and necessary intermediaries: they are community anchors,‖ (Shapiro, 1999).

There is a correlation between the rise of homeschooling and the increase in

technology in education. The capacities of these new emerging technologies shared the

power to educate with individuals, as well as schools (Andrade, 2008). The capability for

learning to be increasingly asynchronous adds to this attractiveness (Moursund, 2003).

Asynchronous online learning has drawbacks in terms of limited types of

applications when the feeling of a collaborative classroom community is removed. For

drill and practice applications of technology in education, Turning Points 2000 stated

―this negative relationship between lower order computer activities and academic

achievement has implications for how computers are used in all subject areas.

Apparently, ―kill and drill‖ is still deadly when it comes with bells, whistles, and a

26

flashing cursor,‖ (Turning Points 2000, 2000). These types of applications are only a

small portion of the ways technology is used in schools (Pflaum, 2004).

The kill and drill method of technology use in education is an example of negative

uses of technology in education. Not only how technologies are integrated and utilized

effect learning outcomes, but also the amount of technologies impact student

productivity. While in theory, technology should enhance learning and instruction,

Pflaum (2004) noted the key is in the method of integration. The majority of education

software available for use follows the computer based instruction model where the

computer instructs and the students input answers. However, Pflaum (2004) discussed the

need for computers to move beyond drill and practice and productivity tools.

Jonassen (2003) advocated the applications of technologies in schools should shift

from ―technology as teacher to technology as partner in the learning process.‖ The roles

of technology in schools should not continue to be limited to hardware and software.

Technologies should be used to design environments specifically to enhance learning.

Educational technologies must exist to fill a learning need (Jonassen, 2003).

Technologies which do not fill a learning need can be detrimental. Ophir, Nass &

Wagner (2009) conducted a study at Stanford University which found that students

engaged in heavy media multitasking performed lower on written tasks. Too much

technology can actually create interference in task performance. When multitasking

involves multiple activities which are not related to each other, the result was described

as an environmental distraction created by surrounding technologies (Ophir, Nass &

27

Wagner, 2009). Student texting, and other off task behaviors related to technology, can

actually reduce the capacity for learning.

In addition, Jonassen et al. (2003) acknowledged the lack of traditional

communication cues when using technology. These included: body language, tone, and

other indicators of overall meaning. As technology becomes a primary form of

communication, both within education and in the larger society, this lack of

communication cuing as well as the immediacy of these communications, becomes a

factor. Authors must be mindful of these when communicating using technologies to

ensure correct meaning and interpretation, (Jonassen et al., 2003).

When implemented correctly, educational technologies can have positive benefits

for all students (Barron et al., 2002). Assistive technologies can allow students with

disabilities to have greater access to education (Wiburg & Butler, 2003). ―Technology –

educational, instructional, and assistive – can support students with disabilities in their

efforts to learn information, communicate their knowledge and opinions verbally and in

text, and participate in classroom activities,‖ (Staples & Pittman, 2003 p.103). For

students with disabilities, technology in education does not simply represent a

supplement to their education, in many cases these student use these technologies to

construct meaning, (Staples & Pittman, 2003 p.109). ―Technology offers many

advantages for students with special needs,‖ (Barron et al., 2002 p.6). As noted by

Jackson & Davis (2000), students with special needs often respond more positively to

learning with technology because it is less intimidating to them.

28

As noted by Jonassen et al. (2003), technology in education has the potential to

change education, but only if implemented with fidelity to ensure technologies become

integrated with the learning process, not just productivity tools or to replace the role of

teachers. This integration requires a shift in traditional teaching to redefine the roles of

teacher and student to function within the new digital age (Jonassen et al., 2003).

Technology Policies in Education

The first laws concerning technology policies in education did not emerge until

concerns regarding student use of technologies and the Internet became prevalent. The

Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in 2000 was the first law which directly affected the

ways schools dealt with technology access. This law was enacted to require filters on all

school and public computers that could possibly be used by minors to access the Internet,

specifically making this law applicable to both school and public libraries. The law

stipulated those institutions not in compliance by 2001 would not receive federal funding

(Child Internet Protection Act, 2000). In 2003, this law was challenged and heard before

the Supreme Court in the case of UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN.

after a lower court found the law violated the Constitution and was not a valid exercise of

the spending power of Congress. The Supreme Court found that ―CIPA does not induce

libraries to violate the Constitution, and is a valid exercise of Congress‘ spending power,‖

(United States v. American Library Assn, 2003).

The predecessor to CIPA, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) from 1998,

gave strict guidelines for business and service providers who granted access to online

material to minors. This is why providers are required to verify age, require login

29

information and to confirm the identity of online users before providing access to any

possible mature content (Child Online Protection Act, 1998). CIPA extended the intent

behind COPA to provide further protection for minors when in a public environment

using a computer.

Another main concern of technology policies in education is the use of personal

communication devices in schools. Prior to the 1990s, the cost of personal

communication devices such as mobile phones and personal computers prohibited this

from being an issue, but as the technologies advanced, they became more affordable and

accessible to students. According to Prensky (2005), today‘s cell phones have the same

technology as the microcomputers from the 1990s, but in a much smaller package. The

percentage of high school students in the United States who own a cellular phone ranges

from 75-100%, however due to school policies, many students are not permitted to use

them for educational purposes (Prensky, 2005).

CT Statute Section 10-223j details state law on student possession and use of

telecommunication devices in schools. The law stipulates students are not permitted to

use pagers in school without express written permission from the principal. However, the

decision regarding cellular telephones and other personal devices is left to each individual

board of education to determine their own policy (Student Possession and Use of

Telecommunication Devices Rule, 1995).

Prior to the events of 9/11, most concerns regarding use of personal technology

devices were regarding academic integrity. After the events of 9/11, the policies of school

districts were also concerned with issues of communication access between students and

30

parents in an emergency situation (Mooney, 2005). Prensky (2005) encouraged educators

to design policies to include these personal technology devices which are second nature

to the digital native generation of students attending school today.

CIPA legislation requires school districts to provide filters for computer use, even

if the computer being used is the personal property of the student. If the student is

accessing the school network, the filter must be in place to ensure students are not

accessing inappropriate content (Jonassen et al., 2003). This presents multiple issues for

school districts to consider regarding appropriate filtering software, distribution,

maintenance and the cost entailed with each factor.

The Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act of 2002

broadened the capabilities of online education by expanding what is considered

acceptable use by educators using technology. The TEACH Act permits educators of

online courses to provide digitized versions of texts and other media for instruction. Prior

to the TEACH Act, educators were limited (by copyright) in terms of what materials

could be digitally presented, altered and stored for educational purposes when such a

version of a work did not already exist. Additionally, the TEACH Act addressed the

issues with student access via the Internet to view course content by requiring password

access and stipulating types of works permitted. This has allowed educators to create the

types of virtual learning environments envisioned by educators such as Taylor during the

1980s. Under the TEACH Act, an educator can create an interactive learning

environment with digitized text and multi-media supplemental materials.

31

School districts were also given direction on roles of technology in education

from other sources. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation of 2002 also included

provisions for the integration of technology with education. According to NCLB, schools

are required to enhance education through technology by integrating technology with all

curriculum.

The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) accreditation

standards also include provisions for roles of technology in education. Standard seven is

titled, ―Library and other Information Resources.‖ K-12 schools and colleges are

evaluated on their ability to demonstrate technology as an integral part of the education

provided. The reports detail for each school the number and types of technologies

available to students and staff, the professional development opportunities provided and

curriculum integration (Library and Other Information Resources).

The Delphi Method

The Delphi method was first developed by Dalkey and Helmer of the Rand

Corporation in California while working with the US Air Force in the early 1950s

(Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). The previously discussed involvement of the RAND

Corporation in creating the software for the SAGE Air Defense Program project led to

the development of The Delphi Technique (Campbell-Kelly & Aspray, 2004). These

government projects were designed to perform calculations involved with refining the

SONAR system to be able to discriminate between moving and stationary objects and

advancing weapon launching capabilities. As a result, it was necessary for those involved

with these projects to communicate, but issues concerning the classified nature of the

32

projects, as well as location of the participants made face to face discussion difficult.

Instead, the Delphi method was used.

This method of research was designed to poll experts in a particular field to

predict future trends (DeVeau, 1995). Helmer and Rescher (1959) describe the Delphi

method as an epistemological approach to the inexact sciences. Helmer (1966) indicated

the Delphi method should be used for groups when forecasting future trends based on

informed decisions. Dalkey (1969) identified three key features of the Delphi method as

―anonymous responses, iteration and controlled feedback, and statistical group response,‖

(p.5). The Delphi method is often associated with technology surveys to reach a group

consensus as the multi-round approach allows experts who have not previously had the

opportunity to dialogue on the topic to do so anonymously and without group persuasion

influences. This method often involves several rounds of interviews to reach consensus

(Helmer, 1966).

Many of the original Delphi questionnaires used by the RAND Corporation

concerned possible future military scenarios and allowed the participants to predict future

roles of the technologies to build a consensus and have only recently become available to

the public after being declassified (RAND Corporation). The precedent for the Delphi

method becoming associated with technology and predicting future trends resulted from

these original questionnaires. These questionnaires presented the scenario at the top of

the page and listed the responses with a rating scale of one to five. This format became

the standard for Delphi questionnaires (Helmer, 1966).

33

Helmer (1966) recommended applying the Delphi method to educational

planning. ―It derives its importance from the realization that projections into the future,

on which public policy decisions must rely, are largely based on the personal

expectations of individuals rather than on predictions derived from a well-established

theory,‖ (Helmer, 1967 p.4).

Summary

The purpose of this study was to investigate and determine, through the use of a

modified Delphi technique, the future roles of technology in K-12 education in

Connecticut. A review of the literature revealed that as technology evolved over time, the

roles of technology in education have continued to evolve as well. The review of

literature concerning educational theory, technology in education and technology policies

in education were explored. The review of the literature revealed limited information

available on the future roles of technology in education, while literature was available on

current uses of technology. The Delphi technique and the procedures for conducting a

modified Delphi study were also investigated in the review of literature.

34

Chapter Three

Methodology

Design of the Study

Using a modified Delphi technique, this study investigated the future roles of

technology in K-12 education in Connecticut. This chapter reported the population of the

study, the materials and procedures used. In addition, this chapter presented the

development of the problem, questionnaire and selection of the data. The discussion

included the modified Delphi technique used for the collection of data, the statistical

procedures used and the face, construct and content validity of the instrument.

The Population

From the universe of educators, the population (N) of this study consisted of 163

Connecticut superintendents of schools. The invited sample (n) consisted of 139

Connecticut superintendents of individual and regional districts but not including regional

service districts. Six districts were not invited to participate due to a vacancy in the

superintendency, or an inability to be contacted by email resulting in the 155

superintendents intended to be invited being reduced to 139.

The superintendents of schools used in this study from the invited sample of 139

(n), consisted of 72 Connecticut K-12 superintendents of schools who responded to the

survey inquiry. These 72 subjects represented the data generating sample, which accounts

for 52% of the 139 from the invited sample.

35

Sample Composition

The study sample consisted of 72 Connecticut superintendents of schools. Figures

1-5 represented the demographic composition of the data generating sample. Figure 1

demonstrated for the total years of experience as a superintendent of schools: 31.9% had

zero to three years of experience, 13.9% had four to six years of experience, and 54.2%

had seven plus years of experience. Representing gender, figure 2 showed the gender of

the sample as 62.5% male and 37.5% female. For type of district, figure 3 demonstrated

11.1% of the respondents were from an urban district, 56.9% of the respondents were

from suburban districts, and 31.9% were from rural districts. Figure 4 showed the

enrollment of the districts to be 34.7% small (less than 2000), 56.9% medium (2000-

8000), and 8.3% large (8000 plus). Figure 5 represented the designations of the districts

as 16.9% Elementary (K-6, K-8), 77.5% K-12, and 5.6% Regional.

Years of Experience

31.90%

13.90%

54.20%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Figure 2. Percentage of superintendents of schools according to years of experience.

0-3 4-6 7 +

R

esp

on

ses

Years

36

Gender

62.50%

37.50%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Figure 3. Percentage of superintendents of schools according to gender.

District Designation

11.10%

31.90%

56.90%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Figure 4. Percentage of superintendents of schools according to district designation.

Rural

Female

Urban Suburban

Male

R

esp

on

ses

R

esp

on

ses

37

District Enrollment

34.70%

56.90%

8.30%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Figure 5. Percentage of superintendents of schools according to district enrollment.

District Type

5.60%

16.90%

77.50%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

Figure 6. Percentage of superintendents of schools according to district type.

Small

(> 2000) Medium

(2000-8000) Large

(8000 +)

Elementary

(K-6, K-8) K-12 Regional

R

esp

on

ses

R

esp

on

ses

Enrollment

38

The Materials

The data for this research study was collected through a one round modified

Delphi technique questionnaire entitled, ―Future Roles of Technology in K-12 Education

in Connecticut‖ (Appendix A). The questionnaire, developed by the researcher, consisted

of 52 preference statements with five spaces for comments. Face validity, content and

construct validity was affirmed by the jury of experts (Appendix B). The questionnaire

was delivered to the subjects electronically through email with an IP address specific link

to the survey hosted through Survey Monkey. For those subjects whose email addresses

rejected the initial email, a second invitation to participate was sent through email with a

non specific IP address link directly from the email of the researcher. This direct email

was sent to reduce the possibility of the message being blocked as spam.

The questionnaire link emailed to the population with either the IP address specific

link or the non IP address specific link included an introductory letter (Appendix C)

detailing the following four parts:

1. Researcher Information

2. Study Title

3. Purpose of the Study

4. Directions

A modified method of the Delphi technique was selected by the researcher for this

study upon the recommendation of the jury of experts due to the nature of the

population. The Delphi Technique usually consists of a minimum of three rounds of

the questionnaire to reach consensus from the panel (Helmer). The population of

39

superintendents of schools were not available for three rounds of the questionnaire

and the jury of experts recommended a modified Delphi Technique consisting of one

round.

Demographic Data Sheet (Appendix D)

The information requested of all respondents included the following information:

1. District name

2. Designation of school district

3. Total years of experience as a superintendent of schools

4. Gender

Preference Statements

The 52 preference statements included in the questionnaire related to the future roles

of technology in K-12 education in Connecticut. These 52 statements were classified into

five categories:

1. Applications of Technology in Education

2. Advantages of Technology in Education

3. Disadvantages of Technology in Education

4. Ways Education Will Be Supported By Technology

5. Policies for Technology in Education

40

Directions

For the survey, respondents were instructed to indicate their level of agreement

with each statement on a scale on 1-5, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being

strongly agree. At the bottom of each category, was a space for respondent comments.

The Procedures

This research study included six stages of development:

1. Problem Development

2. Questionnaire Development

3. Subject Selection

4. Collection of Data

5. Analysis of Data

6. Presentation of Conclusions and Recommendations

Development of the Problem

In this section of the study, an appropriate problem was selected for investigation

that possessed research potential. The modified Delphi technique and ―future roles of

technology in K-12 education in Connecticut‖ resulted from graduate study, career

experience, and consultation with graduate faculty. The need for information to use, as to

the applications of future roles of technology in K-12 education in Connecticut,

established the foundation and the theoretical rational for this research.

41

Development of the Questionnaire

The modified Delphi questionnaire preference statements evolved through review

of the literature pertaining to technology in education. A jury of experts (Appendix B)

was consulted in the formulation of the preference statements. This consultation verified

face, construct and content validity. Following the review of literature, the five categories

were selected: applications of technology in education, advantages of technology in

education, disadvantages of technology in education, ways education will be supported

by technology and policies for technology in education. A total of 52 preference

statements were developed. The following rating scale was used:

1. undecided (value of 5)

2. strongly agree (value of 4)

3. agree (value of 3)

4. disagree (value of 2)

5. strongly disagree (value of 1)

Selection of Subjects

After the population was selected, an email was sent through the survey monkey

collector to the 139 K-12 superintendents of schools in Connecticut asking for their

participation in the study. Those who agreed to participate were directed to an online

survey link to the questionnaire. From the invited sample, 72 (52%) agreed to participate.

These 72 Connecticut K-12 superintendents of schools made up the data generating

sample for this study.

42

Collection of Data

The questionnaire was emailed as a clickable link to the invited population once. The

respondents were sent:

1. A letter from the researcher

2. A link to the online survey

Statistical Procedure

The data from the one round modified Delphi survey were analyzed using the

descriptive statistics - measurements of central tendency.

Validity

Consultation with a jury of experts regarding the development of the research

questions verified the content and face validity of the instrument. Content and construct

validity were ensured by the panel of experts and questionnaire design.

Summary

The modified Delphi technique was used in this research study to survey

Connecticut K-12 superintendents of schools. The Delphi technique was used as the

primary research format. A modified Delphi technique format was used to gather

responses due to the unique nature of the population. Respondents were asked to

participate in one round of the questionnaire. The population (N) of this study consisted

of 139 Connecticut superintendents of schools, with a data generating sample of 72,

which is 52% of the invited sample. The findings of this research undertaking were

presented in chapter four.

43

Chapter Four

Findings

This study investigated and determined, through a modified Delphi technique, the

future roles of technology in K-12 education in Connecticut. The research problem

addressed was whether K-12 education in Connecticut had a clear, cohesive direction

defined for future technology roles in education. This study was intended to provide an

overview of the perception of these future roles according to the current superintendents

of schools within the state of Connecticut. The findings of this study provided the

contributing factors to form a future picture from the survey results of the roles of

technology in education. These results can structure future dialogues among educational

leaders within Connecticut.

The purpose of this chapter was to present the findings of this modified Delphi

study. These findings were presented in the following categories in tables 2-31.

The findings of this modified Delphi study were divided into the following five

categories:

1. Applications of Technology in Education

2. Advantages of Technology in Education

3. Disadvantages of Technology in Education

4. Ways Education Will Be Supported By Technology

5. Policies for Technology in Education

44

Final Modal Responses

The following value scale was utilized in determining the degree of agreement or

disagreement Connecticut superintendents perceived for the future roles of technology in

K-12 education:

1. strongly disagree (value of 1)

2. disagree (value of 2)

3. agree (value of 3)

4. strongly agree (value of 4)

5. undecided (value of 5)

Applications of Technology in Education

The various types of applications of technology in education were the first

scenarios to be investigated, using the modified Delphi questionnaire developed by this

researcher (Appendix A). Ten preference statements were rated. Table 2 presented the

modal scores relating to the category of future applications of technology in education.

The first preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools believed a future application of technology in education would be a reduced

number of teachers. Table 1 presented the modal response of 2 (44.4%) for the first

preference statement, indicating the superintendents of schools disagreed that future

applications of technology in education would result in a reduction in the number of

teachers.

45

The second preference statement examined the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future application of technology in education would be to supplement

traditional classroom teaching methods. Table 1 presented the modal response of 4

(58.3%) for the second preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of

schools strongly agreed that future applications of technology in education would include

supplementing traditional classroom teaching methods.

The third preference statement evaluated the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future application of technology in education would be the creation of

virtual schools. Table 1 presented the modal response of 4 (40.3%) for the third

preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools strongly agreed that

future applications of technology in education would include the creation of virtual

schools.

The fourth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future application of technology in education would include a reduction

of hours students are physically in school. Table 1 presented the modal response of 3

(38.9%) for the fourth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools

agreed that future applications of technology in education would include a reduction of

hours students are physically in school.

The fifth preference statement investigated the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future application of technology in education would include online

classes offered by districts in addition to traditional classes. Table 1 presented the modal

response of 4 (58.3%) for the fifth preference statement. This indicated the

46

superintendents of schools strongly agreed that future applications of technology in

education would include online classes offered by districts in addition to traditional

classes.

The sixth preference statement evaluated the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future application of technology in education would include a

restructured school schedule. Table 1 presented the modal response of 3 (47.2%) for the

sixth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that

future applications of technology in education would include a restructured school

schedule.

The seventh preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents

of schools agreed a future application of technology in education would include

restructured school calendar. Table 1 presented the modal response of 3 (38.9%) for the

seventh preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that

future applications of technology in education would include a restructured school

calendar.

The eighth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future application of technology in education would be a redefined role

of teachers. Table 1 presented the modal response of 3 (48.6%) for the eighth preference

statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that future applications of

technology in education would include a redefined role of teachers.

47

Table 1

Future Applications of Technology in Education

1. In the future, the applications of technology in education will include:

SD D A SA U M

a reduced number of teachers. 16.7%

(12) 44.4%

(32)

15.3%

(11)

9.7%

(7)

13.9%

(10) 2

supplemented traditional classroom

teaching methods.

0.0%

(0)

4.2%

(3)

36.1%

(26) 58.3%

(42)

1.4%

(1) 4

the creation of virtual schools. 0.0%

(0)

12.5%

(9)

38.9%

(28) 40.3%

(29)

8.3%

(6) 4

reduced hours students are

physically in school.

1.4%

(1)

30.6%

(22) 38.9%

(28)

19.4%

(14)

9.7%

(7) 3

online classes offered by districts in

addition to traditional classes.

0.0%

(0)

4.2%

(3)

36.1%

(26) 58.3%

(42)

1.4%

(1) 4

a restructured school schedule. 0.0%

(0)

15.3%

(11) 47.2%

(34)

34.7%

(25)

2.8%

(2) 3

a restructured school calendar. 0.0%

(0)

20.8%

(15) 38.9%

(28)

27.8%

(20)

12.5%

(9) 3

a redefined role of teachers. 0.0%

(0)

12.5%

(9) 48.6%

(35)

38.9%

(28)

0.0%

(0) 3

a redefinition of the education

process.

0.0%

(0)

16.7%

(12) 52.8%

(38)

30.6%

(22)

0.0%

(0) 3

college courses accessed online for

both students and staff.

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

41.7%

(30) 56.9%

(41)

1.4%

(1) 4

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M =

Modal Rating, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority

48

The ninth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future application of technology in education would be a redefinition of

the education process. Table 1 presented the modal response of 3 (52.8%) for the ninth

preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that future

applications of technology in education would include a redefinition of the education

process.

The tenth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future application of technology in education would include college

courses accessed online for both students and staff. Table 1 presented the modal response

of 4 (56.9%) for the tenth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of

schools strongly agreed that future applications of technology in education would include

college courses accessed online for both students and staff.

Demographic Groups

When the responses were sorted according to demographic information and

categorized as strongly disagree/disagree and agree/strongly agree, the group modal

responses for five of the preference statements did not show complete agreement, as

shown in Table 2. The complete responses according to demographic groups was shown

in Appendices E-I. For the first preference statement, the group which did not fall into the

category of disagree was from the regional school districts. Of the four respondents in the

group, one disagreed, one agreed, one strongly agreed and one was undecided.

For the second preference statement, all of the group modal responses fell into the

category of agree and strongly agree. The only two groups who did not have a modal

response of strongly agree were urban and large district superintendents. The response of

49

these two groups was agree. For the third preference statement, Elementary district

superintendents had a split modal response of disagree and strongly agree in comparison

to the overall modal responses of agree/strongly agree.

For the fourth preference statement, group modal responses were split between

disagree and agree/strongly agree with the exception of the groups representing

superintendent years of experience in the agree category.

For the seventh preference statement, the group modal response which did not fall

into the category of agree/strongly agree was urban superintendents. The urban

superintendent modal response was split between disagree, agree, strongly agree and

undecided.

For the eighth preference statement, the group modal responses of urban, large

and elementary superintendents did not fall into the category of agree/strongly agree.

Advantages of Technology in Education

The future advantages of technology in education were the second scenarios to be

investigated, using the modified Delphi questionnaire developed by this researcher

(Appendix A). Nine preference statements were rated. Table 3 presented the modal scores

relating to the category of advantages of technology in education.

The first preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools believed a future advantage of technology in education would be increased parent

communication. Table 3 presented the modal response of 4 (68.1%) for the first

preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools strongly agreed that a

50

Table 2

Demographic Groups - Applications

Applications – Preference Statement One

In the future, the applications of technology in education will include a reduced number of

teachers.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

12.5% (1) 50.0% (4) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) Urban 8

17.1% (7) 51.2% (21) 12.2% (5) 7.3% (3) 12.2% (5) Suburban 41

17.4% (4) 30.4% (7) 17.4% (4) 13.0% (3) 21.7% (5) Rural 23

20.0% (5) 36.0% (9) 20.0% (5) 8.0% (2) 16.0% (4) Small 25

14.6% (6) 46.3% (19) 14.6% (6) 9.8% (4) 14.6% (6) Medium 41

16.7% (1) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) Large 6

16.7% (2) 50.0% (6) 16.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (2) Elementary 12

18.2% (10) 45.5% (25) 14.5% (8) 9.1% (5) 12.7% (7) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) Regional 4

17.4% (4) 39.1% (9) 13.0% (3) 8.7% (2) 21.7% (5) 0-3 23

10.0% (1) 70.0% (7) 0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 10.0% (1) 4-6 10

17.9% (7) 41.0% (16) 20.5% (8) 10.3% (4) 10.3% (4) 7 + 39

20.0% (9) 44.4% (20) 15.6% (7) 6.7% (3) 13.3% (6) Male 45

11.1% (3) 44.4% (12) 14.8% (4) 14.8% (4) 14.8% (4) Female 27

51

Table 2 (continued)

Applications – Preference Statement Three

In the future, the applications of technology in education will include the creation of virtual

schools.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 62.5% (5) 12.5% (1) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 12.2% (5) 46.3%(19) 36.6%(15) 4.9% (2) Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 17.4% (4) 30.4% (7) 39.1% (9) 13.0% (3) Rural 23

0.0% (0) 16.0% (4) 32.0% (8) 36.0% (9) 16.0% (4) Small 25

0.0% (0) 12.2% (5) 41.5%(17) 41.5%(17) 4.9% (2) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) Large 6

0.0% (0) 33.3% (4) 16.7% (2) 33.3% (4) 16.7% (2) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 9.1% (5) 41.8%(23) 41.8%(23) 7.3% (4) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) 39.1% (9) 43.5%(10) 8.7% (2) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 40.0% (4) 30.0% (3) 20.0% (2) 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 15.4% (6) 38.5%(15) 41.0%(16) 5.1% (2) 7 + 39

0.0% (0) 17.8% (8) 33.3%(15) 42.2%(19) 6.7% (3) Male 45

0.0% (0) 3.7% (1) 48.1%(13) 37.0%(10) 11.1% (3) Female 27

52

Table 2 (continued)

Applications – Preference Statement Four

In the future, the applications of technology in education will include reduced hours students are in

school.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 37.5% (3) 25.0% (2) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) Urban 8

2.4% (1) 34.1% (14) 34.1%(14) 19.5% (8) 9.8% (4) Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 21.7% (5) 52.2%(12) 13.0% (3) 13.0% (3) Rural 23

0.0% (0) 36.0% (9) 36.0% (9) 12.0% (3) 16.0% (4) Small 25

2.4% (1) 26.8% (11) 43.9%(18) 19.5% (8) 7.3% (3) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) Large 6

0.0% (0) 33.3% (4) 33.3% (4) 8.3% (1) 25.0% (3) Elementary 12

1.8% (1) 29.1% (16) 41.8%(23) 20.0%(11) 7.3% (4) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

4.3% (1) 26.1% (6) 39.1% (9) 21.7% (5) 8.7% (2) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 40.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 33.3% (13) 38.5%(15) 23.1% (9) 5.1% (2) 7 + 39

0.0% (0) 35.6% (16) 33.3%(15) 24.4%(11) 6.7% (3) Male 45

3.7% (1) 22.2% (6) 48.1%(13) 11.1% (3) 14.8% (4) Female 27

53

Table 2 (continued)

Applications – Preference Statement Seven

In the future, the applications of technology in education will include a restructured school calendar.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 25.0% (2) 25.0% (2) 25.0% (2) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 22.0% (9) 46.3%(19) 22.0% (9) 9.8% (4) Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 17.4% (4) 30.4% (7) 39.1% (9) 13.0% (3) Rural 23

0.0% (0) 20.0% (5) 48.0%(12) 20.0% (5) 12.0% (3) Small 25

0.0% (0) 24.4% (10) 29.3%(12) 31.7%(13) 14.6% (6) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (4) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) Large 6

0.0% (0) 25.0% (3) 50.0% (6) 25.0% (3) 0.0% (0) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 12.7% (7) 47.3%(26) 36.4%(20) 3.6% (2) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 26.1% (6) 34.8% (8) 26.1% (6) 13.0% (3) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 50.0% (5) 10.0% (1) 30.0% (3) 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 20.5% (8) 38.5%(15) 33.3%(13) 7.7% (3) 7 + 39

0.0% (0) 26.7% (12) 28.9%(13) 31.1%(14) 13.3% (6) Male 45

0.0% (0) 11.1% (3) 55.6%(15) 22.2% (6) 11.1% (3) Female 27

54

Table 2 (continued)

Applications – Preference Statement Eight

In the future, the applications of technology in education will include a redefined role of teachers.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 37.5% (3) 25.0% (2) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 9.8% (4) 61.0%(25) 29.3%(12) 0.0% (0) Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) 34.8% (8) 56.5%(13) 0.0% (0) Rural 23

0.0% (0) 12.0% (3) 40.0%(10) 48.0%(12) 0.0% (0) Small 25

0.0% (0) 9.8% (4) 56.1%(23) 34.1%(14) 0.0% (0) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) Large 6

0.0% (0) 33.3% (4) 33.3% (4) 16.7% (2) 16.7% (2) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 18.2% (10) 40.0%(22) 29.1%(16) 12.7% (7) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 60.9%(14) 34.8% (8) 0.0% (0) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (5) 50.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 20.5% (8) 41.0%(16) 38.5%(15) 0.0% (0) 7 + 39

0.0% (0) 13.3% (6) 44.4%(20) 42.2%(19) 0.0% (0) Male 45

0.0% (0) 11.1% (3) 55.6%(15) 33.3% (9) 0.0% (0) Female 27

55

future advantage of technology in education would include increased parent

communication.

The second preference statement examined the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future advantage of technology in education would be increased

monitoring of teachers. Table 3 presented the modal response of 3 (40.3%) for the second

preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that future

advantages of technology in education would include increased monitoring of teachers.

The third preference statement evaluated the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future advantage of technology in education would be the improved

quality of differentiated instruction. Table 3 presented the modal response of 3 (51.4%)

for the third preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed

that future advantages of technology in education would include the improved quality of

differentiated instruction.

The fourth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future advantage of technology in education would include greater

access to data for teachers to inform instruction. Table 3 presented the modal response of

4 (72.2%) for the fourth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of

schools strongly agreed that future advantages of technology in education would include

greater access to data for teachers to inform instruction.

The fifth preference statement investigated the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future advantage of technology in education would include increased

access for students with disabilities. Table 3 presented the modal response of 4 (55.6%)

56

for the fifth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools strongly

agreed that future advantages of technology in education would include increased access

for students with disabilities.

The sixth preference statement evaluated the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future advantage of technology in education would include

paraprofessionals replaced with technology. Table 3 presented the modal response of 2

(54.2%) for the sixth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools

disagreed that future advantages of technology in education would include

paraprofessionals replaced with technology.

The seventh preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents

of schools agreed a future advantage of technology in education would include reduced

costs of education by replacing teachers with technology. Table 3 presented the modal

response of 2 (63.9%) for the seventh preference statement. This indicated the

superintendents of schools disagreed that future advantages of technology in education

would include reduced costs of education by replacing teachers with technology.

The eighth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future advantage of technology in education would be a reduced number

of dropouts. Table 3 presented the modal response of 3 (38.9%) for the eighth preference

statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that future advantages of

technology in education would include a reduced number of dropouts.

57

Table 3

Future Advantages of Technology in Education

2. There are inherent advantages to the roles of technology in education. In the future, these

advantages will include:

SD D A SA U M

increased parent communication. 0.0%

(0)

1.4%

(1)

30.6%

(22)

68.1%

(49)

0.0%

(0) 4

increased monitoring of teachers. 0.0%

(0)

20.8%

(15)

40.3%

(29)

33.3%

(24)

5.6%

(4) 3

improved quality of differentiated

instruction.

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

51.4%

(37)

44.4%

(32)

4.2%

(3) 3

greater access to data for teachers

to inform instruction.

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

26.4%

(19)

72.2%

(52)

1.4%

(1) 4

increased access for students with

disabilities.

0.0%

(0)

1.4%

(1)

41.7%

(30)

55.6%

(40)

1.4%

(1) 4

paraprofessionals replaced with

technology.

11.1%

(8)

54.2%

(39)

12.5%

(9)

8.3%

(6)

13.9%

(10) 2

reduced costs of education by

replacing teachers with technology.

9.7%

(7)

63.9%

(46)

11.1%

(8)

8.3%

(6)

6.9%

(5) 2

a reduced number of dropouts. 0.0%

(0)

22.2%

(16)

38.9%

(28)

12.5%

(9)

26.4%

(19) 3

improved graduation rates. 0.0%

(0)

18.1%

(13)

47.2%

(34)

13.9%

(10)

20.8%

(15) 3

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M =

Modal Rating, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

58

The ninth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future advantage of technology in education would include improved

graduation rates. Table 3 presented the modal response of 3 (47.2%) for the ninth

preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that future

applications of technology in education would include improved graduation rates.

Demographic Groups

When the responses were sorted according to demographic information and

categorized as strongly disagree/disagree and agree/strongly agree, the group modal

responses for three of the preference statements did not show complete agreement, as

shown in Table 4. The complete responses according to demographic groups were shown

in Appendices E-I. For the second preference statement, the group which did not fall into

the category of agree/strongly agree was from the large school districts.

For the eighth preference statement, group modal responses were split between

disagree and agree/strongly agree with the exception of the groups representing

superintendent gender in the agree category. The group modal response for the rural

group was split between agree and undecided.

For the ninth preference statement, the group modal responses which did not fall

into the category of agree/strongly agree were urban, large and regional superintendents.

Disadvantages of Technology in Education

The future disadvantages of technology in education were the third scenarios to be

investigated, using the modified Delphi questionnaire developed by this researcher

59

Table 4

Demographic Groups – Advantages

Advantages – Preference Statement Two

In the future, there are inherent advantages of technology in education. In the future, these will

include increased monitoring of teachers.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 37.5% (3) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 24.4%(10) 39.0%(16) 29.3%(12) 7.3% (3) Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 13.0% (3) 43.5%(10) 39.1% (9) 4.3% (1) Rural 23

0.0% (0) 12.0% (3) 48.0%(12) 36.0% (9) 4.0% (1) Small 25

0.0% (0) 22.0% (9) 36.6%(15) 34.1%(14) 7.3% (3) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) Large 6

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 66.7% (8) 16.7% (2) 8.3% (1) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 25.5%(14) 36.4%(20) 32.7%(18) 5.5% (3) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 13.0% (3) 47.8%(11) 34.8% (8) 4.3% (1) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 20.0% (2) 70.0% (7) 0.0% (0) 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 28.2%(11) 41.0%(16) 23.1% (9) 7.7% (3) 7 + 39

0.0% (0) 20.0% (9) 42.2%(19) 31.1%(14) 6.7% (3) Male 45

0.0% (0) 22.2% (6) 37.0%(10) 37.0%(10) 3.7% (1) Female 27

60

Table 4 (continued)

Advantages – Preference Statement Eight

In the future, there are inherent advantages of technology in education. In the future, these will

include a reduced number of dropouts.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 37.5% (3) 12.5% (1) 25.0% (2) 25.0% (2) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 24.4%(10) 43.9%(18) 12.2% (5) 19.5% (8) Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 13.0% (3) 39.1% (9) 8.7% (2) 39.1% (9) Rural 23

0.0% (0) 20.0% (5) 44.0%(11) 4.0% (1) 32.0% (8) Small 25

0.0% (0) 19.5% (8) 39.0%(16) 17.1% (7) 24.4% (10) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) Large 6

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 58.3% (7) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (4) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 23.6%(13) 36.4%(20) 14.5% (8) 25.5% (14) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 30.4% (7) 26.1% (6) 13.0% (3) 30.4% (7) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 60.0% (6) 10.0% (1) 20.0% (2) 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 20.5% (8) 41.0%(16) 12.8% (5) 25.6% (10) 7 + 39

0.0% (0) 26.7%(12) 37.8%(17) 8.9% (4) 26.7% (12) Male 45

0.0% (0) 14.8% (4) 40.7%(11) 18.5% (5) 25.9% (7) Female 27

61

Table 4 (continued)

Advantages – Preference Statement Nine

In the future, there are inherent advantages of technology in education. In the future, these will

include improved graduation rates.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 37.5% (3) 12.5% (1) 25.0% (2) 25.0% (2) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 14.6% (6) 56.1%(23) 12.2% (5) 17.1% (7) Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 17.4% (4) 43.5%(10) 13.0% (3) 26.1% (6) Rural 23

0.0% (0) 20.0% (5) 48.0%(12) 8.0% (2) 24.0% (6) Small 25

0.0% (0) 12.2% (5) 51.2%(21) 17.1% (7) 19.5% (8) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) Large 6

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 58.3% (7) 8.3% (1) 25.0% (3) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 18.2%(10) 45.5%(25) 14.5% (8) 21.8% (12) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 26.1% (6) 43.5%(10) 13.0% (3) 17.4% (4) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 60.0% (6) 10.0% (1) 30.0% (3) 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 17.9% (7) 46.2%(18) 15.4% (6) 20.5% (8) 7 + 39

0.0% (0) 22.2%(10) 48.9%(22) 11.1% (5) 17.8% (8) Male 45

0.0% (0) 11.1% (3) 44.4%(12) 18.5% (5) 25.9% (7) Female 27

62

(Appendix A). Thirteen preference statements were rated. Table 5 presented the mode

scores relating to the category of disadvantages of technology in education.

The first preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools believed a future disadvantage of technology in education would be unensured

accountability of student work in online classes. Table 5 presented the modal response of

2 (47.2%) for the first preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools

strongly disagreed that a future disadvantage of technology in education would include

uninsured accountability of student work in online classes.

The second preference statement examined the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future disadvantage of technology in education would be the

micromanagement of student achievement by parents. Table 5 presented the modal

response of 2 (55.6%) for the second preference statement. This indicated the

superintendents of schools disagreed that future disadvantages of technology in education

would include the micromanagement of student achievement by parents.

The third preference statement evaluated the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future disadvantage of technology in education would be depersonalized

parent to school communication. Table 5 presented the modal response of 2 (61.1%) for

the third preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools disagreed

that future disadvantages of technology in education would include the depersonalization

of parent to school communications.

The fourth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future disadvantage of technology in education would include costs to

63

update technologies. Table 5 presented the modal response of 3 (56.9%) for the fourth

preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that future

disadvantages of technology in education would include costs to update technologies.

The fifth preference statement investigated the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future disadvantage of technology in education would include rapidly

changing technologies becoming obsolete. Table 5 presented the modal response of 3

(66.7%) for the fifth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools

agreed that future disadvantages of technology in education would include rapidly

changing technologies becoming obsolete.

The sixth preference statement evaluated the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future disadvantage of technology in education would include limited

student access to technologies at home. Table 5 presented the modal response of 3

(47.2%) for the sixth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools

agreed that future disadvantages of technology in education would include limited

student access to technologies at home.

The seventh preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents

of schools agreed a future disadvantage of technology in education would include

reduced face to face interactions of teachers and students. Table 5 presented the modal

response of 2 (37.5%) for the seventh preference statement. This indicated the

superintendents of schools disagreed that future disadvantages of technology in education

would include reduced face to face interactions of teachers and students.

64

The eighth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future disadvantage of technology in education would be reduced face to

face interactions of students. Table 5 presented the modal response of 2 and 3 (34.7%

each) for the eighth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools

agreed/disagreed that future disadvantages of technology in education would include

reduced face to face interactions of students.

The ninth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future disadvantage of technology in education would include ensured

quality of online course content. Table 5 presented the modal response of 3 (52.8%) for

the ninth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that

future applications of technology in education would include ensured quality of online

course content.

The tenth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future disadvantage of technology in education would include reduced

teacher creativity. Table 5 presented the modal response of 2 (59.7%) for the tenth

preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools disagreed that future

applications of technology in education would include reduced teacher creativity.

The eleventh preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents

of schools agreed a future disadvantage of technology in education would include

reduced problem solving abilities of students. Table 5 presented the modal response of 2

(62.5%) for the eleventh preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of

65

schools disagreed that future applications of technology in education would include

reduced problem solving abilities of students.

The twelfth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed a future disadvantage of technology in education would include decreased

student ethical behavior. Table 5 presented the modal response of 2 (52.8%) for the

twelfth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools disagreed that

future applications of technology in education would include decreased student ethical

behavior.

The thirteenth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents

of schools agreed a future disadvantage of technology in education would include

decreased verbal communication skills of students. Table 5 presented the modal response

of 2 (48.6%) for the thirteenth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of

schools disagreed that future applications of technology in education would include

decreased verbal communication skills of students.

Demographic Groups - Disadvantages

When the responses were sorted according to demographic information and

categorized as strongly disagree/disagree and agree/strongly agree, the group modal

responses for eight of the preference statements did not show complete agreement, as

shown in Table 6. The complete responses according to demographic groups was shown

66

Table 5

Disadvantages of Technology in Education

3. There are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the future, these

disadvantages will include:

SD D A SA U M

uninsured accountability of student

work in online classes.

2.8%

(2)

47.2%

(34)

38.9%

(28)

4.2%

(3)

6.9%

(5) 2

micromanagement of student

achievement by parents.

2.8%

(2)

55.6%

(40)

30.6%

(22)

2.8%

(2)

8.3%

(6) 2

depersonalized parent to school

communication.

4.2%

(3)

61.1%

(44)

26.4%

(19)

5.6%

(4)

2.8%

(2) 2

costs to update technologies. 1.4%

(1)

2.8%

(2)

56.9%

(41)

36.1%

(26)

2.8%

(2) 3

rapidly changing technologies

become obsolete.

0.0%

(0)

5.6%

(4)

66.7%

(48)

25.0%

(18)

2.8%

(2) 3

limited student access to

technologies at home.

2.8%

(2)

40.3%

(29)

47.2%

(34)

6.9%

(5)

2.8%

(2) 3

reduced face to face interactions of

teachers and students.

1.4%

(1)

37.5%

(27)

33.3%

(24)

19.4%

(14)

8.3%

(6) 2

reduced face to face interactions of

students.

1.4%

(1)

34.7%

(25)

34.7%

(25)

22.2%

(16)

6.9%

(5) 2/3

ensured quality of online course

content.

2.8%

(2)

20.8%

(15)

52.8%

(38)

16.7%

(12)

6.9%

(5) 3

reduced teacher creativity. 18.1%

(13)

59.7%

(43)

11.1%

(8)

6.9%

(5)

4.2%

(3) 2

reduced problem solving abilities of

students.

20.8%

(15)

62.5%

(45)

5.6%

(4)

6.9%

(5)

4.2%

(3) 2

decreased student ethical behavior. 8.3%

(6)

52.8%

(38)

18.1%

(13)

4.2%

(3)

16.7%

(12) 2

67

Table 4 (continued)

decreased verbal communication

skills of students.

4.2%

(3)

48.6%

(35)

26.4%

(19)

15.3%

(11)

5.6%

(4) 2

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M =

Modal Rating, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

in Appendices E-I. For the first preference statement, the group modal responses for all of

the groups were split between the categories of strongly disagree/disagree and

agree/strongly agree with the exception of superintendent gender in the disagree category.

For the second preference statement, group modal responses were split between

disagree and agree for the groups representing rural, small and regional districts. The

other group modal responses were in the disagree category.

For the third preference statement, the group modal responses which did not fall

into the category of disagree were for regional superintendents. The group modal

response for regional superintendents was split between strongly disagree, disagree, agree

and strongly agree.

For the sixth preference statement, the group modal responses for all groups were

split between disagree and agree with the exception of superintendent years of

experience. The group modal responses for superintendent years of experience were all in

the agree category.

For the seventh and eighth preference statements, the group modal responses of

all groups were split between the disagree and agree/strongly agree categories.

68

Table 6

Demographic Groups - Disadvantages

Disadvantages – Preference Statement One

In the future, there are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the

future, these disadvantages will include unensured accountability of student work in online

classes.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 62.5% (5) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 48.8%(20) 36.6%(15) 4.9% (2) 9.8% (4) Suburban 41

8.7% (2) 39.1% (9) 52.2%(12) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) Rural 23

8.0% (2) 44.0%(11) 44.0%(11) 4.0% (1) 0.0% (0) Small 25

0.0% (0) 48.8%(20) 39.0%(16) 2.4% (1) 9.8% (4) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) Large 6

8.3% (1) 33.3% (4) 58.3% (7) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 52.7%(29) 36.4%(20) 1.8% (1) 9.1% (5) K-12 55

25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 65.2%(15) 26.1% (6) 4.3% (1) 4.3% (1) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 50.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (2) 4-6 10

5.1% (2) 41.0%(16) 43.6%(17) 5.1% (2) 5.1% (2) 7 + 39

4.4% (2) 42.2%(19) 40.0%(18) 6.7% (3) 6.7% (3) Male 45

0.0% (0) 55.6%(15) 37.0%(10) 0.0% (0) 7.4% (2) Female 27

69

Table 6 (continued)

Disadvantages – Preference Statement Two

In the future, there are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the

future, these disadvantages will include micromanagement of student achievement by parents.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 75.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 63.4%(26) 29.3%(12) 0.0% (0) 7.3% (3) Suburban 41

8.7% (2) 34.8% (8) 43.5%(10) 4.3% (1) 8.7% (2) Rural 23

8.0% (2) 40.0%(10) 40.0%(10) 4.0% (1) 8.0% (2) Small 25

0.0% (0) 63.4%(26) 29.3%(12) 0.0% (0) 7.3% (3) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) Large 6

8.3% (1) 41.7% (5) 25.0% (3) 8.3% (1) 16.7% (2) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 63.6%(35) 29.1%(16) 0.0% (0) 7.3% (4) K-12 55

25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 69.6%(16) 17.4% (4) 4.3% (1) 8.7% (2) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 50.0% (5) 40.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 4-6 10

5.1% (2) 48.7%(19) 35.9%(14) 2.6% (1) 7.7% (3) 7 + 39

4.4% (2) 51.1%(23) 33.3%(15) 2.2% (1) 8.9% (4) Male 45

0.0% (0) 63.0%(17) 25.9% (7) 3.7% (1) 7.4% (2) Female 27

70

Table 6 (continued)

Disadvantages – Preference Statement Three

In the future, there are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the

future, these disadvantages will include depersonalized parent to school communication.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 50.0% (4) 37.5% (3) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 70.7%(29) 22.0% (9) 4.9% (2) 2.4% (1) Suburban 41

13.0% (3) 47.8%(11) 30.4% (7) 4.3% (1) 4.3% (1) Rural 23

12.0% (3) 48.0%(12) 32.0% (8) 4.0% (1) 4.0% (1) Small 25

0.0% (0) 70.7%(29) 22.0% (9) 4.9% (2) 2.4% (1) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) Large 6

16.7% (2) 50.0% (6) 16.7% (2) 8.3% (1) 8.3% (1) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 67.3%(37) 29.1%(16) 1.8% (1) 1.8% (1) K-12 55

25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 52.2%(12) 43.5%(10) 0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 70.0% (7) 20.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 4-6 10

7.7% (3) 64.1%(25) 17.9% (7) 10.3% (4) 0.0% (0) 7 + 39

6.7% (3) 60.0%(27) 22.2%(10) 8.9% (4) 2.2% (1) Male 45

0.0% (0) 63.0%(17) 33.3% (9) 0.0% (0) 3.7% (1) Female 27

71

Table 6 (continued)

Disadvantages – Preference Statement Six

In the future, there are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the

future, these disadvantages will include limited student access to technologies at home.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 62.5% (5) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) Urban 8

2.4% (1) 39.0%(16) 51.2%(21) 4.9% (2) 2.4% (1) Suburban 41

4.3% (1) 34.8% (8) 47.8%(11) 8.7% (2) 4.3% (1) Rural 23

4.0% (1) 32.0% (8) 48.0%(12) 12.0% (3) 4.0% (1) Small 25

2.4% (1) 39.0%(16) 53.7%(22) 2.4% (1) 2.4% (1) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 83.3% (5) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) Large 6

0.0% (0) 41.7% (5) 41.7% (5) 8.3% (1) 8.3% (1) Elementary 12

1.8% (1) 40.0%(22) 50.9%(28) 5.5% (3) 1.8% (1) K-12 55

25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 43.5%(10) 47.8%(11) 4.3% (1) 4.3% (1) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 60.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 4-6 10

5.1% (2) 41.0%(16) 43.6%(17) 10.3% (4) 0.0% (0) 7 + 39

4.4% (2) 44.4%(20) 40.0%(18) 8.9% (4) 2.2% (1) Male 45

0.0% (0) 33.3% (9) 59.3%(16) 3.7% (1) 3.7% (1) Female 27

72

Table 6 (continued)

Disadvantages – Preference Statement Seven

In the future, there are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the

future, these disadvantages will include reduced face to face interactions of teachers and students.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 50.0% (4) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 39.0%(16) 29.3%(12) 22.0% (9) 9.8% (4) Suburban 41

4.3% (1) 39.1% (9) 34.8% (8) 17.4% (4) 4.3% (1) Rural 23

4.0% (1) 44.0%(11) 20.0% (5) 24.0% (6) 8.0% (2) Small 25

0.0% (0) 34.1%(14) 41.5%(17) 17.1% (7) 7.3% (3) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) Large 6

8.3% (1) 50.0% (6) 25.0% (3) 8.3% (1) 8.3% (1) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 36.4%(20) 38.2%(21) 16.4% (9) 9.1% (5) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 34.8% (8) 39.1% (9) 13.0% (3) 13.0% (3) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 50.0% (5) 20.0% (2) 10.0% (1) 20.0% (2) 4-6 10

2.6% (1) 35.9%(14) 33.3%(13) 25.6%(10) 2.6% (1) 7 + 39

2.2% (1) 37.8%(17) 26.7%(12) 26.7%(12) 6.7% (3) Male 45

0.0% (0) 37.0%(10) 44.4%(12) 7.4% (2) 11.1% (3) Female 27

73

Table 6 (continued)

Disadvantages – Preference Statement Eight

In the future, there are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the

future, these disadvantages will include reduced face to face interactions of students.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 50.0% (4) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 31.7%(13) 39.0%(16) 24.4%(10) 4.9% (2) Suburban 41

4.3% (1) 34.8% (8) 30.4% (7) 21.7% (5) 8.7% (2) Rural 23

4.0% (1) 40.0%(10) 24.0% (6) 24.0% (6) 8.0% (2) Small 25

0.0% (0) 29.3%(12) 43.9%(18) 22.0% (9) 4.9% (2) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) Large 6

8.3% (1) 58.3% (7) 8.3% (1) 8.3% (1) 16.7% (2) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 32.7%(18) 41.8%(23) 20.0%(11) 5.5% (3) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 30.4% (7) 43.5%(10) 17.4% (4) 8.7% (2) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 40.0% (4) 40.0% (4) 10.0% (1) 10.0% (1) 4-6 10

2.6% (1) 35.9%(14) 28.2%(11) 28.2%(11) 5.1% (2) 7 + 39

2.2% (1) 37.8%(17) 24.4%(11) 28.9%(13) 6.7% (3) Male 45

0.0% (0) 29.6% (8) 51.9%(14) 11.1% (3) 7.4% (2) Female 27

74

Table 6 (continued)

Disadvantages – Preference Statement Ten

In the future, there are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the

future, these disadvantages will include reduced teacher creativity.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

37.5% (3) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) Urban 8

7.3% (3) 70.7%(29) 12.2% (5) 7.3% (3) 2.4% (1) Suburban 41

30.4% (7) 47.8%(11) 13.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) Rural 23

24.0% (6) 52.0%(13) 8.0% (2) 4.0% (1) 12.0% (3) Small 25

12.2% (5) 68.3%(28) 14.6% (6) 4.9% (2) 0.0% (0) Medium 41

33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) Large 6

33.3% (4) 50.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (2) Elementary 12

14.5% (8) 65.5%(36) 10.9% (6) 7.3% (4) 1.8% (1) K-12 55

25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

17.4% (4) 65.2%(15) 8.7% (2) 8.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 0-3 23

30.0% (3) 50.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (2) 4-6 10

15.4% (6) 59.0%(23) 15.4% (6) 7.7% (3) 2.6% (1) 7 + 39

26.7% (12) 55.6%(25) 8.9% (4) 8.9% (4) 0.0% (0) Male 45

3.7% (1) 66.7%(18) 14.8% (4) 3.7% (1) 11.1% (3) Female 27

75

Table 6 (continued)

Disadvantages – Preference Statement Twelve

In the future, there are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the

future, these disadvantages will include decreased student ethical behavior.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 62.5% (5) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) Urban 8

2.4% (1) 63.4%(26) 24.4%(10) 0.0% (0) 9.8% (4) Suburban 41

21.7% (5) 30.4% (7) 8.7% (2) 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) Rural 23

16.0% (4) 36.0% (9) 4.0% (1) 8.0% (2) 36.0% (9) Small 25

4.9% (2) 61.0%(25) 26.8%(11) 0.0% (0) 7.3% (3) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 66.7% (4) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) Large 6

25.0% (3) 25.0% (3) 8.3% (1) 16.7% (2) 25.0% (3) Elementary 12

3.6% (2) 60.0%(33) 21.8%(12) 0.0% (0) 14.5% (8) K-12 55

25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) Regional 4

8.7% (2) 65.2%(15) 21.7% (5) 0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 0-3 23

20.0% (2) 40.0% (4) 10.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 4-6 10

5.1% (2) 48.7%(19) 17.9% (7) 7.7% (3) 20.5% (8) 7 + 39

11.1% (5) 46.7%(21) 15.6% (7) 6.7% (3) 20.0% (9) Male 45

3.7% (1) 63.0%(17) 22.2% (6) 0.0% (0) 11.1% (3) Female 27

76

Table 6 (continued)

Disadvantages – Preference Statement Thirteen

In the future, there are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the

future, these disadvantages will include decreased verbal communication skills of students.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 50.0% (4) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) Urban 8

2.4% (1) 56.1%(23) 22.0% (9) 17.1% (7) 2.4% (1) Suburban 41

8.7% (2) 34.8% (8) 34.8% (8) 13.0% (3) 8.7% (2) Rural 23

8.0% (2) 36.0% (9) 32.0% (8) 16.0% (4) 8.0% (2) Small 25

2.4% (1) 56.1%(23) 22.0% (9) 14.6% (6) 4.9% (2) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) Large 6

16.7% (2) 41.7% (5) 25.0% (3) 8.3% (1) 8.3% (1) Elementary 12

1.8% (1) 52.7%(29) 27.3%(15) 12.7% (7) 5.5% (3) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

4.3% (1) 47.8%(11) 21.7% (5) 17.4% (4) 8.7% (2) 0-3 23

10.0% (1) 50.0% (5) 20.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (2) 4-6 10

2.6% (1) 48.7%(19) 30.8%(12) 17.9% (7) 0.0% (0) 7 + 39

4.4% (2) 46.7%(21) 24.4%(11) 20.0% (9) 4.4% (2) Male 45

3.7% (1) 51.9%(14) 29.6% (8) 7.4% (2) 7.4% (2) Female 27

77

For the tenth preference statement, the group modal responses fell into the

category of strongly disagree/disagree with the exception of large and regional districts.

The group modal response for large districts was split between strongly disagree,

disagree and strongly agree. The group modal response of regional districts was agree.

For the twelfth preference statement, the group modal responses fell into the

category of strongly disagree/disagree with the exception of rural, small and elementary

districts. The group modal responses for rural and small districts were split between

disagree and undecided. The group modal response for elementary districts was split

between strongly disagree, disagree and undecided.

For the thirteenth preference statement, the group modal responses were in the

disagree category with the exception of rural and regional districts. The rural district

group modal response was split between disagree and agree, while the regional district

group modal response was strongly agree.

Ways Education Will Be Supported By Technology

The future ways education will be supported by technology were the fourth

scenarios to be investigated, using the modified Delphi questionnaire developed by this

researcher (Appendix A). Eleven preference statements were rated. Table 7 presented the

modal scores relating to the category of disadvantages of technology in education.

The first preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of schools

believed future ways education will be supported by technology would include promoting

lifelong learning. Table 7 presented the modal response of 3 (58.3%) for the first

preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that a

78

future way education will be supported by technology would include promoting lifelong

learning.

The second preference statement examined the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed future ways education will be supported by technology would be through

producing good citizens. Table 7 presented the modal response of 2 (37.5%) for the

second preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools disagreed that

future ways education will be supported by technology would include producing good

citizens.

The third preference statement evaluated the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed future ways education will be supported by technology would be through

preparing a skilled workforce. Table 7 presented the modal response of 3 (61.1%) for the

third preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that

future ways education will be supported by technology would include preparing a skilled

workforce.

The fourth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed future ways education will be supported by technology would include

allowing for greater student specialization. Table 7 presented the modal response of 3

(59.7%) for the fourth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools

agreed that future ways education will be supported by technology would include

allowing for greater student specialization.

The fifth preference statement investigated the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed future ways education will be supported by technology would include

79

preparing students for post-secondary education. Table 7 presented the modal response of

3 (61.1%) for the fifth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools

agreed that future ways education will be supported by technology would include

preparing students for post-secondary education.

The sixth preference statement evaluated the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed future ways education will be supported by technology would include

developing critical thinking skills. Table 7 presented the modal response of 3 (55.6%) for

the sixth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that

future ways education will be supported by technology would include developing critical

thinking skills.

The seventh preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents

of schools agreed future ways education will be supported by technology would include

ensuring content knowledge. Table 7 presented the modal response of 3 (59.7%) for the

seventh preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that

future ways education will be supported by technology would include ensuring content

knowledge.

The eighth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed future ways education will be supported by technology would be making

US education more competitive globally. Table 7 presented the modal response of 3

(55.6%) for the eighth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools

agreed that future ways education will be supported by technology would include making

US education more competitive globally.

80

The ninth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed future ways education will be supported by technology would include

promoting wisdom. Table 7 presented the modal response of 2 (44.4%) for the ninth

preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools disagreed that future

ways education will be supported by technology would include promoting wisdom.

The tenth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools agreed future ways education will be supported by technology would include

promoting character development. Table 7 presented the modal response of 2 (50%) for

the tenth preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools disagreed

that future ways education will be supported by technology would include promoting

character development.

The eleventh preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents

of schools agreed future ways education will be supported by technology would include

improving student ethical behavior. Table 4 presented the modal response of 2 (38.9%)

for the eleventh preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools

disagreed that future ways education will be supported by technology would include

improving student ethical behaviors.

Demographic Groups

When the responses were sorted according to demographic information and

categorized as strongly disagree/disagree and agree/strongly agree, the group modal

responses for six of the preference statements did not show complete agreement, as

shown in Table 8. The complete responses according to demographic groups was shown

81

Table 7

Ways Technology Will Support Education

4. In the future, technology will support education by:

SD D A SA U M

promoting lifelong learning. 0.0%

(0)

1.4%

(1)

58.3%

(42)

40.3%

(29)

0.0%

(0) 3

producing good citizens. 0.0%

(0)

37.5%

(27)

29.2%

(21)

11.1%

(8)

22.2%

(16) 2

preparing a skilled workforce. 0.0%

(0)

1.4%

(1)

61.1%

(44)

27.8%

(20)

9.7%

(7) 3

allowing for greater student

specialization.

0.0%

(0)

4.2%

(3)

59.7%

(43)

29.2%

(21)

6.9%

(5) 3

preparing students for post-

secondary education.

0.0%

(0)

6.9%

(5)

61.1%

(44)

29.2%

(21)

2.8%

(2) 3

developing critical thinking skills. 0.0%

(0)

15.3%

(11)

55.6%

(40)

23.6%

(17)

5.6%

(4) 3

ensuring content knowledge. 0.0%

(0)

12.5%

(9)

59.7%

(43)

20.8%

(15)

6.9%

(5) 3

making US education more

competitive globally.

0.0%

(0)

11.1%

(8)

55.6%

(40)

23.6%

(17)

9.7%

(7) 3

promoting wisdom. 5.6%

(4)

44.4%

(32)

20.8%

(15)

4.2%

(3)

25.0%

(18) 2

promoting character development. 5.6%

(4)

50.0%

(36)

16.7%

(12)

2.8%

(2)

25.0%

(18) 2

improving student ethical behavior. 5.6%

(4)

38.9%

(28)

19.4%

(14)

6.9%

(5)

29.2%

(21) 2

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M =

Modal Rating, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

82

in Appendices E-I. For the second preference statement, the group modal responses for

all of the groups were split between the categories of disagree and agree/strongly agree

with the exception of superintendent gender in the disagree category. In addition, the

rural group modal response was split between agree and undecided.

For the seventh preference statement, group modal responses were split between

disagree and agree for the groups representing rural, small and regional districts. The

other group modal responses were in the disagree category.

For the eighth preference statement, the group modal response which did not fall

into the category of agree/strongly agree was regional superintendents. The group modal

response for regional superintendents was split between the disagree and agree

categories.

For the ninth preference statement, the group modal responses for all of the

groups were split between the categories of disagree and agree/strongly agree with the

exception of superintendent gender in the disagree category. In addition, the large group

modal response was split between disagree, agree and strongly agree. The elementary

group modal response was split between disagree and agree.

For the tenth preference statement, the group modal responses were in the

disagree category with the exception of large districts and superintendents with four to

six years of experience. The large district group modal response was split between

disagree and undecided, while the superintendents with four to six years of experience

group modal response was in the agree category.

For the eleventh preference statement, the group modal responses for the majority

of the groups were split between the categories of disagree and agree/strongly agree with

83

Table 8

Demographic Groups – Support Education

Support Education – Preference Statement Two

In the future, technology will support education by producing good citizens.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 37.5% (3) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 43.9%(18) 26.8%(11) 9.8% (4) 19.5% (8) Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 30.4% (7) 30.4% (7) 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) Rural 23

0.0% (0) 24.0% (6) 36.0% (9) 8.0% (2) 32.0% (8) Small 25

0.0% (0) 46.3%(19) 26.8%(11) 7.3% (3) 19.5% (8) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) Large 6

0.0% (0) 25.0% (3) 41.7% (5) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (4) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 38.2%(21) 29.1%(16) 10.9% (6) 21.8% (12) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 34.8% (8) 34.8% (8) 8.7% (2) 21.7% (5) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 40.0% (4) 20.0% (2) 30.0% (3) 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 46.2%(18) 23.1% (9) 10.3% (4) 20.5% (8) 7 + 39

0.0% (0) 35.6%(16) 26.7%(12) 13.3% (6) 24.4% (11) Male 45

0.0% (0) 40.7%(11) 33.3% (9) 7.4% (2) 18.5% (5) Female 27

84

Table 8 (continued)

Support Education – Preference Statement Seven

In the future, technology will support education by ensuring content knowledge.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (6) 25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 14.6% (6) 58.5%(24) 17.1% (7) 9.8% (4) Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 13.0% (3) 56.5%(13) 26.1% (6) 4.3% (1) Rural 23

0.0% (0) 12.0% (3) 56.0%(14) 24.0% (6) 8.0% (2) Small 25

0.0% (0) 14.6% (6) 63.4%(26) 14.6% (6) 7.3% (3) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) Large 6

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 66.7% (8) 16.7% (2) 8.3% (1) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 10.9% (6) 61.8%(34) 20.0%(11) 7.3% (4) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) 65.2%(15) 21.7% (5) 4.3% (1) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (5) 40.0% (4) 10.0% (1) 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 17.9% (7) 59.0%(23) 15.4% (6) 7.7% (3) 7 + 39

0.0% (0) 15.6% (7) 55.6%(25) 26.7%(12) 2.2% (1) Male 45

0.0% (0) 7.4% (2) 66.7%(18) 11.1% (3) 14.8% (4) Female 27

Table 8 (continued)

Support Education – Preference Statement Seven

In the future, technology will support education by ensuring content knowledge.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (6) 25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 14.6% (6) 58.5%(24) 17.1% (7) 9.8% (4) Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 13.0% (3) 56.5%(13) 26.1% (6) 4.3% (1) Rural 23

0.0% (0) 12.0% (3) 56.0%(14) 24.0% (6) 8.0% (2) Small 25

0.0% (0) 14.6% (6) 63.4%(26) 14.6% (6) 7.3% (3) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) Large 6

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 66.7% (8) 16.7% (2) 8.3% (1) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 10.9% (6) 61.8%(34) 20.0%(11) 7.3% (4) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) 65.2%(15) 21.7% (5) 4.3% (1) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (5) 40.0% (4) 10.0% (1) 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 17.9% (7) 59.0%(23) 15.4% (6) 7.7% (3) 7 + 39

0.0% (0) 15.6% (7) 55.6%(25) 26.7%(12) 2.2% (1) Male 45

0.0% (0) 7.4% (2) 66.7%(18) 11.1% (3) 14.8% (4) Female 27

85

Table 8 (continued)

Support Education – Preference Statement Eight

In the future, technology will support education by making US education more competitive

globally.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 62.5% (5) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 7.3% (3) 61.0%(25) 22.0% (9) 9.8% (4) Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 21.7% (5) 43.5%(10) 21.7% (5) 13.0% (3) Rural 23

0.0% (0) 20.0% (5) 48.0%(12) 24.0% (6) 8.0% (2) Small 25

0.0% (0) 7.3% (3) 63.4%(26) 17.1% (7) 12.2% (5) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) Large 6

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 58.3% (7) 16.7% (2) 16.7% (2) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 9.1% (5) 56.4%(31) 25.5%(14) 9.1% (5) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 13.0% (3) 52.2%(12) 26.1% (6) 8.7% (2) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 40.0% (4) 60.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 12.8% (5) 61.5%(24) 12.8% (5) 12.8% (5) 7 + 39

0.0% (0) 13.3% (6) 51.1%(23) 24.4%(11) 11.1% (5) Male 45

0.0% (0) 7.4% (2) 63.0%(17) 22.2% (6) 7.4% (2) Female 27

86

Table 8 (continued)

Support Education – Preference Statement Nine

In the future, technology will support education by promoting wisdom.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 37.5% (3) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) Urban 8

2.4% (1) 53.7%(22) 19.5% (8) 2.4% (1) 22.0% (9) Suburban 41

8.7% (2) 39.1% (9) 17.4% (4) 0.0% (0) 34.8% (8) Rural 23

8.0% (2) 36.0% (9) 24.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 32.0% (8) Small 25

4.9% (2) 51.2%(21) 17.1% (7) 2.4% (1) 24.4% (10) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) Large 6

8.3% (1) 33.3% (4) 33.3% (4) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (3) Elementary 12

3.6% (2) 47.3%(26) 18.2%(10) 3.6% (2) 27.3% (15) K-12 55

25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

8.7% (2) 43.5%(10) 13.0% (3) 4.3% (1) 30.4% (7) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 60.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 4-6 10

5.1% (2) 53.8%(21) 15.4% (6) 5.1% (2) 20.5% (8) 7 + 39

6.7% (3) 44.4%(20) 22.2%(10) 6.7% (3) 20.0% (9) Male 45

3.7% (1) 44.4%(12) 18.5% (5) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (9) Female 27

Table 8 (continued)

Support Education – Preference Statement Nine

In the future, technology will support education by promoting wisdom.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 37.5% (3) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) Urban 8

2.4% (1) 53.7%(22) 19.5% (8) 2.4% (1) 22.0% (9) Suburban 41

8.7% (2) 39.1% (9) 17.4% (4) 0.0% (0) 34.8% (8) Rural 23

8.0% (2) 36.0% (9) 24.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 32.0% (8) Small 25

4.9% (2) 51.2%(21) 17.1% (7) 2.4% (1) 24.4% (10) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) Large 6

8.3% (1) 33.3% (4) 33.3% (4) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (3) Elementary 12

3.6% (2) 47.3%(26) 18.2%(10) 3.6% (2) 27.3% (15) K-12 55

25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

8.7% (2) 43.5%(10) 13.0% (3) 4.3% (1) 30.4% (7) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 60.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 4-6 10

5.1% (2) 53.8%(21) 15.4% (6) 5.1% (2) 20.5% (8) 7 + 39

6.7% (3) 44.4%(20) 22.2%(10) 6.7% (3) 20.0% (9) Male 45

3.7% (1) 44.4%(12) 18.5% (5) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (9) Female 27

87

Table 8 (continued)

Support Education – Preference Statement Ten

In the future, technology will support education by promoting character development.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 37.5% (3) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 25.0% (2) Urban 8

4.9% (2) 56.1%(23) 17.1% (7) 2.4% (1) 19.5% (8) Suburban 41

8.7% (2) 43.5%(10) 13.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 34.8% (8) Rural 23

4.0% (1) 44.0%(11) 20.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 32.0% (8) Small 25

7.3% (3) 56.1%(23) 14.6% (6) 2.4% (1) 19.5% (8) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 33.3% (2) Large 6

0.0% (0) 41.7% (5) 33.3% (4) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (3) Elementary 12

5.5% (3) 52.7%(29) 14.5% (8) 1.8% (1) 25.5% (14) K-12 55

25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) Regional 4

4.3% (1) 47.8%(11) 8.7% (2) 4.3% (1) 34.8% (8) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 50.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 40.0% (4) 4-6 10

7.7% (3) 61.5%(24) 12.8% (5) 2.6% (1) 15.4% (6) 7 + 39

6.7% (3) 51.1%(23) 17.8% (8) 4.4% (2) 20.0% (9) Male 45

3.7% (1) 48.1%(13) 14.8% (4) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (9) Female 27

88

Table 8 (continued)

Support Education – Preference Statement Eleven

In the future, technology will support education by improving student ethical behavior.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 37.5% (3) 12.5% (1) 25.0% (2) Urban 8

7.3% (3) 43.9%(18) 22.0% (9) 2.4% (1) 24.4% (10) Suburban 41

4.3% (1) 34.8% (8) 8.7% (2) 13.0% (3) 39.1% (9) Rural 23

0.0% (0) 36.0% (9) 16.0% (4) 12.0% (3) 36.0% (9) Small 25

9.8% (4) 43.9%(18) 17.1% (7) 2.4% (1) 26.8% (11) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 50.0% (3) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) Large 6

0.0% (0) 33.3% (4) 33.3% (4) 16.7% (2) 16.7% (2) Elementary 12

7.3% (4) 38.2%(21) 18.2%(10) 1.8% (1) 34.5% (19) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

4.3% (1) 39.1% (9) 13.0% (3) 4.3% (1) 39.1% (9) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 50.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 40.0% (4) 4-6 10

7.7% (3) 46.2%(18) 15.4% (6) 10.3% (4) 20.5% (8) 7 + 39

6.7% (3) 33.3% (15) 22.2%(10) 11.1% (5) 26.7% (12) Male 45

3.7% (1) 48.1%(13) 14.8% (4) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (9) Female 27

89

the exception of superintendent gender in the disagree category and rural superintendents

in the undecided category.

Future Policies Required by Technology in Education

The future policies required by technology in education were the third scenarios

to be investigated, using the modified Delphi questionnaire developed by this researcher

(Appendix A). Eight preference statements were rated. Table 9 presented the modal

scores relating to the category of policies required by technology in education.

The first preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools believed a future policy required by technology in education would be students

having the option to ―test out‖ of required courses for graduation by demonstrating

proficiency and students would have the option to graduate early by demonstrating

proficiency to "test out" of required courses. Table 9 presented the modal response of 3

(62.5%) for the first preference statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools

agreed that a future policy required by technology in education would include students

having the option to ―test out‖ of required courses for graduation by demonstrating

proficiency and students would have the option to graduate early by demonstrating

proficiency to "test out" of required courses.

The second preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools believed a future policy required by technology in education would be students

having the option to graduate early by increasing maximum student course loads. Table 9

presented the modal response of 3 (65.3%) for the second preference statement. This

indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that a future policy required by

90

technology in education would include students having the option to graduate early by

increasing maximum student course loads.

The third preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools believed a future policy required by technology in education would be students

having the option to take advanced online courses outside of their district for graduation

credit. Table 9 presented the modal response of 3 (51.4%) for the third preference

statement. This indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that a future policy

required by technology in education, would include students having the option to take

advanced online courses outside of their district for graduation credit.

The fourth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools believed a future policy required by technology in education would be students

having the option to take online courses outside of their district for graduation credit

which are also offered traditionally within the district. Table 9 presented the modal

response of 3 (50%) for the fourth preference statement. This indicated the

superintendents of schools agreed that a future policy required by technology in

education, would include students having the option to take online courses outside of

their district for graduation credit which are also offered traditionally within the district.

The fifth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools believed a future policy required by technology in education would be students

being required to take at least one online course as a graduation requirement. Table 9

presented the modal response of 3 (36.1%) for the fifth preference statement. This

indicated the superintendents of schools agreed that a future policy required by

91

technology in education, would include students being required to take at least one online

course as a graduation requirement.

The sixth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools believed a future policy required by technology in education would be students

adhering to an ethics policy for student behaviors in online courses. Table 9 presented the

modal response of 3 (47.2%) for the sixth preference statement. This indicated the

superintendents of schools agreed that a future policy required by technology in

education, would include students adhering to an ethics policy for student behaviors in

online courses.

The seventh preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents

of schools believed a future policy required by technology in education would be districts

providing for students with limited access to technologies at home. Table 9 presented the

modal response of 3 (51.4%) for the seventh preference statement. This indicated the

superintendents of schools agreed that a future policy required by technology in

education, would include districts providing for students with limited access to

technologies at home.

The eighth preference statement measured the degree to which superintendents of

schools believed a future policy required by technology in education would be teachers

having ongoing professional development in technology. Table 5 presented the modal

response of 4 (65.3%) for the eighth preference statement. This indicated the

superintendents of schools strongly agreed that a future policy required by technology in

education, would include teachers having ongoing professional development in technology.

92

Table 9

Future Policy Changes

5. The future roles of technology in education will require changes in existing policies. In the future,

these changes in policy will include:

SD D A SA U M

students having the option to ―test out‖ of

required courses for graduation by

demonstrating proficiency. Students

having the option to graduate early by

demonstrating proficiency to "test out" of

required courses.

0.0%

(0)

1.4%

(1)

62.5%

(45)

31.9%

(23)

4.2%

(3) 3

students having the option to graduate

early by increasing maximum student

course loads.

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

65.3%

(47)

31.9%

(23)

2.8%

(2) 3

students having the option to take

advanced online courses outside of their

district for graduation credit.

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

51.4%

(37)

47.2%

(34)

1.4%

(1) 3

students having the option to take online

courses outside of their district for

graduation credit which are also offered

traditionally within the district.

0.0%

(0)

15.3%

(11)

50.0%

(36)

31.9%

(23)

2.8%

(2) 3

students being required to take at least one

online course as a graduation requirement.

0.0%

(0)

22.2%

(16)

36.1%

(26)

29.2%

(21)

12.5%

(9) 3

students adhering to an ethics policy for

student behaviors in online courses.

0.0%

(0)

1.4%

(1)

47.2%

(34)

45.8%

(33)

5.6%

(4) 3

districts providing for students with

limited access to technologies at home.

1.4%

(1)

9.7%

(7)

51.4%

(37)

29.2%

(21)

8.3%

(6) 3

teachers having ongoing professional

development in technology.

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

34.7%

(25)

65.3%

(47)

0.0%

(0) 4

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

93

Demographic Groups

When the responses were sorted according to demographic information and

categorized as strongly disagree/disagree and agree/strongly agree, the group modal

responses for one of the preference statements did not show complete agreement, as shown in

Table 10. The complete responses according to demographic groups was shown in

Appendices E-I. For the fifth preference statement, the group modal responses for all of the

groups were in the category of agree/strongly agree with the exception of urban and large

districts in the disagree category.

Summary of Modal Responses

A summary of the 52 preference statement modal responses was presented in Table

11. This table indicated zero (0%) preference statements were rated strongly disagree.

Sixteen (31%) preference statements were rated disagree. Twenty eight (54%) preference

statements were rated agree. Eight (15%) preference statements were rated strongly agree.

Summary of Statements

From the responses of the questionnaire designed by the researcher, superintendents of

schools agreed that in the future, the applications of technology in education will include:

supplemented traditional classroom teaching methods, the creation of virtual schools,

reduced hours students are physically in school, and online classes offered in addition to

traditional classes. Superintendents also agreed that the applications of technology in

education will include: a restructured school schedule, a restructured school calendar, a

redefined role of teachers, a redefinition of the education process, and college courses

accessed online for both students and staff.

94

Table 10

Demographic Groups – Policies

Policies – Preference Statement Five

The future roles of technology in education will require changes in existing policies. In the future,

these changes in policy will include students being required to take at least one online course as a

graduation requirement.

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Agree / Strongly Agree

Undecided Group Response

0.0% (0) 50.0% (4) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 25.0% (2) Urban 8

0.0% (0) 26.8%(11) 34.1%(14) 29.3%(12) 9.8% (4) Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 47.8%(11) 34.8% (8) 13.0% (3) Rural 23

0.0% (0) 20.0% (5) 40.0%(10) 24.0% (6) 16.0% (4) Small 25

0.0% (0) 17.1% (7) 39.0%(16) 34.1%(14) 9.8% (4) Medium 41

0.0% (0) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) Large 6

0.0% (0) 16.7% (2) 50.0% (6) 8.3% (1) 25.0% (3) Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 23.6%(13) 36.4%(20) 29.1%(16) 10.9% (6) K-12 55

0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) Regional 4

0.0% (0) 30.4% (7) 34.8% (8) 26.1% (6) 8.7% (2) 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 30.0% (3) 20.0% (2) 20.0% (2) 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 15.4% (6) 38.5%(15) 33.3%(13) 12.8% (5) 7 + 39

0.0% (0) 17.8% (8) 37.8%(17) 26.7%(12) 17.8% (8) Male 45

0.0% (0) 29.6% (8) 33.3% (9) 33.3% (9) 3.7% (1) Female 27

95

Table 11

Summary of Preferences

Rating No of Responses Percentage

Strongly Disagree 0 0%

Disagree 16 31%

Agree 28 54%

Strongly Agree 8 15%

Undecided 0 0%

Total 52

Superintendents of schools agreed that in the future, the advantages of technology in

education will include: increased parent communication, increased monitoring of teachers,

improved quality of differentiated instruction, and greater access to data for teachers to use in

planning instruction. Superintendents of schools also agreed that in the future, the advantages

of technology in education will include: increased access for students with disabilities, a

reduced number of dropouts, and improved graduation rates.

The results of the survey also indicated that in the future, the disadvantages of technology

in education will include: costs to update technologies, rapidly changing technologies

become obsolete, and limited student access to technologies at home. Superintendents of

96

schools also agreed that future disadvantages of technology in education will include:

reduced face to face interactions of students, and ensured quality of online course content.

Superintendents of schools agreed that in the future, technology will support education

by: promoting lifelong learning, preparing a skilled workforce, allowing for greater student

specialization, and preparing students for post-secondary education. The survey also

indicated superintendents of schools agreed that in the future, technology will support

education by: developing critical thinking skills, ensuring content knowledge, and making

US education more competitive globally.

The survey indicated superintendents of schools agreed that in the future, changes in

policies will include: students having the option to ―test out‖ of required courses for

graduation by demonstrating proficiency. Students will also have the option to graduate early

by demonstrating proficiency to "test out" of required courses. Superintendents of schools

also agreed that changes in policy in the future will include: students having the option to

graduate early by increasing maximum student course loads and students having the option to

take advanced online courses outside of their district for graduation credit. The survey also

indicated agreement to students having the option to take online courses outside of their

district for graduation credit which are also offered traditionally within the district as well as

students being required to take at least one online course as a graduation requirement. The

superintendents of schools indicated agreement to students adhering to an ethics policy for

student behaviors in online courses, districts providing for students with limited access to

technologies at home, and teachers having ongoing professional development in technology.

97

From the results of the survey, superintendents of schools disagreed that in the future, the

applications of technology in education will include: a reduced number of teachers.

Superintendents of schools also disagreed that in the future, the advantages of technology in

education will include: paraprofessionals replaced with technology and reduced costs of

education by replacing teachers with technology.

The superintendents of schools indicated disagreement that in the future, the

disadvantages of technology in education will include: uninsured accountability of student

work in online classes, micromanagement of student achievement by parents, depersonalized

parent to school communication, reduced face to face interactions of teachers and students,

and reduced face to face interactions of students. Survey results indicated disagreement that

in the future, the disadvantages of technology in education will include: reduced teacher

creativity, reduced problem solving abilities of students, decreased student ethical behavior,

and decreased verbal communication skills of students.

Survey results indicated superintendents of schools disagreed that in the future,

technology will support education by: producing good citizens, promoting wisdom,

promoting character development, and improving student ethical behavior. Superintendents

of schools did not disagree with any future changes in policy required by technology in

education.

98

Chapter Five

Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

Summary

Using a modified Delphi technique, this study was designed to investigate and

determine the future roles of technology in K-12 education in Connecticut. A significant

issue was that superintendents of schools had a limited amount of information to use in the

development of future roles of technology when designing technology implementation plans.

Specifically, this study sought to answer the following research questions:

1. What will be the applications of technology in education?

2. What will be the advantages of technology in education?

3. What will be the disadvantages of technology in education?

4. What ways will technology support education?

5. What will be the changes in policies required by technology in education?

The population of this study consisted of 163 Connecticut superintendents of schools.

The invited sample (n) consisted of 139 Connecticut superintendents of individual districts

and regional districts, including regional districts, but not including regional service districts.

Six districts were not able to be invited to participate due to a vacancy in the post, or an

inability to be contacted by email resulting in the 155 superintendents intended to be invited

being reduced to 139.

The data generating sample consisted of 72 Connecticut K-12 superintendents of

schools who responded to the survey inquiry. These 72 subjects represented 52% of the

99

invited sample. The subjects agreed to participate in this study by completing the

questionnaire and submitting online to this researcher (Appendix A).

With regard to the total years of experience as a superintendent of schools, 31.9% had

zero to three years of experience, 13.9% had four to six years of experience, and 54.2% had

seven plus years of experience. Representing gender, the respondents were 62.5% male and

37.5% female. For type of district, 11.1% of the respondents were from an urban district,

56.9% of the respondents were from a suburban district, and 31.9% were from a rural district.

The district enrollments of the respondents were 34.7% small (less than 2000), 56.9%

medium (2000-8000), and 8.3% large (8000 plus). The respondents‘ designations of the

districts were 16.9% Elementary (K-6, K-8), 77.5% K-12, and 5.6% Regional.

The data for this research study was collected through one round of a modified Delphi

questionnaire entitled, ―Future Roles of Technology in K-12 Education in Connecticut‖

(Appendix A). This questionnaire was developed by the researcher and included 52

preference statements. Validity information was presented in Chapter three. The

questionnaire was delivered to the subjects electronically through email with an IP address

specific link to the survey hosted through survey monkey (Appendix C). The questionnaire

included a section for demographic data (Appendix D).

The one round of the modified Delphi questionnaire (Appendix A) had 52 preference

statements related to the future roles of technology in K-12 education in Connecticut. These

52 preference statements were divided into the following categories:

1. Applications of Technology in Education

2. Advantages of Technology in Education

100

3. Disadvantages of Technology in Education

4. Ways Education Will Be Supported By Technology

5. Policies for Technology in Education

The following rating scales were used:

1. strongly disagree (value of 1)

2. disagree (value of 2)

3. agree (value of 3)

4. strongly agree (value of 4)

5. undecided (value of 5)

For the one round Delphi questionnaire, modes were computed for all 52 preference

statements. These computations analyzed the distribution of responses of the superintendents

of schools, with regards to the future roles of technology in K-12 education in Connecticut.

The survey monkey data analysis software was used to analyze and process the data collected

in this research study.

The study findings were divided into the following five categories from the modified

Delphi questionnaire:

1. Applications of Technology in Education

2. Advantages of Technology in Education

3. Disadvantages of Technology in Education

4. Ways Education Will Be Supported By Technology

5. Policies for Technology in Education

With regard to the category of applications of technology in education, the modal

responses of the superintendents, indicated ―strongly agreed‖ with four (40%) of the

101

preference statements. These included: supplemented traditional classroom teaching

methods, the creation of virtual schools, online classes offered by districts in addition to

traditional classes and college courses accessed online for both students and staff. The modal

responses of superintendents ―agreed‖ with five (50%) of the preference statements. These

included: reduced hours students are in school, a restructured school schedule, a restructured

school calendar, a redefined role of teachers and a redefinition of the education process. The

superintendents‘ modal responses ―disagreed‖ with one (10%) of the preference statements.

This was a reduced number of teachers as an application of technology in education. None of

the preference statements modal responses for applications of technology in education were

―undecided.‖

With regard to the category of advantages of technology in education, the modal

responses of the superintendents, indicated ―strongly agreed‖ with three (33%) of the

preference statements. These included: increased parent communication, greater access to

data for teachers to inform instruction and increased access for students with disabilities. The

modal responses of superintendents ―agreed‖ with four (44%) of the preference statements.

These included: increased monitoring of teachers, improved quality of differentiated

instruction, a reduced number of dropouts and improved graduation rates. The

superintendents‘ modal responses ―disagreed‖ with two (22%) of the preference statements.

This was a paraprofessionals replaced with technology and reduced costs of education by

replacing teachers with technology. None of the preference statements modal responses for

advantages of technology in education were ―undecided.‖

With regard to the category of disadvantages of technology in education, the modal

responses of the superintendents indicated ―strongly agreed‖ with none (0%) of the

102

preference statements. The modal responses of superintendents ―agreed‖ with five (38%) of

the preference statements. These included: costs to update technologies, rapidly changing

technologies becoming obsolete, limited student access to technologies at home, reduced face

to face interactions of students (split with ―Disagree‖) and ensured quality of online course

content. The superintendents‘ modal responses ―disagreed‖ with nine (69%) of the preference

statements. These included: uninsured accountability of student work in online classes,

micromanagement of student achievement by parents, depersonalized parent to school

communication, reduced face to face interactions of teachers and students, reduced face to

face interactions of students (split with ―Agree‖), reduced teacher creativity, reduced

problem solving ability of students and decreased student ethical behavior. None of the

preference statements modal responses for disadvantages of technology in education were

―undecided.‖

The fifth category investigated the future policies for technology in education. The

modal responses of the superintendents indicated ―strongly agreed‖ with none (0%) of the

preference statements. The modal responses of superintendents ―agreed‖ with seven (64%) of

the preference statements. These included: promoting lifelong learning, preparing a skilled

workforce, allowing for greater student specialization, preparing students for post-secondary

education, developing critical thinking skills, ensuring content knowledge and making US

education more competitive globally. The superintendents‘ modal responses ―disagreed‖ with

four (36%) of the preference statements. These included: producing good citizens, promoting

wisdom, promoting character development and improving student ethical behavior. None of

the preference statements modal responses for disadvantages of technology in education were

―undecided.‖

103

Conclusions

The following conclusions and implications may be drawn from the findings of this

modified Delphi study:

1. Future roles of technology in K-12 education in Connecticut were predicted through

the use of the modified Delphi technique. Areas of agreement and disagreement were

discovered.

2. In the category of applications of technology in education, strong agreement and

agreement was found for future applications of technology in education

supplementing traditional teaching methods with technology, creating virtual schools,

reducing hours students are in schools, offering online classes and access to online

college courses, restructuring the school schedule and calendar as well as a

redefinition of the education process. The respondents disagreed that a future

application should be a reduced number of teachers. This indicates that future roles of

technology in K-12 education in Connecticut will redefine education without

replacing teachers.

3. In the category of advantages of technology in education, strong agreement and

agreement was found for the future advantages of technology in education including

increased parent communication, increased monitoring of teachers, improved quality

of differentiated instruction, greater access to data for teachers, increased access for

students with disabilities, a reduced number of dropouts and improved graduation

rates. Respondents disagreed that future advantages of technology in education will

104

include paraprofessionals replaced with technology and reduced costs of education by

replacing teachers with technology. This indicates that future roles of technology in

K-12 education in Connecticut will include increased visibility of teachers and higher

quality instruction.

4. In the category of disadvantages of technology in education, agreement was found for

the future disadvantages of technology in education including: costs to update

technologies, rapidly changing technologies becoming obsolete, limited student

access to technologies at home and ensured quality of online courses. Respondents

both agreed and disagreed for the disadvantage of reduced face to face interactions of

students. Disagreement was found for the disadvantages of: uninsured accountability

of student work in online classes, micromanagement of student achievement by

parents, depersonalized parent to school contact, reduced face to face interactions of

teachers and students, reduced teacher creativity, reduced problem solving abilities of

students, decreased student ethical behavior and decreased verbal communication

skills of students. This indicates that future roles of technology in K-12 education in

Connecticut will address student access to technology and the structure of virtual

learning.

5. In the category of ways technology will support education in the future, agreement

was reached by the respondents in the following areas: promoting lifelong learning,

preparing a skilled workforce, allowing for greater student specialization, preparing

students for post-secondary education, developing critical thinking skills, ensuring

content knowledge and making US education more competitive globally. The

respondents disagreed that ways technology will support education in the future

105

include: producing good citizens, promoting wisdom, promoting character

development and improving student ethical behavior. This indicates that future roles

of technology in K-12 education in Connecticut at this time do not have a clear

purpose in the support of education. While the many applications of technology

appeal to superintendents, the reasons for using them need to be further clarified.

6. In the category of future policies for technology in education, strong agreement and

agreement was reached in all areas of future policy changes. This indicates that future

roles of technology in K-12 education in Connecticut will result in greater

opportunities and flexibility for students.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions and findings of this modified Delphi study the following

areas were recommended for future research:

1. Future research should be conducted to determine what training and professional

development superintendents of schools need to better inform their decisions

regarding technology in education.

2. Future professional development opportunities should be designed for

superintendents of schools to demonstrate the future possibilities for technology in

education.

3. This study should be repeated to include the three rounds of the Delphi method to

reach consensus amongst the superintendents of schools in Connecticut.

4. The Review of Literature should be expanded in the future to include studies on the

impact of roles of technology in education.

106

5. This study should be used as a foundation for a discussion of future roles of

technology in K-12 education in Connecticut schools by CAPSS and CABE.

6. This modified Delphi study can be used as a foundation for future studies in

educational leadership and educational technology.

7. This study can be used as the foundation for scenario planning regarding future roles

of technology in education.

8. This study should be replicated within a district to include teachers and administrators

to aid in future technology in education planning and implementation.

9. This study should be used to structure future conversations between educational

leaders in the state of Connecticut.

107

References

Andrade, A.G. (2008). An exploratory study of the role of technology in the rise of

homeschooling (Dissertation, Ohio University, 2008).

Barron, A.E., Orwig, G.W., Ivers, K.S. &Lilavois, N. (2002). Technologies for Education: A

Practical Guide (4th ed.). Greenwood Village, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Black, V.R. (2006). Self-perceptions of transformational leadership practices of middle and high

school computer technology teachers in an urban public school environment

(Dissertation, University of Bridgeport, 2006).

Brooks-Young, S. (2006). Critical technology issues for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin.

Campbell-Kelly, M., & Aspray, W. (2004). Computer: a history of the information machine.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Carroll, J.M. (2003). Introduction: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science of Human Computer

Interaction. In Carroll, J.M. (Ed.) HCI models, theories, and frameworks (pp. 1-9). San

Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, 47 U.S.C. 231

Chow, A.S. (2008). The role of systems design and educational informatics in educational

reform: The story of the central education center (Dissertation, The Florida State

University, 2008).

Copyright Clearance Center (2005). The TEACH Act. Retrieved on June 15, 2010 from

http://www.copyright.com/media/pdfs/CR-Teach-Act.pdf

CT State Department of Education. Online courses available to CT high school students.

retrieved December 8, 2009 from

108

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/taxonomy/ct_taxonomy.asp?DLN=45425&sdeNav=|45425|

Dalkey, N.C. & Helmer, O., (1963). The Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the

Use of Experts. Management Science, 9, (3), 458-467.

Deveau, P.M. (1995). Utilization of Multimedia Computer Technology in Corporate Training

and Development Programs: a Delphi Study (Doctoral dissertation, University of

Bridgeport, 1995).

Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and Effort in Education. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

Dittmar, E.M. An investigation of instructional design roles and practices used to develop and

maintain interactive web-based learning (Dissertation, Capella University, 2009).

Freire, P. (1995). Pedagogy of hope. New York, NY: Continuum.

Freire, P. (n.d.). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Retrieved from

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4811889/Paulo-Freire-Pedagogy-of-Oppresed (Original work

published 1970).

Fritz, M.L. (2005). Students using handheld computers to learn collaboratively in a first grade

classroom (Dissertation, Drexel University, 2005).

Gallagher, J.D. (2007). Negotiating writing, literature, and the new literacies: Expanding and

maintaining boundaries in a 9th

grade English classroom (Dissertation, Michigan State

University, 2007).

Gomez, M.V. (2006). Contemporary Spheres for the Teaching Education: Freire‘s Principles.

Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), article 5.

Helmer, O. (1967). Analysis of the Future: The Delphi Method. Santa Monica, CA: Rand

Corporation.

Helmer, O., & Rescher, N. (1959). On the Epistemology of the Inexact Sciences. Management

109

Science, 6, (1) 25-52. www.jstor.org/stable/2627474.

Huffman, M. (2008).Compliance with Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)

and E-Rate Funding. Retrieved from www.doe.in.gov/htmls/phprint.php. accessed

3/6/2008.

Jackson, A.W. & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000. New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Jonassen, D.H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R.M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with

technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill

Prentice Hall.

Kakoszka, K.A. (2009). A case study approach to the perceptions of Edline, a k-12 technology

solution software, at a small catholic high school in southern Massachusetts (Dissertation,

Johnson & Wales University, 2009).

Kumar, S. (2007). Integrating asynchronous online discussions into the classroom in web-

enhanced courses (Dissertation, Boston University, 2007).

Mantemach-Wigans, L.K. (1999). Computer technology integration in Iowa high school:

Perceptions of teachers (Dissertation, Iowa State University, 1999).

McRae, P. (2001). Increasing the integration of technology into the fourth-grade curriculum

using teacher/media specialist collaboration in planning student research activities

(Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, 2001).

Moallem, M. (2008). Accommodating individual differences in the design of online learning

environments: a comparative study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,

40(2), 217-245.

Mooney, T. (2005). A practical guide to Connecticut school law (5th

ed.). Connecticut

110

Association of Boards of Education.

Moursund, D. (2003). Project-based learning: Using information technology (2nd

ed.). Eugene,

OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Mulcahy, J.W., Gregory, J.L. (2009). A Handbook of Statistics and Quantitative Analysis for

Educational Leadership. Maryland: University Press of America.

Mulcahy, J.W. (2009). Leadership Analytics. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.

Nadolny, L.N. (2008). Laptops for all students: Year one evaluation of a laptop initiative in

career and technical high school education (Dissertation, University of Delaware, 2008).

New England Association of Schools and Colleges. (n.d.). 7. Library and Other Information

Resources. Retrieved on June 12, 2010 from

http://cihe.neasc.org/standards_policies/standards/standard_seven/.

Nguyen, T.T. (2007). Technology tango: Perceptions of the roles of school technology

coordinators and library media specialists (Dissertation, University of Southern

California, 2007).

Ophir, E., Nass, C. & Wagner, A.D. (2009). Cognitive Control in Media Multitaskers.

Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, 106(37), 83-87.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. 21

st Century Skills. Retrieved December 18, 2009 from

http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&It

emid=69.

Pasquerilla, J.W. (2008). The high school principal‘s perspective and role in regard to the

integration of technology into the high school and how has the principal‘s role been

impacted (Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 2008).

Pflaum, W.D. (2004). The technology fix: The promise and reality of computers in our schools.

111

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Prensky, M. (2005). What can you learn from a cell phone? Almost anything. Bracey, B. &

Culver, T. (Eds.) Harnessing the potential of ICT for education: a multistakeholder

approach. (pp.271-290). New York, NY: United Nations Information and

Communications Technologies Task Force.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5).

Shapiro, A.L. (1999). The control revolution. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

Staples, A. & Pittman, J. (2003). Building Learning Communities. In Solomon, G., Allen, N.J.,

& Resta, P. (Eds.) Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in education (pp.99-114).

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Student Possession and Use of Telecommunication Devices, Conn. Stat. § 10-233j.

Teacher‘s College Columbia University, Heritage. (n.d.).A Legacy of Firsts. Retrieved June 11,

2010 from http://www.tc.columbia.edu/abouttc/heritage.htm?id=A+Legacy+of+Firsts.

Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Taylor, R.P., & Budin, H.R. (1992). Teacher Training for Using Computers in Minority

Education. Teacher‘s College Register.

UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC. Vol. number 194 US Page number

539. (2003). retrieved from http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-361.ZS.html

US Department of Education. (n.d.). NCLB Policy. Retrieved on April 12, 2010 from

http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml.

Wiburg, K.M. & Butler, J.F. (2003). Creating Educational Access. Solomon, G., Allen,

N.J., & Resta, P. (Eds.) Toward digital equity: Bridging the divide in education (pp.1-

13). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

112

Wilson, S. (2007). A case study of the adoption of a technology-based innovation in an urban

school district: An e-portfolio initiative (Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2007)

Appendix A

Questionnaire

113

Appendix A

Questionnaire

Thank you for agreeing to be a part of this doctoral research study. This study is an investigation

entitled, "Future Roles of Technology in K-12 Education in Connecticut." Your input on this

topic will provide valuable insights.

The confidentiality of district responses will be maintained in the report of the findings.

There are five topics for this survey and it will take an average of ten to fifteen minutes to

complete.

Thank you in advance for your time. A copy of the findings will be sent to each participant at the

conclusion of the study.

Christianne Golesky

Doctoral Candidate

University of Bridgeport

District Name:

Which designation best fits your school district?

Urban

Suburban

Rural

What is the enrollment of your district?

Small (less than 2000)

Medium (2000-8000)

Large (8000 plus)

114

Which designation best represents your district?

Elementary (K-6, K-8)

K-12

Regional

What is your number of total years of experience as a superintendent of schools?

0-3 years

4-6 years

7+ years

What is your gender?

Male

Female

2. Applications of Technology in Education

In the future, the applications of technology in education will include:

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly

Agree Undecided

a reduced number of teachers.

supplemented traditional classroom

teaching methods.

the creation of virtual schools.

reduced hours students are physically in

school.

online classes offered by districts in

addition to traditional classes.

a restructured school schedule.

a restructured school calendar.

a redefined role of teachers.

a redefinition of the education process.

college courses accessed online for both

students and staff.

115

Comments:

3. Advantages of Technology in Education

There are inherent advantages to the roles of technology in education. In the future, these

advantages will include:

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly

Agree Undecided

increased parent communication.

increased monitoring of teachers.

improved quality of differentiated

instruction.

greater access to data for teachers to

inform instruction.

increased access for students with

disabilities.

paraprofessionals replaced with

technology.

reduced costs of education by replacing

teachers with technology.

a reduced number of dropouts.

improved graduation rates.

Comments:

116

4. Disadvantages of Technology in Education

There are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the future,

these disadvantages will include:

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly

Agree Undecided

unensured accountability of student

work in online classes.

micromanagement of student

achievement by parents.

depersonalized parent to school

communication.

costs to update technologies.

rapidly changing technologies become

obsolete.

limited student access to technologies at

home.

reduced face to face interactions of

teachers and students.

reduced face to face interactions of

students.

ensured quality of online course content.

reduced teacher creativity.

reduced problem solving abilities of

students.

decreased student ethical behavior.

decreased verbal communication skills

of students.

117

Comments:

5. Ways Education Will Be Supported By Technology

In the future, technology will support education by:

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly

Agree Undecided

promoting lifelong learning.

producing good citizens.

preparing a skilled workforce.

allowing for greater student

specialization.

preparing students for post-secondary

education.

developing critical thinking skills.

ensuring content knowledge.

making US education more competitive

globally.

promoting wisdom.

promoting character development.

improving student ethical behavior.

Comments:

118

6. Policies for Technology in Education

The future roles of technology in education will require changes in existing policies. In the

future, these changes in policy will include:

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly

Agree Undecided

students having the option to “test out” of

required courses for graduation by

demonstrating proficiency. Students having

the option to graduate early by

demonstrating proficiency to "test out" of

required courses.

students having the option to graduate early

by increasing maximum student course loads.

students having the option to take advanced

online courses outside of their district for

graduation credit.

students having the option to take online

courses outside of their district for

graduation credit which are also offered

traditionally within the district.

students being required to take at least one

online course as a graduation requirement.

students adhering to an ethics policy for

student behaviors in online courses.

districts providing for students with limited

access to technologies at home.

teachers having ongoing professional

development in technology.

Comments:

119

Appendix B

Jury of Experts

120

Appendix B

Jury of Experts

Dr. Ann Clark

Superintendent of Schools

Fairfield Public Schools

501 Kings Highway East

Fairfield, CT 06825

Dr. George Goens

Education Consultant

P. O. Box 1775

Litchfield, CT 06759

Dr. Robert Kirschmann

University of Bridgeport

126 Park Avenue

Bridgeport, CT 06604

Dr. Jack Mulcahy

University of Bridgeport

126 Park Avenue

Bridgeport, CT 06604

Dr. John Tindall-Gibson

Superintendent of Schools

Naugatuck Public Schools

121

Appendix C

Email Letter

122

Appendix C

Email Letter

To: [Email]

From: [email protected]

Subject: Doctoral Technology Survey Participation Request

Body: My name is Christianne Golesky and I am a doctoral candidate in educational leadership

at the University of Bridgeport. The title of my dissertation is "Future Roles of

Technology in K-12 Education in Connecticut." I am seeking your participation in an

online survey of Connecticut superintendent perceptions of future technology roles. As

such, your input on this important issue is essential for accurate forecasting.

The results of the survey will be confidential, and they will not be reported by district or

individual. The results will only be reported according to demographic information using a

quasi-Delphi technique for forecasting. The survey takes approximately 10-15 minutes to

complete, and it is an exercise you will only have to do once.

I will forward you the results of my findings and conclusions once the study is completed.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and thank you in advance for your

participation. I am truly looking forward to contributing a comprehensive analysis of

superintendent perceptions to the dialogue regarding future educational technology

decisions. Currently, I am an educator in the Fairfield Public Schools.

Sincerely,

Christianne Hanes Golesky

[email protected]

Doctoral Candidate

Here is a link to the survey:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx

This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address. Please do not forward this message.

Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails regarding this survey, please click the link below, and you will be

automatically removed from the mailing list. However, please reconsider as your input on this topic is essential.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx

123

Appendix D

Demographic Sheet

124

Appendix D

Demographic Sheet

Thank you for agreeing to be a part of this doctoral research study. This study is an investigation

entitled, "Future Roles of Technology in K-12 Education in Connecticut." Your input on this

topic will provide valuable insights.

The confidentiality of district responses will be maintained in the report of the findings.

There are five topics for this survey and it will take an average of ten to fifteen minutes to

complete.

Thank you in advance for your time. A copy of the findings will be sent to each participant at the

conclusion of the study.

Christianne Golesky

Doctoral Candidate

University of Bridgeport

District Name:

Which designation best fits your school district?

Urban

Suburban

Rural

What is the enrollment of your district?

Small (less than 2000)

Medium (2000-8000)

Large (8000 plus)

Which designation best represents your district?

Elementary (K-6, K-8)

K-12

125

Regional

What is your number of total years of experience as a superintendent of schools?

0-3 years

4-6 years

7+ years

What is your gender?

Male

Female

126

Appendix E

Responses by Urban, Suburban and Rural

127

Appendix E

Responses by Urban, Suburban and Rural

Table A1

Applications by Urban, Suburban and Rural

1. In the future, the applications of technology in education will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

a reduced number of teachers.

12.5% (1) 50.0% (4) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 2 Urban 8

17.1% (7) 51.2% (21) 12.2% (5) 7.3% (3) 12.2% (5) 2 Suburban 41

17.4% (4) 30.4% (7) 17.4% (4) 13.0% (3) 21.7% (5) 2 Rural 23

supplemented traditional

classroom teaching methods.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 62.5% (5) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 4.9% (2) 36.6% (15) 56.1% (23) 2.4% (1) 4 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 26.1% (6) 69.6% (16) 0.0% (0) 4 Rural 23

the creation of virtual schools.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 62.5% (5) 12.5% (1) 4 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 12.2% (5) 46.3% (19) 36.6% (15) 4.9% (2) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 17.4% (4) 30.4% (7) 39.1% (9) 13.0% (3) 4 Rural 23

reduced hours students are

physically in school.

0.0% (0) 37.5% (3) 25.0% (2) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 2,4 Urban 8

2.4% (1) 34.1% (14) 34.1% (14) 19.5% (8) 9.8% (4) 2,3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 21.7% (5) 52.2% (12) 13.0% (3) 13.0% (3) 3 Rural 23

online classes offered by districts

in addition to traditional classes.

0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 75.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 4 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 46.3% (19) 53.7% (22) 0.0% (0) 4 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) 26.1% (6) 60.9% (14) 4.3% (1) 4 Rural 23

a restructured school schedule.

0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 25.0% (2) 50.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 4 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 17.1% (7) 51.2% (21) 26.8% (11) 4.9% (2) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) 47.8% (11) 43.5% (10) 0.0% (0) 3 Rural 23

a restructured school calendar.

0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 25.0% (2) 25.0% (2) 25.0% (2) 2,3,4,5 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 22.0% (9) 46.3% (19) 22.0% (9) 9.8% (4) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 17.4% (4) 30.4% (7) 39.1% (9) 13.0% (3) 3 Rural 23

a redefined role of teachers.

0.0% (0) 37.5% (3) 25.0% (2) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 2,4 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 9.8% (4) 61.0% (25) 29.3% (12) 0.0% (0) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) 34.8% (8) 56.5% (13) 0.0% (0) 4 Rural 23

a redefinition of the education process.

0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 50.0% (4) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 14.6% (6) 65.9% (27) 19.5% (8) 0.0% (0) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 21.7% (5) 30.4% (7) 47.8% (11) 0.0% (0) 4 Rural 23

college courses accessed online for both students and staff.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 75.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 4 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 46.3% (19) 53.7% (22) 0.0% (0) 4 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 39.1% (9) 56.5% (13) 4.3% (1) 4 Rural 23

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

128

Table A2

Advantages by Urban, Suburban and Rural

2. There are inherent advantages to the roles of technology in education. In the future, these advantages will

include:

SD D A SA U M G R

increased parent communication.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (4) 50.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 2.4% (1) 22.0% (9) 75.6% (31) 0.0% (0) 4 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 39.1% (9) 60.9% (14) 0.0% (0) 4 Rural 23

increased monitoring of teachers.

0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 37.5% (3) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 24.4% (10) 39.0% (16) 29.3% (12) 7.3% (3) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 13.0% (3) 43.5% (10) 39.1% (9) 4.3% (1) 3 Rural 23

improved quality of differentiated instruction.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (4) 37.5% (3) 12.5% (1) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 56.1% (23) 41.5% (17) 2.4% (1) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 43.5% (10) 52.2% (12) 4.3% (1) 4 Rural 23

greater access to data for

teachers to inform instruction.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 62.5% (5) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 17.1% (7) 80.5% (33) 2.4% (1) 4 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 30.4% (7) 69.6% (16) 0.0% (0) 4 Rural 23

increased access for students

with disabilities.

0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 37.5% (3) 50.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 4 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 41.5% (17) 58.5% (24) 0.0% (0) 4 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 43.5% (10) 52.2% (12) 4.3% (1) 4 Rural 23

paraprofessionals replaced with technology.

12.5% (1) 50.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 25.0% (2) 2 Urban 8

7.3% (3) 61.0% (25) 17.1% (7) 7.3% (3) 7.3% (3) 2 Suburban 41

17.4% (4) 43.5% (10) 8.7% (2) 8.7% (2) 21.7% (5) 2 Rural 23

reduced costs of education by

replacing teachers with

technology.

12.5% (1) 50.0% (4) 12.5% (1) 25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 2 Urban 8

7.3% (3) 65.9% (27) 12.2% (5) 7.3% (3) 7.3% (3) 2 Suburban 41

13.0% (3) 65.2% (15) 8.7% (2) 4.3% (1) 8.7% (2) 2 Rural 23

a reduced number of dropouts.

0.0% (0) 37.5% (3) 12.5% (1) 25.0% (2) 25.0% (2) 2 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 24.4% (10) 43.9% (18) 12.2% (5) 19.5% (8) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 13.0% (3) 39.1% (9) 8.7% (2) 39.1% (9) 3,5 Rural 23

improved graduation rates.

0.0% (0) 37.5% (3) 12.5% (1) 25.0% (2) 25.0% (2) 2 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 14.6% (6) 56.1% (23) 12.2% (5) 17.1% (7) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 17.4% (4) 43.5% (10) 13.0% (3) 26.1% (6) 3 Rural 23

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

129

Table A3

Disadvantages by Urban, Suburban and Rural

3. There are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the future, these

disadvantages will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

unensured accountability of student work in online classes.

0.0% (0) 62.5% (5) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 2 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 48.8%(20) 36.6%(15) 4.9% (2) 9.8% (4) 2 Suburban 41

8.7% (2) 39.1% (9) 52.2%(12) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2.43 Rural 23

micromanagement of student

achievement by parents.

0.0% (0) 75.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 2 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 63.4%(26) 29.3%(12) 0.0% (0) 7.3% (3) 2.15 Suburban 41

8.7% (2) 34.8% (8) 43.5%(10) 4.3% (1) 8.7% (2) 2.26 Rural 23

depersonalized parent to school

communication.

0.0% (0) 50.0% (4) 37.5% (3) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 2.63 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 70.7%(29) 22.0% (9) 4.9% (2) 2.4% (1) 2.27 Suburban 41

13.0% (3) 47.8%(11) 30.4% (7) 4.3% (1) 4.3% (1) 2.17 Rural 23

costs to update technologies.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (6) 25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 3.25 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 4.9% (2) 51.2%(21) 39.0%(16) 4.9% (2) 3.2 Suburban 41

4.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 60.9%(14) 34.8% (8) 0.0% (0) 3.26 Rural 23

rapidly changing technologies become obsolete.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (6) 25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 3.25 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 7.3% (3) 73.2%(30) 19.5% (8) 0.0% (0) 3.12 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 52.2%(12) 34.8% (8) 8.7% (2) 3.04 Rural 23

limited student access to

technologies at home.

0.0% (0) 62.5% (5) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 2.5 Urban 8

2.4% (1) 39.0%(16) 51.2%(21) 4.9% (2) 2.4% (1) 2.54 Suburban 41

4.3% (1) 34.8% (8) 47.8%(11) 8.7% (2) 4.3% (1) 2.52 Rural 23

reduced face to face interactions of teachers and students.

0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 50.0% (4) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 2.5 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 39.0%(16) 29.3%(12) 22.0% (9) 9.8% (4) 2.54 Suburban 41

4.3% (1) 39.1% (9) 34.8% (8) 17.4% (4) 4.3% (1) 2.57 Rural 23

reduced face to face interactions

of students.

0.0% (0) 50.0% (4) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 2.25 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 31.7%(13) 39.0%(16) 24.4%(10) 4.9% (2) 2.78 Suburban 41

4.3% (1) 34.8% (8) 30.4% (7) 21.7% (5) 8.7% (2) 2.52 Rural 23

ensured quality of online course content.

0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 50.0% (4) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 2.75 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 24.4%(10) 51.2%(21) 19.5% (8) 4.9% (2) 2.8 Suburban 41

8.7% (2) 17.4% (4) 56.5%(13) 8.7% (2) 8.7% (2) 2.48 Rural 23

reduced teacher creativity.

37.5% (3) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 2.13 Urban 8

7.3% (3) 70.7%(29) 12.2% (5) 7.3% (3) 2.4% (1) 2.15 Suburban 41

30.4% (7) 47.8%(11) 13.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) 1.65 Rural 23

reduced problem solving abilities

of students.

25.0% (2) 50.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 2.25 Urban 8

7.3% (3) 78.0%(32) 7.3% (3) 7.3% (3) 0.0% (0) 2.15 Suburban 41

43.5% (10) 39.1% (9) 4.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 13.0% (3) 1.35 Rural 23

decreased student ethical

behavior.

0.0% (0) 62.5% (5) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 2.13 Urban 8

2.4% (1) 63.4%(26) 24.4%(10) 0.0% (0) 9.8% (4) 2.02 Suburban 41

21.7% (5) 30.4% (7) 8.7% (2) 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 1.43 Rural 23

decreased verbal communication

skills of students.

0.0% (0) 50.0% (4) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 2.25 Urban 8

2.4% (1) 56.1%(23) 22.0% (9) 17.1% (7) 2.4% (1) 2.49 Suburban 41

8.7% (2) 34.8% (8) 34.8% (8) 13.0% (3) 8.7% (2) 2.35 Rural 23

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

130

Table A4

Support Education by Urban, Suburban and Rural

4. In the future, technology will support education by:

SD D A SA U M G R

promoting lifelong learning.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 37.5% (3) 62.5% (5) 0.0% (0) 4 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 70.7% (29) 29.3% (12) 0.0% (0) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 43.5% (10) 52.2% (12) 0.0% (0) 4 Rural 23

producing good citizens.

0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 37.5% (3) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 43.9% (18) 26.8% (11) 9.8% (4) 19.5% (8) 2 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 30.4% (7) 30.4% (7) 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 2,3,5 Rural 23

preparing a skilled workforce.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 62.5% (5) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 63.4% (26) 24.4% (10) 12.2% (5) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 56.5% (13) 30.4% (7) 8.7% (2) 3 Rural 23

allowing for greater student specialization.

0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 50.0% (4) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 2.4% (1) 65.9% (27) 24.4% (10) 7.3% (3) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 52.2% (12) 39.1% (9) 4.3% (1) 3 Rural 23

preparing students for post-

secondary education.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 62.5% (5) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 4.9% (2) 68.3% (28) 24.4% (10) 2.4% (1) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 13.0% (3) 47.8% (11) 34.8% (8) 4.3% (1) 3 Rural 23

developing critical thinking skills.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (4) 50.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 14.6% (6) 63.4% (26) 19.5% (8) 2.4% (1) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 21.7% (5) 43.5% (10) 21.7% (5) 13.0% (3) 3 Rural 23

ensuring content knowledge.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (6) 25.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 14.6% (6) 58.5% (24) 17.1% (7) 9.8% (4) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 13.0% (3) 56.5% (13) 26.1% (6) 4.3% (1) 3 Rural 23

making US education more competitive globally.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 62.5% (5) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 7.3% (3) 61.0% (25) 22.0% (9) 9.8% (4) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 21.7% (5) 43.5% (10) 21.7% (5) 13.0% (3) 3 Rural 23

promoting wisdom.

12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 37.5% (3) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 3 Urban 8

2.4% (1) 53.7% (22) 19.5% (8) 2.4% (1) 22.0% (9) 2 Suburban 41

8.7% (2) 39.1% (9) 17.4% (4) 0.0% (0) 34.8% (8) 2 Rural 23

promoting character development.

0.0% (0) 37.5% (3) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 25.0% (2) 2 Urban 8

4.9% (2) 56.1% (23) 17.1% (7) 2.4% (1) 19.5% (8) 2 Suburban 41

8.7% (2) 43.5% (10) 13.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 34.8% (8) 2 Rural 23

improving student ethical

behavior.

0.0% (0) 25.0% (2) 37.5% (3) 12.5% (1) 25.0% (2) 3 Urban 8

7.3% (3) 43.9% (18) 22.0% (9) 2.4% (1) 24.4% (10) 2 Suburban 41

4.3% (1) 34.8% (8) 8.7% (2) 13.0% (3) 39.1% (9) 5 Rural 23

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

131

Table A5

Policy Changes by Urban, Suburban and Rural

5. The future roles of technology in education will require changes in existing policies. In the future, these

changes in policy will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

students having the option to

―test out‖ of required courses for graduation by demonstrating

proficiency. Students having the option to graduate early by

demonstrating proficiency to

"test out" of required courses.

0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 62.5% (5) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 73.2% (30) 26.8% (11) 0.0% (0) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 43.5% (10) 47.8% (11) 8.7% (2) 4 Rural 23

students having the option to

graduate early by increasing maximum student course loads.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 87.5% (7) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 65.9% (27) 29.3% (12) 4.9% (2) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 56.5% (13) 43.5% (10) 0.0% (0) 3 Rural 23

students having the option to take advanced online courses

outside of their district for

graduation credit.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (4) 50.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 53.7% (22) 46.3% (19) 0.0% (0) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 47.8% (11) 47.8% (11) 4.3% (1) 3,4 Rural 23

students having the option to

take online courses outside of their district for graduation credit

which are also offered

traditionally within the district.

0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 50.0% (4) 25.0% (2) 12.5% (1) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 12.2% (5) 51.2% (21) 34.1% (14) 2.4% (1) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 21.7% (5) 47.8% (11) 30.4% (7) 0.0% (0) 3 Rural 23

students being required to take at

least one online course as a

graduation requirement.

0.0% (0) 50.0% (4) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 25.0% (2) 2 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 26.8% (11)

34.1% (14) 29.3% (12) 9.8% (4) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 47.8% (11) 34.8% (8) 13.0% (3) 3 Rural 23

students adhering to an ethics

policy for student behaviors in

online courses.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 62.5% (5) 37.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 2.4% (1) 53.7% (22) 39.0% (16) 4.9% (2) 3 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 8.7% (2) 4 Rural 23

districts providing for students

with limited access to

technologies at home.

0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 62.5% (5) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 3 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 9.8% (4) 51.2% (21) 29.3% (12) 9.8% (4) 3 Suburban 41

4.3% (1) 8.7% (2) 47.8% (11) 34.8% (8) 4.3% (1) 3 Rural 23

teachers having ongoing

professional development in

technology.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (4) 50.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Urban 8

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 41.5% (17) 58.5% (24) 0.0% (0) 4 Suburban 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 17.4% (4) 82.6% (19) 0.0% (0) 4 Rural 23

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

132

Appendix F

Responses by Small, Medium, and Large District Size

133

Appendix F

Responses by Small, Medium, and Large District Size

Table A6

Applications by Small, Medium and Large

1. In the future, the applications of technology in education will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

a reduced number of teachers.

20.0% (5) 36.0% (9) 20.0% (5) 8.0% (2) 16.0% (4) 2 Small 25

14.6% (6) 46.3% (19) 14.6% (6) 9.8% (4) 14.6% (6) 2 Medium 41

16.7% (1) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 2 Large 6

supplemented traditional classroom teaching methods.

0.0% (0) 4.0% (1) 36.0% (9) 56.0% (14) 4.0% (1) 4 Small 25

0.0% (0) 4.9% (2) 34.1% (14) 61.0% (25) 0.0% (0) 4 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Large 6

the creation of virtual schools.

0.0% (0) 16.0% (4) 32.0% (8) 36.0% (9) 16.0% (4) 4 Small 25

0.0% (0) 12.2% (5) 41.5% (17) 41.5% (17) 4.9% (2) 3,4 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Large 6

reduced hours students are physically in school.

0.0% (0) 36.0% (9) 36.0% (9) 12.0% (3) 16.0% (4) 2,3 Small 25

2.4% (1) 26.8% (11) 43.9% (18) 19.5% (8) 7.3% (3) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 4 Large 6

online classes offered by districts in addition to traditional classes.

0.0% (0) 8.0% (2) 36.0% (9) 52.0% (13) 4.0% (1) 4 Small 25

0.0% (0) 2.4% (1) 36.6% (15) 61.0% (25) 0.0% (0) 4 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 4 Large 6

a restructured school schedule.

0.0% (0) 16.0% (4) 60.0% (15) 24.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 17.1% (7) 39.0% (16) 39.0% (16) 4.9% (2) 3,4 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 3.4 Large 6

a restructured school calendar.

0.0% (0) 20.0% (5) 48.0% (12) 20.0% (5) 12.0% (3) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 24.4% (10) 29.3% (12) 31.7% (13) 14.6% (6) 4 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (4) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 3 Large 6

a redefined role of teachers.

0.0% (0) 12.0% (3) 40.0% (10) 48.0% (12) 0.0% (0) 4 Small 25

0.0% (0) 9.8% (4) 56.1% (23) 34.1% (14) 0.0% (0) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 2,3,4 Large 6

a redefinition of the education

process.

0.0% (0) 16.0% (4) 44.0% (11) 40.0% (10) 0.0% (0) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 19.5% (8) 56.1% (23) 24.4% (10) 0.0% (0) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (4) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 3 Large 6

college courses accessed online

for both students and staff.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 36.0% (9) 60.0% (15) 4.0% (1) 4 Small 25

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 46.3% (19) 53.7% (22) 0.0% (0) 4 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 4 Large 6

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

134

Table A7

Advantages by Small, Medium and Large

2. There are inherent advantages to the roles of technology in education. In the future, these advantages will

include:

SD D A SA U M G R

increased parent communication.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 40.0% (10) 60.0% (15) 0.0% (0) 4 Small 25

0.0% (0) 2.4% (1) 22.0% (9) 75.6% (31) 0.0% (0) 4 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Large 6

increased monitoring of teachers.

0.0% (0) 12.0% (3) 48.0% (12) 36.0% (9) 4.0% (1) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 22.0% (9) 36.6% (15) 34.1% (14) 7.3% (3) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 2 Large 6

improved quality of

differentiated instruction.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 48.0% (12) 48.0% (12) 4.0% (1) 3,4 Small 25

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 51.2% (21) 43.9% (18) 4.9% (2) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (4) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 3 Large 6

greater access to data for teachers to inform instruction.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 24.0% (6) 76.0% (19) 0.0% (0) 4 Small 25

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 26.8% (11) 70.7% (29) 2.4% (1) 4 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 4 Large 6

increased access for students

with disabilities.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 48.0% (12) 48.0% (12) 4.0% (1) 3,4 Small 25

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 41.5% (17) 58.5% (24) 0.0% (0) 4 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 4 Large 6

paraprofessionals replaced with technology.

16.0% (4) 40.0% (10) 24.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (5) 2 Small 25

7.3% (3) 61.0% (25) 7.3% (3) 12.2% (5) 12.2% (5) 2 Medium 41

16.7% (1) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 2 Large 6

reduced costs of education by

replacing teachers with

technology.

12.0% (3) 68.0% (17) 12.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 8.0% (2) 2 Small 25

7.3% (3) 63.4% (26) 12.2% (5) 9.8% (4) 7.3% (3) 2 Medium 41

16.7% (1) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 2 Large 6

a reduced number of dropouts.

0.0% (0) 20.0% (5) 44.0% (11) 4.0% (1) 32.0% (8) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 19.5% (8) 39.0% (16) 17.1% (7) 24.4% (10) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 2 Large 6

improved graduation rates.

0.0% (0) 20.0% (5) 48.0% (12) 8.0% (2) 24.0% (6) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 12.2% (5) 51.2% (21) 17.1% (7) 19.5% (8) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 2 Large 6

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

135

Table A8

Disadvantages by Small, Medium and Large

3. There are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the future, these

disadvantages will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

uninsured accountability of

student work in online classes.

8.0% (2) 44.0%(11) 44.0%(11) 4.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 2,3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 48.8%(20) 39.0%(16) 2.4% (1) 9.8% (4) 2 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 2 Large 6

micromanagement of student

achievement by parents.

8.0% (2) 40.0%(10) 40.0%(10) 4.0% (1) 8.0% (2) 2,3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 63.4%(26) 29.3%(12) 0.0% (0) 7.3% (3) 2 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 2 Large 6

depersonalized parent to school communication.

12.0% (3) 48.0%(12) 32.0% (8) 4.0% (1) 4.0% (1) 2 Small 25

0.0% (0) 70.7%(29) 22.0% (9) 4.9% (2) 2.4% (1) 2 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 2 Large 6

costs to update technologies.

4.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 56.0%(14) 40.0%(10) 0.0% (0) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 4.9% (2) 53.7%(22) 36.6%(15) 4.9% (2) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 83.3% (5) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 3 Large 6

rapidly changing technologies

become obsolete.

0.0% (0) 4.0% (1) 56.0%(14) 32.0% (8) 8.0% (2) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 4.9% (2) 73.2%(30) 22.0% (9) 0.0% (0) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 66.7% (4) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 3 Large 6

limited student access to technologies at home.

4.0% (1) 32.0% (8) 48.0%(12) 12.0% (3) 4.0% (1) 3 Small 25

2.4% (1) 39.0%(16) 53.7%(22) 2.4% (1) 2.4% (1) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 83.3% (5) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 2 Large 6

reduced face to face interactions

of teachers and students.

4.0% (1) 44.0%(11) 20.0% (5) 24.0% (6) 8.0% (2) 2 Small 25

0.0% (0) 34.1%(14) 41.5%(17) 17.1% (7) 7.3% (3) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 2,3 Large 6

reduced face to face interactions of students.

4.0% (1) 40.0%(10) 24.0% (6) 24.0% (6) 8.0% (2) 2 Small 25

0.0% (0) 29.3%(12) 43.9%(18) 22.0% (9) 4.9% (2) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 2 Large 6

ensured quality of online course content.

8.0% (2) 24.0% (6) 48.0%(12) 12.0% (3) 8.0% (2) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 19.5% (8) 56.1%(23) 17.1% (7) 7.3% (3) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 50.0% (3) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 3 Large 6

reduced teacher creativity.

24.0% (6) 52.0%(13) 8.0% (2) 4.0% (1) 12.0% (3) 2 Small 25

12.2% (5) 68.3%(28) 14.6% (6) 4.9% (2) 0.0% (0) 2 Medium 41

33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 1,2,4 Large 6

reduced problem solving abilities of students.

28.0% (7) 52.0%(13) 8.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 12.0% (3) 2 Small 25

17.1% (7) 70.7%(29) 4.9% (2) 7.3% (3) 0.0% (0) 2 Medium 41

16.7% (1) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 2 Large 6

decreased student ethical behavior.

16.0% (4) 36.0% (9) 4.0% (1) 8.0% (2) 36.0% (9) 2 Small 25

4.9% (2) 61.0%(25) 26.8%(11) 0.0% (0) 7.3% (3) 2 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 66.7% (4) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 2 Large 6

decreased verbal communication

skills of students.

8.0% (2) 36.0% (9) 32.0% (8) 16.0% (4) 8.0% (2) 2 Small 25

2.4% (1) 56.1%(23) 22.0% (9) 14.6% (6) 4.9% (2) 2 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 2 Large 6

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

136

Table A9

Support Education by Small, Medium and Large

4. In the future, technology will support education by:

SD D A SA U M G R

promoting lifelong learning.

0.0% (0) 4.0% (1) 48.0% (12) 48.0% (12) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Small 25

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 70.7% (29) 29.3% (12) 0.0% (0) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 83.3% (5) 0.0% (0) 4 Large 6

producing good citizens.

0.0% (0) 24.0% (6) 36.0% (9) 8.0% (2) 32.0% (8) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 46.3% (19) 26.8% (11) 7.3% (3) 19.5% (8) 2 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 4 Large 6

preparing a skilled workforce.

0.0% (0) 4.0% (1) 52.0% (13) 28.0% (7) 16.0% (4) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 70.7% (29) 22.0% (9) 7.3% (3) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 4 Large 6

allowing for greater student

specialization.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 64.0% (16) 32.0% (8) 4.0% (1) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 4.9% (2) 61.0% (25) 26.8% (11) 7.3% (3) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 3,4 Large 6

preparing students for post-secondary education.

0.0% (0) 4.0% (1) 56.0% (14) 36.0% (9) 4.0% (1) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 9.8% (4) 68.3% (28) 19.5% (8) 2.4% (1) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 4 Large 6

developing critical thinking skills.

0.0% (0) 12.0% (3) 52.0% (13) 20.0% (5) 16.0% (4) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 19.5% (8) 63.4% (26) 17.1% (7) 0.0% (0) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 83.3% (5) 0.0% (0) 4 Large 6

ensuring content knowledge.

0.0% (0) 12.0% (3) 56.0% (14) 24.0% (6) 8.0% (2) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 14.6% (6) 63.4% (26) 14.6% (6) 7.3% (3) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Large 6

making US education more

competitive globally.

0.0% (0) 20.0% (5) 48.0% (12) 24.0% (6) 8.0% (2) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 7.3% (3) 63.4% (26) 17.1% (7) 12.2% (5) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 4 Large 6

promoting wisdom.

8.0% (2) 36.0% (9) 24.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 32.0% (8) 2 Small 25

4.9% (2) 51.2% (21) 17.1% (7) 2.4% (1) 24.4% (10) 2 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 2,3,4 Large 6

promoting character development.

4.0% (1) 44.0% (11) 20.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 32.0% (8) 2 Small 25

7.3% (3) 56.1% (23) 14.6% (6) 2.4% (1) 19.5% (8) 2 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 33.3% (2) 2,5 Large 6

improving student ethical behavior.

0.0% (0) 36.0% (9) 16.0% (4) 12.0% (3) 36.0% (9) 2,5 Small 25

9.8% (4) 43.9% (18) 17.1% (7) 2.4% (1) 26.8% (11) 2 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 50.0% (3) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 3 Large 6

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

137

Table A10

Policy Changes by Small, Medium and Large

5. The future roles of technology in education will require changes in existing policies. In the future, these

changes in policy will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

students having the option to

―test out‖ of required courses for

graduation by demonstrating proficiency. Students having the

option to graduate early by demonstrating proficiency to

"test out" of required courses.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 64.0% (16) 28.0% (7) 8.0% (2) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 63.4% (26) 34.1% (14) 2.4% (1) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 50.0% (3) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 3 Large 6

students having the option to graduate early by increasing

maximum student course loads.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 68.0% (17) 32.0% (8) 0.0% (0) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 63.4% (26) 31.7% (13) 4.9% (2) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (4) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 3 Large 6

students having the option to

take advanced online courses

outside of their district for graduation credit.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 52.0% (13) 44.0% (11) 4.0% (1) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 51.2% (21) 48.8% (20) 0.0% (0) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Large 6

students having the option to

take online courses outside of their district for graduation credit

which are also offered

traditionally within the district.

0.0% (0) 28.0% (7) 44.0% (11) 28.0% (7) 0.0% (0) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 9.8% (4) 51.2% (21) 34.1% (14) 4.9% (2) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (4) 33.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 3 Large 6

students being required to take at

least one online course as a graduation requirement.

0.0% (0) 20.0% (5) 40.0% (10) 24.0% (6) 16.0% (4) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 17.1% (7) 39.0% (16) 34.1% (14) 9.8% (4) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 16.7% (1) 2 Large 6

students adhering to an ethics

policy for student behaviors in

online courses.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 40.0% (10) 52.0% (13) 8.0% (2) 4 Small 25

0.0% (0) 2.4% (1) 51.2% (21) 41.5% (17) 4.9% (2) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (3) 50.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Large 6

districts providing for students with limited access to

technologies at home.

4.0% (1) 8.0% (2) 48.0% (12) 28.0% (7) 12.0% (3) 3 Small 25

0.0% (0) 9.8% (4) 56.1% (23) 29.3% (12) 4.9% (2) 3 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 16.7% (1) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 3,4 Large 6

teachers having ongoing professional development in

technology.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 28.0% (7) 72.0% (18) 0.0% (0) 4 Small 25

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 39.0% (16) 61.0% (25) 0.0% (0) 4 Medium 41

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 66.7% (4) 0.0% (0) 4 Large 6

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

138

Appendix G

Responses by Elementary, K-12 and Regional

139

Appendix G

Responses by Elementary, K-12 and Regional

Table A11

Applications by Elementary, K-12 and Regional

1. In the future, the applications of technology in education will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

a reduced number of teachers.

16.7% (2) 50.0% (6) 16.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (2) 2 Elementary 12

18.2% (10) 45.5% (25) 14.5% (8) 9.1% (5) 12.7% (7) 2 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 2,3,4,5 Regional 4

supplemented traditional

classroom teaching methods.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 41.7% (5) 58.3% (7) 0.0% (0) 4 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 5.5% (3) 38.2% (21) 56.4% (31) 0.0% (0) 4 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 25.0% (1) 4 Regional 4

the creation of virtual schools.

0.0% (0) 33.3% (4) 16.7% (2) 33.3% (4) 16.7% (2) 2,4 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 9.1% (5) 41.8% (23) 41.8% (23) 7.3% (4) 3,4 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 3 Regional 4

reduced hours students are

physically in school.

0.0% (0) 33.3% (4) 33.3% (4) 8.3% (1) 25.0% (3) 2,3 Elementary 12

1.8% (1) 29.1% (16) 41.8% (23) 20.0% (11) 7.3% (4) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 2 Regional 4

online classes offered by districts in addition to traditional classes.

0.0% (0) 16.7% (2) 33.3% (4) 50.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 4 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 1.8% (1) 38.2% (21) 58.2% (32) 1.8% (1) 4 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 4 Regional 4

a restructured school schedule.

0.0% (0) 25.0% (3) 50.0% (6) 25.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 12.7% (7) 47.3% (26) 36.4% (20) 3.6% (2) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 3 Regional 4

a restructured school calendar.

0.0% (0) 33.3% (4) 33.3% (4) 16.7% (2) 16.7% (2) 2,3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 18.2% (10) 40.0% (22) 29.1% (16) 12.7% (7) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 3 Regional 4

a redefined role of teachers.

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 41.7% (5) 50.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 4 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 14.5% (8) 52.7% (29) 32.7% (18) 0.0% (0) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 4 Regional 4

a redefinition of the education

process.

0.0% (0) 16.7% (2) 50.0% (6) 33.3% (4) 0.0% (0) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 18.2% (10) 54.5% (30) 27.3% (15) 0.0% (0) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Regional 4

college courses accessed online

for both students and staff.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (6) 50.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 41.8% (23) 58.2% (32) 0.0% (0) 4 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 4 Regional 4

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

140

Table A12

Advantages by Elementary, K-12 and Regional

2. There are inherent advantages to the roles of technology in education. In the future, these advantages will

include:

SD D A SA U M G R

increased parent communication.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 41.7% (5) 58.3% (7) 0.0% (0) 4 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 1.8% (1) 27.3% (15) 70.9% (39) 0.0% (0) 4 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Regional 4

increased monitoring of teachers.

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 66.7% (8) 16.7% (2) 8.3% (1) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 25.5% (14) 36.4% (20) 32.7% (18) 5.5% (3) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 4 Regional 4

improved quality of differentiated instruction.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (6) 41.7% (5) 8.3% (1) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 52.7% (29) 43.6% (24) 3.6% (2) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Regional 4

greater access to data for

teachers to inform instruction.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 41.7% (5) 58.3% (7) 0.0% (0) 4 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.5% (14) 72.7% (40) 1.8% (1) 4 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 4 Regional 4

increased access for students with disabilities.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (6) 41.7% (5) 8.3% (1) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 1.8% (1) 40.0% (22) 58.2% (32) 0.0% (0) 4 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Regional 4

paraprofessionals replaced with technology.

16.7% (2) 41.7% (5) 25.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (2) 2 Elementary 12

7.3% (4) 61.8% (34) 9.1% (5) 9.1% (5) 12.7% (7) 2 K-12 55

50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 1 Regional 4

reduced costs of education by

replacing teachers with

technology.

25.0% (3) 50.0% (6) 16.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 2 Elementary 12

7.3% (4) 67.3% (37) 9.1% (5) 9.1% (5) 7.3% (4) 2 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2 Regional 4

a reduced number of dropouts.

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 58.3% (7) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (4) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 23.6% (13) 36.4% (20) 14.5% (8) 25.5% (14) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 2 Regional 4

improved graduation rates.

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 58.3% (7) 8.3% (1) 25.0% (3) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 18.2% (10) 45.5% (25) 14.5% (8) 21.8% (12) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2,3 Regional 4

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

141

Table A13

Disadvantages by Elementary, K-12 and Regional

3. There are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the future, these

disadvantages will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

unensured accountability of student

work in online classes.

8.3% (1) 33.3% (4) 58.3% (7) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 52.7%(29) 36.4%(20) 1.8% (1) 9.1% (5) 2 K-12 55

25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 1,2,3,4 Regional 4

micromanagement of student achievement by parents.

8.3% (1) 41.7% (5) 25.0% (3) 8.3% (1) 16.7% (2) 2 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 63.6%(35) 29.1%(16) 0.0% (0) 7.3% (4) 2 K-12 55

25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 3 Regional 4

depersonalized parent to school

communication.

16.7% (2) 50.0% (6) 16.7% (2) 8.3% (1) 8.3% (1) 2 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 67.3%(37) 29.1%(16) 1.8% (1) 1.8% (1) 2 K-12 55

25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 1,2,3,4 Regional 4

costs to update technologies.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (6) 50.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 3.6% (2) 61.8%(34) 30.9%(17) 3.6% (2) 3 K-12 55

25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 4 Regional 4

rapidly changing technologies

become obsolete.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (8) 25.0% (3) 8.3% (1) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 7.3% (4) 70.9%(39) 21.8%(12) 0.0% (0) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 4 Regional 4

limited student access to

technologies at home.

0.0% (0) 41.7% (5) 41.7% (5) 8.3% (1) 8.3% (1) 2,3 Elementary 12

1.8% (1) 40.0%(22) 50.9%(28) 5.5% (3) 1.8% (1) 3 K-12 55

25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2 Regional 4

reduced face to face interactions of

teachers and students.

8.3% (1) 50.0% (6) 25.0% (3) 8.3% (1) 8.3% (1) 2 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 36.4%(20) 38.2%(21) 16.4% (9) 9.1% (5) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 4 Regional 4

reduced face to face interactions of

students.

8.3% (1) 58.3% (7) 8.3% (1) 8.3% (1) 16.7% (2) 2 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 32.7%(18) 41.8%(23) 20.0%(11) 5.5% (3) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 4 Regional 4

ensured quality of online course

content.

8.3% (1) 25.0% (3) 50.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (2) 3 Elementary 12

1.8% (1) 21.8%(12) 54.5%(30) 16.4% (9) 5.5% (3) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Regional 4

reduced teacher creativity.

33.3% (4) 50.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (2) 2 Elementary 12

14.5% (8) 65.5%(36) 10.9% (6) 7.3% (4) 1.8% (1) 2 K-12 55

25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 3 Regional 4

reduced problem solving abilities of students.

33.3% (4) 41.7% (5) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (3) 2 Elementary 12

18.2% (10) 69.1%(38) 5.5% (3) 7.3% (4) 0.0% (0) 2 K-12 55

25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2 Regional 4

decreased student ethical behavior.

25.0% (3) 25.0% (3) 8.3% (1) 16.7% (2) 25.0% (3) 1,2,5 Elementary 12

3.6% (2) 60.0%(33) 21.8%(12) 0.0% (0) 14.5% (8) 2 K-12 55

25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 2 Regional 4

decreased verbal communication skills of students.

16.7% (2) 41.7% (5) 25.0% (3) 8.3% (1) 8.3% (1) 2 Elementary 12

1.8% (1) 52.7% (29) 27.3% (15) 12.7% (7) 5.5% (3) 2 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 4 Regional 4

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

142

Table A14

Support Education by Elementary, K-12 and Regional

4. In the future, technology will support education by:

SD D A SA U M G R

promoting lifelong learning.

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 50.0% (6) 41.7% (5) 0.0% (0) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 61.8% (34) 38.2% (21) 0.0% (0) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Regional 4

producing good citizens.

0.0% (0) 25.0% (3) 41.7% (5) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (4) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 38.2% (21) 29.1% (16) 10.9% (6) 21.8% (12) 2 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 2 Regional 4

preparing a skilled workforce.

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 66.7% (8) 8.3% (1) 16.7% (2) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 60.0% (33) 30.9% (17) 9.1% (5) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 3 Regional 4

allowing for greater student

specialization.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (9) 16.7% (2) 8.3% (1) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 5.5% (3) 58.2% (32) 29.1% (16) 7.3% (4) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Regional 4

preparing students for post-

secondary education.

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 66.7% (8) 16.7% (2) 8.3% (1) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 7.3% (4) 60.0% (33) 30.9% (17) 1.8% (1) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 3 Regional 4

developing critical thinking skills.

0.0% (0) 16.7% (2) 50.0% (6) 8.3% (1) 25.0% (3) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 14.5% (8) 58.2% (32) 25.5% (14) 1.8% (1) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 3 Regional 4

ensuring content knowledge.

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 66.7% (8) 16.7% (2) 8.3% (1) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 10.9% (6) 61.8% (34) 20.0% (11) 7.3% (4) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 2 Regional 4

making US education more

competitive globally.

0.0% (0) 8.3% (1) 58.3% (7) 16.7% (2) 16.7% (2) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 9.1% (5) 56.4% (31) 25.5% (14) 9.1% (5) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2,3 Regional 4

promoting wisdom.

8.3% (1) 33.3% (4) 33.3% (4) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (3) 2,3 Elementary 12

3.6% (2) 47.3% (26) 18.2% (10) 3.6% (2) 27.3% (15) 2 K-12 55

25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2 Regional 4

promoting character development.

0.0% (0) 41.7% (5) 33.3% (4) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (3) 2 Elementary 12

5.5% (3) 52.7% (29) 14.5% (8) 1.8% (1) 25.5% (14) 2 K-12 55

25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 2 Regional 4

improving student ethical behavior.

0.0% (0) 33.3% (4) 33.3% (4) 16.7% (2) 16.7% (2) 2,3 Elementary 12

7.3% (4) 38.2% (21) 18.2% (10) 1.8% (1) 34.5% (19) 2 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 2 Regional 4

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

143

Table A15

Policy Changes by Elementary, K-12 and Regional

5. The future roles of technology in education will require changes in existing policies. In the future, these

changes in policy will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

students having the option to ―test out‖ of required courses for graduation by

demonstrating proficiency. Students

having the option to graduate early by demonstrating proficiency to "test out" of

required courses.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (8) 16.7% (2) 16.7% (2) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 1.8% (1) 65.5% (36) 30.9% (17) 1.8% (1) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 4 Regional 4

students having the option to graduate

early by increasing maximum student

course loads.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (9) 25.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 65.5% (36) 30.9% (17) 3.6% (2) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 50.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Regional 4

students having the option to take

advanced online courses outside of their

district for graduation credit.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (6) 41.7% (5) 8.3% (1) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 54.5% (30) 45.5% (25) 0.0% (0) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 4 Regional 4

students having the option to take online

courses outside of their district for

graduation credit which are also offered traditionally within the district.

0.0% (0) 33.3% (4) 50.0% (6) 16.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 10.9% (6) 54.5% (30) 30.9% (17) 3.6% (2) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 4 Regional 4

students being required to take at least

one online course as a graduation

requirement.

0.0% (0) 16.7% (2) 50.0% (6) 8.3% (1) 25.0% (3) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 23.6% (13) 36.4% (20) 29.1% (16) 10.9% (6) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 75.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 4 Regional 4

students adhering to an ethics policy for student behaviors in online courses.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 41.7% (5) 50.0% (6) 8.3% (1) 4 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 1.8% (1) 50.9% (28) 43.6% (24) 3.6% (2) 3 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (1) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 4 Regional 4

districts providing for students with limited access to technologies at home.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (8) 25.0% (3) 8.3% (1) 3 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 12.7% (7) 49.1% (27) 29.1% (16) 9.1% (5) 3 K-12 55

25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (2) 25.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 3 Regional 4

teachers having ongoing professional development in technology.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (6) 50.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 3,4 Elementary 12

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 34.5% (19) 65.5% (36) 0.0% (0) 4 K-12 55

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 4 Regional 4

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

144

Appendix H

Responses by Superintendent Years of Experience

145

Appendix H

Responses by Superintendent Years of Experience

Table A16

Applications by Experience

1. In the future, the applications of technology in education will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

a reduced number of teachers.

17.4% (4) 39.1% (9) 13.0% (3) 8.7% (2) 21.7% (5) 2 0-3 23

10.0% (1) 70.0% (7) 0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 10.0% (1) 2 4-6 10

17.9% (7) 41.0% (16) 20.5% (8) 10.3% (4) 10.3% (4) 2 7 + 39

supplemented traditional

classroom teaching methods.

0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 43.5% (10) 52.2% (12) 0.0% (0) 4 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 90.0% (9) 0.0% (0) 4 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 2.6% (1) 41.0% (16) 53.8% (21) 2.6% (1) 4 7 + 39

the creation of virtual schools.

0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) 39.1% (9) 43.5% (10) 8.7% (2) 4 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 40.0% (4) 30.0% (3) 20.0% (2) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 15.4% (6) 38.5% (15) 41.0% (16) 5.1% (2) 4 7 + 39

reduced hours students are

physically in school.

4.3% (1) 26.1% (6) 39.1% (9) 21.7% (5) 8.7% (2) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 40.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 33.3% (13) 38.5% (15) 23.1% (9) 5.1% (2) 3 7 + 39

online classes offered by districts

in addition to traditional classes.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 34.8% (8) 65.2% (15) 0.0% (0) 4 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 60.0% (6) 30.0% (3) 10.0% (1) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 7.7% (3) 30.8% (12) 61.5% (24) 0.0% (0) 4 7 + 39

a restructured school schedule.

0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) 47.8% (11) 43.5% (10) 0.0% (0) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 20.0% (2) 60.0% (6) 20.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 17.9% (7) 43.6% (17) 33.3% (13) 5.1% (2) 3 7 + 39

a restructured school calendar.

0.0% (0) 26.1% (6) 34.8% (8) 26.1% (6) 13.0% (3) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 50.0% (5) 10.0% (1) 30.0% (3) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 20.5% (8) 38.5% (15) 33.3% (13) 7.7% (3) 3 7 + 39

a redefined role of teachers.

0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 60.9% (14) 34.8% (8) 0.0% (0) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (5) 50.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 3,4 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 20.5% (8) 41.0% (16) 38.5% (15) 0.0% (0) 3 7 + 39

a redefinition of the education

process.

0.0% (0) 21.7% (5) 56.5% (13) 21.7% (5) 0.0% (0) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (5) 50.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 3,4 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 17.9% (7) 51.3% (20) 30.8% (12) 0.0% (0) 3 7 + 39

college courses accessed online

for both students and staff.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 43.5% (10) 56.5% (13) 0.0% (0) 4 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (5) 50.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 3,4 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 38.5% (15) 59.0% (23) 2.6% (1) 4 7 + 39

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

146

Table A17

Advantages by Experience

2. There are inherent advantages to the roles of technology in education. In the future, these advantages will

include:

SD D A SA U M G R

increased parent communication.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 34.8% (8) 65.2% (15) 0.0% (0) 4 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 90.0% (9) 0.0% (0) 4 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 2.6% (1) 33.3% (13) 64.1% (25) 0.0% (0) 4 7 + 39

increased monitoring of teachers.

0.0% (0) 13.0% (3) 47.8% (11) 34.8% (8) 4.3% (1) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 20.0% (2) 70.0% (7) 0.0% (0) 4 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 28.2% (11) 41.0% (16) 23.1% (9) 7.7% (3) 3 7 + 39

improved quality of

differentiated instruction.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 52.2% (12) 39.1% (9) 8.7% (2) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (2) 80.0% (8) 0.0% (0) 4 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 59.0% (23) 38.5% (15) 2.6% (1) 3 7 + 39

greater access to data for

teachers to inform instruction.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 26.1% (6) 73.9% (17) 0.0% (0) 4 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (10) 0.0% (0) 4 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (13) 64.1% (25) 2.6% (1) 4 7 + 39

increased access for students with disabilities.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 34.8% (8) 65.2% (15) 0.0% (0) 4 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 70.0% (7) 0.0% (0) 4 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 2.6% (1) 48.7% (19) 46.2% (18) 2.6% (1) 3 7 + 39

paraprofessionals replaced with

technology.

8.7% (2) 56.5% (13) 8.7% (2) 4.3% (1) 21.7% (5) 2 0-3 23

20.0% (2) 30.0% (3) 10.0% (1) 10.0% (1) 30.0% (3) 2,5 4-6 10

10.3% (4) 59.0% (23) 15.4% (6) 10.3% (4) 5.1% (2) 2 7 + 39

reduced costs of education by

replacing teachers with technology.

8.7% (2) 60.9% (14) 13.0% (3) 4.3% (1) 13.0% (3) 2 0-3 23

20.0% (2) 60.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 10.0% (1) 2 4-6 10

7.7% (3) 66.7% (26) 12.8% (5) 10.3% (4) 2.6% (1) 2 7 + 39

a reduced number of dropouts.

0.0% (0) 30.4% (7) 26.1% (6) 13.0% (3) 30.4% (7) 2,5 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 60.0% (6) 10.0% (1) 20.0% (2) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 20.5% (8) 41.0% (16) 12.8% (5) 25.6% (10) 3 7 + 39

improved graduation rates.

0.0% (0) 26.1% (6) 43.5% (10) 13.0% (3) 17.4% (4) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 60.0% (6) 10.0% (1) 30.0% (3) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 17.9% (7) 46.2% (18) 15.4% (6) 20.5% (8) 3 7 + 39

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

147

Table A18

Disadvantages by Experience

3. There are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the future, these

disadvantages will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

uninsured accountability of student work in online classes.

0.0% (0) 65.2%(15) 26.1% (6) 4.3% (1) 4.3% (1) 2 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 50.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (2) 3 4-6 10

5.1% (2) 41.0%(16) 43.6%(17) 5.1% (2) 5.1% (2) 3 7 + 39

micromanagement of student

achievement by parents.

0.0% (0) 69.6%(16) 17.4% (4) 4.3% (1) 8.7% (2) 2 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 50.0% (5) 40.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 2 4-6 10

5.1% (2) 48.7%(19) 35.9%(14) 2.6% (1) 7.7% (3) 2 7 + 39

depersonalized parent to school

communication.

0.0% (0) 52.2%(12) 43.5%(10) 0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 2 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 70.0% (7) 20.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 2 4-6 10

7.7% (3) 64.1%(25) 17.9% (7) 10.3% (4) 0.0% (0) 2 7 + 39

costs to update technologies.

0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 56.5%(13) 30.4% (7) 8.7% (2) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 50.0% (5) 40.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 3 4-6 10

2.6% (1) 0.0% (0) 59.0%(23) 38.5%(15) 0.0% (0) 3 7 + 39

rapidly changing technologies

become obsolete.

0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 82.6%(19) 13.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 60.0% (6) 30.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 5.1% (2) 59.0%(23) 30.8%(12) 5.1% (2) 3 7 + 39

limited student access to

technologies at home.

0.0% (0) 43.5%(10) 47.8%(11) 4.3% (1) 4.3% (1) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 60.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 3 4-6 10

5.1% (2) 41.0%(16) 43.6%(17) 10.3% (4) 0.0% (0) 3 7 + 39

reduced face to face interactions

of teachers and students.

0.0% (0) 34.8% (8) 39.1% (9) 13.0% (3) 13.0% (3) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 50.0% (5) 20.0% (2) 10.0% (1) 20.0% (2) 2 4-6 10

2.6% (1) 35.9%(14) 33.3%(13) 25.6%(10) 2.6% (1) 2 7 + 39

reduced face to face interactions of students.

0.0% (0) 30.4% (7) 43.5%(10) 17.4% (4) 8.7% (2) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 40.0% (4) 40.0% (4) 10.0% (1) 10.0% (1) 2,3 4-6 10

2.6% (1) 35.9%(14) 28.2%(11) 28.2%(11) 5.1% (2) 2 7 + 39

ensured quality of online course content.

0.0% (0) 30.4% (7) 43.5%(10) 17.4% (4) 8.7% (2) 3 0-3 23

10.0% (1) 20.0% (2) 50.0% (5) 10.0% (1) 10.0% (1) 3 4-6 10

2.6% (1) 15.4% (6) 59.0%(23) 17.9% (7) 5.1% (2) 3 7 + 39

reduced teacher creativity.

17.4% (4) 65.2%(15) 8.7% (2) 8.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 2 0-3 23

30.0% (3) 50.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (2) 2 4-6 10

15.4% (6) 59.0%(23) 15.4% (6) 7.7% (3) 2.6% (1) 2 7 + 39

reduced problem solving abilities of students.

17.4% (4) 73.9%(17) 0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 2 0-3 23

30.0% (3) 60.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 2 4-6 10

20.5% (8) 56.4%(22) 10.3% (4) 7.7% (3) 5.1% (2) 2 7 + 39

decreased student ethical

behavior.

8.7% (2) 65.2%(15) 21.7% (5) 0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 2 0-3 23

20.0% (2) 40.0% (4) 10.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 2 4-6 10

5.1% (2) 48.7%(19) 17.9% (7) 7.7% (3) 20.5% (8) 2 7 + 39

decreased verbal communication

skills of students.

4.3% (1) 47.8%(11) 21.7% (5) 17.4% (4) 8.7% (2) 2 0-3 23

10.0% (1) 50.0% (5) 20.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (2) 2 4-6 10

2.6% (1) 48.7%(19) 30.8% (12) 17.9% (7) 0.0% (0) 2 7 + 39

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

148

Table A19

Support Education by Experience

4. In the future, technology will support education by:

SD D A SA U M G R

promoting lifelong learning.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 69.6% (16) 30.4% (7) 0.0% (0) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 40.0% (4) 60.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 4 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 2.6% (1) 56.4% (22) 41.0% (16) 0.0% (0) 3 7 + 39

producing good citizens.

0.0% (0) 34.8% (8) 34.8% (8) 8.7% (2) 21.7% (5) 2,3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 40.0% (4) 20.0% (2) 30.0% (3) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 46.2% (18) 23.1% (9) 10.3% (4) 20.5% (8) 2 7 + 39

preparing a skilled workforce.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 60.9% (14) 34.8% (8) 4.3% (1) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (5) 40.0% (4) 10.0% (1) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 2.6% (1) 64.1% (25) 20.5% (8) 12.8% (5) 3 7 + 39

allowing for greater student

specialization.

0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 56.5% (13) 34.8% (8) 4.3% (1) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 70.0% (7) 30.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 5.1% (2) 59.0% (23) 25.6% (10) 10.3% (4) 3 7 + 39

preparing students for post-

secondary education.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 56.5% (13) 39.1% (9) 4.3% (1) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 50.0% (5) 40.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 10.3% (4) 66.7% (26) 20.5% (8) 2.6% (1) 3 7 + 39

developing critical thinking skills.

0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) 60.9% (14) 30.4% (7) 0.0% (0) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 70.0% (7) 20.0% (2) 10.0% (1) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 23.1% (9) 48.7% (19) 20.5% (8) 7.7% (3) 3 7 + 39

ensuring content knowledge.

0.0% (0) 8.7% (2) 65.2% (15) 21.7% (5) 4.3% (1) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (5) 40.0% (4) 10.0% (1) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 17.9% (7) 59.0% (23) 15.4% (6) 7.7% (3) 3 7 + 39

making US education more

competitive globally.

0.0% (0) 13.0% (3) 52.2% (12) 26.1% (6) 8.7% (2) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 40.0% (4) 60.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 4 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 12.8% (5) 61.5% (24) 12.8% (5) 12.8% (5) 3 7 + 39

promoting wisdom.

8.7% (2) 43.5% (10) 13.0% (3) 4.3% (1) 30.4% (7) 2 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 60.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 3 4-6 10

5.1% (2) 53.8% (21) 15.4% (6) 5.1% (2) 20.5% (8) 2 7 + 39

promoting character development.

4.3% (1) 47.8% (11) 8.7% (2) 4.3% (1) 34.8% (8) 2 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 50.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 40.0% (4) 3 4-6 10

7.7% (3) 61.5% (24) 12.8% (5) 2.6% (1) 15.4% (6) 2 7 + 39

improving student ethical behavior.

4.3% (1) 39.1% (9) 13.0% (3) 4.3% (1) 39.1% (9) 2,5 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 10.0% (1) 50.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 40.0% (4) 3 4-6 10

7.7% (3) 46.2% (18) 15.4% (6) 10.3% (4) 20.5% (8) 2 7 + 39

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

149

Table A20

Policy Changes by Experience

5. The future roles of technology in education will require changes in existing policies. In the future, these

changes in policy will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

students having the option to ―test

out‖ of required courses for

graduation by demonstrating proficiency. Students having the

option to graduate early by demonstrating proficiency to "test

out" of required courses.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 73.9% (17) 26.1% (6) 0.0% (0) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 80.0% (8) 20.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 2.6% (1) 51.3% (20) 38.5% (15) 7.7% (3) 3 7 + 39

students having the option to

graduate early by increasing

maximum student course loads.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 69.6% (16) 26.1% (6) 4.3% (1) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 70.0% (7) 30.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 61.5% (24) 35.9% (14) 2.6% (1) 3 7 + 39

students having the option to take advanced online courses outside of

their district for graduation credit.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 47.8% (11) 52.2% (12) 0.0% (0) 4 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 70.0% (7) 30.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 48.7% (19) 48.7% (19) 2.6% (1) 3,4 7 + 39

students having the option to take

online courses outside of their district for graduation credit which

are also offered traditionally within

the district.

0.0% (0) 4.3% (1) 60.9% (14) 34.8% (8) 0.0% (0) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 60.0% (6) 10.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 17.9% (7) 41.0% (16) 35.9% (14) 5.1% (2) 3 7 + 39

students being required to take at

least one online course as a

graduation requirement.

0.0% (0) 30.4% (7) 34.8% (8) 26.1% (6) 8.7% (2) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 30.0% (3) 20.0% (2) 20.0% (2) 2,3 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 15.4% (6) 38.5% (15) 33.3% (13) 12.8% (5) 3 7 + 39

students adhering to an ethics

policy for student behaviors in online courses.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 60.9% (14) 39.1% (9) 0.0% (0) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 40.0% (4) 60.0% (6) 0.0% (0) 4 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 2.6% (1) 41.0% (16) 46.2% (18) 10.3% (4) 4 7 + 39

districts providing for students with limited access to technologies at

home.

0.0% (0) 21.7% (5) 52.2% (12) 21.7% (5) 4.3% (1) 3 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 60.0% (6) 30.0% (3) 10.0% (1) 3 4-6 10

2.6% (1) 5.1% (2) 48.7% (19) 33.3% (13) 10.3% (4) 3 7 + 39

teachers having ongoing

professional development in

technology.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 30.4% (7) 69.6% (16) 0.0% (0) 4 0-3 23

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 30.0% (3) 70.0% (7) 0.0% (0) 4 4-6 10

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 38.5% (15) 61.5% (24) 0.0% (0) 4 7 + 39

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

150

Appendix I

Responses by Superintendent Gender

151

Appendix I

Responses by Superintendent Gender

Table A21

Applications by Gender

1. In the future, the applications of technology in education will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

a reduced number of teachers.

20.0% (9) 44.4% (20) 15.6% (7) 6.7% (3) 13.3% (6) 2 Male 45

11.1% (3) 44.4% (12) 14.8% (4) 14.8% (4) 14.8% (4) 2 Female 27

supplemented traditional classroom

teaching methods.

0.0% (0) 4.4% (2) 35.6% (16) 60.0% (27) 0.0% (0) 4 Male 45

0.0% (0) 3.7% (1) 37.0% (10) 55.6% (15) 3.7% (1) 4 Female 27

the creation of virtual schools.

0.0% (0) 17.8% (8) 33.3% (15) 42.2% (19) 6.7% (3) 4 Male 45

0.0% (0) 3.7% (1) 48.1% (13) 37.0% (10) 11.1% (3) 3 Female 27

reduced hours students are

physically in school.

0.0% (0) 35.6% (16) 33.3% (15) 24.4% (11) 6.7% (3) 2 Male 45

3.7% (1) 22.2% (6) 48.1% (13) 11.1% (3) 14.8% (4) 3 Female 27

online classes offered by districts in

addition to traditional classes.

0.0% (0) 6.7% (3) 37.8% (17) 55.6% (25) 0.0% (0) 4 Male 45

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (9) 63.0% (17) 3.7% (1) 4 Female 27

a restructured school schedule.

0.0% (0) 20.0% (9) 40.0% (18) 35.6% (16) 4.4% (2) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 7.4% (2) 59.3% (16) 33.3% (9) 0.0% (0) 3 Female 27

a restructured school calendar.

0.0% (0) 26.7% (12) 28.9% (13) 31.1% (14) 13.3% (6) 4 Male 45

0.0% (0) 11.1% (3) 55.6% (15) 22.2% (6) 11.1% (3) 3 Female 27

a redefined role of teachers.

0.0% (0) 13.3% (6) 44.4% (20) 42.2% (19) 0.0% (0) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 11.1% (3) 55.6% (15) 33.3% (9) 0.0% (0) 3 Female 27

a redefinition of the education

process.

0.0% (0) 22.2% (10) 46.7% (21) 31.1% (14) 0.0% (0) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 7.4% (2) 63.0% (17) 29.6% (8) 0.0% (0) 3 Female 27

college courses accessed online for

both students and staff.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 42.2% (19) 55.6% (25) 2.2% (1) 4 Male 45

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 40.7% (11) 59.3% (16) 0.0% (0) 4 Female 27

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

152

Table A22

Advantages by Gender

2. There are inherent advantages to the roles of technology in education. In the future, these advantages will

include:

SD D A SA U M G R

increased parent communication.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 26.7% (12) 73.3% (33) 0.0% (0) 4 Male 45

0.0% (0) 3.7% (1) 37.0% (10) 59.3% (16) 0.0% (0) 4 Female 27

increased monitoring of teachers.

0.0% (0) 20.0% (9) 42.2% (19) 31.1% (14) 6.7% (3) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 22.2% (6) 37.0% (10) 37.0% (10) 3.7% (1) 3,4 Female 27

improved quality of

differentiated instruction.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 51.1% (23) 44.4% (20) 4.4% (2) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 51.9% (14) 44.4% (12) 3.7% (1) 3 Female 27

greater access to data for teachers to inform instruction.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 26.7% (12) 73.3% (33) 0.0% (0) 4 Male 45

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 25.9% (7) 70.4% (19) 3.7% (1) 4 Female 27

increased access for students with disabilities.

0.0% (0) 2.2% (1) 48.9% (22) 46.7% (21) 2.2% (1) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 29.6% (8) 70.4% (19) 0.0% (0) 4 Female 27

paraprofessionals replaced with technology.

11.1% (5) 57.8% (26) 11.1% (5) 6.7% (3) 13.3% (6) 2 Male 45

11.1% (3) 48.1% (13) 14.8% (4) 11.1% (3) 14.8% (4) 2 Female 27

reduced costs of education by replacing teachers with

technology.

11.1% (5) 60.0% (27) 15.6% (7) 6.7% (3) 6.7% (3) 2 Male 45

7.4% (2) 70.4% (19) 3.7% (1) 11.1% (3) 7.4% (2) 2 Female 27

a reduced number of dropouts.

0.0% (0) 26.7% (12) 37.8% (17) 8.9% (4) 26.7% (12) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 14.8% (4) 40.7% (11) 18.5% (5) 25.9% (7) 3 Female 27

improved graduation rates.

0.0% (0) 22.2% (10) 48.9% (22) 11.1% (5) 17.8% (8) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 11.1% (3) 44.4% (12) 18.5% (5) 25.9% (7) 3 Female 27

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

153

Table A23

Disadvantages by Gender

3. There are inherent disadvantages to the roles of technology in education. In the future, these

disadvantages will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

uninsured accountability of

student work in online classes.

4.4% (2) 42.2% (19) 40.0% (18) 6.7% (3) 6.7% (3) 2 Male 45

0.0% (0) 55.6% (15) 37.0% (10) 0.0% (0) 7.4% (2) 2 Female 27

micromanagement of student achievement by parents.

4.4% (2) 51.1% (23) 33.3% (15) 2.2% (1) 8.9% (4) 2 Male 45

0.0% (0) 63.0% (17) 25.9% (7) 3.7% (1) 7.4% (2) 2 Female 27

depersonalized parent to school

communication.

6.7% (3) 60.0% (27) 22.2% (10) 8.9% (4) 2.2% (1) 2 Male 45

0.0% (0) 63.0% (17) 33.3% (9) 0.0% (0) 3.7% (1) 2 Female 27

costs to update technologies. 2.2% (1) 4.4% (2) 53.3% (24) 37.8% (17) 2.2% (1) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 63.0% (17) 33.3% (9) 3.7% (1) 3 Female 27

rapidly changing technologies

become obsolete.

0.0% (0) 6.7% (3) 66.7% (30) 22.2% (10) 4.4% (2) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 3.7% (1) 66.7% (18) 29.6% (8) 0.0% (0) 3 Female 27

limited student access to technologies at home.

4.4% (2) 44.4% (20) 40.0% (18) 8.9% (4) 2.2% (1) 2 Male 45

0.0% (0) 33.3% (9) 59.3% (16) 3.7% (1) 3.7% (1) 3 Female 27

reduced face to face interactions

of teachers and students.

2.2% (1) 37.8% (17) 26.7% (12) 26.7% (12) 6.7% (3) 2 Male 45

0.0% (0) 37.0% (10) 44.4% (12) 7.4% (2) 11.1% (3) 3 Female 27

reduced face to face interactions of students.

2.2% (1) 37.8% (17) 24.4% (11) 28.9% (13) 6.7% (3) 2 Male 45

0.0% (0) 29.6% (8) 51.9% (14) 11.1% (3) 7.4% (2) 3 Female 27

ensured quality of online course

content.

4.4% (2) 15.6% (7) 51.1% (23) 22.2% (10) 6.7% (3) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 29.6% (8) 55.6% (15) 7.4% (2) 7.4% (2) 3 Female 27

reduced teacher creativity. 26.7% (12) 55.6% (25) 8.9% (4) 8.9% (4) 0.0% (0) 2 Male 45

3.7% (1) 66.7% (18) 14.8% (4) 3.7% (1) 11.1% (3) 2 Female 27

reduced problem solving abilities

of students.

28.9% (13) 57.8% (26) 2.2% (1) 8.9% (4) 2.2% (1) 2 Male 45

7.4% (2) 70.4% (19) 11.1% (3) 3.7% (1) 7.4% (2) 2 Female 27

decreased student ethical behavior.

11.1% (5) 46.7% (21) 15.6% (7) 6.7% (3) 20.0% (9) 2 Male 45

3.7% (1) 63.0% (17) 22.2% (6) 0.0% (0) 11.1% (3) 2 Female 27

decreased verbal communication

skills of students.

4.4% (2) 46.7% (21) 24.4% (11) 20.0% (9) 4.4% (2) 2 Male 45

3.7% (1) 51.9% (14) 29.6% (8) 7.4% (2) 7.4% (2) 2 Female 27

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

154

Table A24

Support Education by Gender

4. In the future, technology will support education by:

SD D A SA U M G R

promoting lifelong learning.

0.0% (0) 2.2% (1) 57.8% (26) 40.0% (18) 0.0% (0) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 59.3% (16) 40.7% (11) 0.0% (0) 3 Female 27

producing good citizens.

0.0% (0) 35.6% (16) 26.7% (12) 13.3% (6) 24.4% (11) 2 Male 45

0.0% (0) 40.7% (11) 33.3% (9) 7.4% (2) 18.5% (5) 2 Female 27

preparing a skilled workforce.

0.0% (0) 2.2% (1) 55.6% (25) 28.9% (13) 13.3% (6) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 70.4% (19) 25.9% (7) 3.7% (1) 3 Female 27

allowing for greater student

specialization.

0.0% (0) 4.4% (2) 53.3% (24) 31.1% (14) 11.1% (5) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 3.7% (1) 70.4% (19) 25.9% (7) 0.0% (0) 3 Female 27

preparing students for post-secondary education.

0.0% (0) 8.9% (4) 55.6% (25) 33.3% (15) 2.2% (1) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 3.7% (1) 70.4% (19) 22.2% (6) 3.7% (1) 3 Female 27

developing critical thinking

skills.

0.0% (0) 17.8% (8) 53.3% (24) 24.4% (11) 4.4% (2) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 11.1% (3) 59.3% (16) 22.2% (6) 7.4% (2) 3 Female 27

ensuring content knowledge.

0.0% (0) 15.6% (7) 55.6% (25) 26.7% (12) 2.2% (1) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 7.4% (2) 66.7% (18) 11.1% (3) 14.8% (4) 3 Female 27

making US education more

competitive globally.

0.0% (0) 13.3% (6) 51.1% (23) 24.4% (11) 11.1% (5) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 7.4% (2) 63.0% (17) 22.2% (6) 7.4% (2) 3 Female 27

promoting wisdom.

6.7% (3) 44.4% (20) 22.2% (10) 6.7% (3) 20.0% (9) 2 Male 45

3.7% (1) 44.4% (12) 18.5% (5) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (9) 2 Female 27

promoting character

development.

6.7% (3) 51.1% (23) 17.8% (8) 4.4% (2) 20.0% (9) 2 Male 45

3.7% (1) 48.1% (13) 14.8% (4) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (9) 2 Female 27

improving student ethical

behavior.

6.7% (3) 33.3% (15) 22.2% (10) 11.1% (5) 26.7% (12) 2 Male 45

3.7% (1) 48.1% (13) 14.8% (4) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (9) 2 Female 27

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.

155

Table A25

Policy Changes by Gender

5. The future roles of technology in education will require changes in existing policies. In the future, these

changes in policy will include:

SD D A SA U M G R

students having the option to

―test out‖ of required courses for graduation by demonstrating

proficiency. Students having the

option to graduate early by

demonstrating proficiency to

"test out" of required courses.

0.0% (0) 2.2% (1) 64.4% (29) 28.9% (13) 4.4% (2) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 59.3% (16) 37.0% (10) 3.7% (1) 3 Female 27

students having the option to

graduate early by increasing maximum student course loads.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 66.7% (30) 28.9% (13) 4.4% (2) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 63.0% (17) 37.0% (10) 0.0% (0) 3 Female 27

students having the option to

take advanced online courses

outside of their district for graduation credit.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 53.3% (24) 44.4% (20) 2.2% (1) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 48.1% (13) 51.9% (14) 0.0% (0) 4 Female 27

students having the option to

take online courses outside of

their district for graduation credit

which are also offered

traditionally within the district.

0.0% (0) 17.8% (8) 48.9% (22) 31.1% (14) 2.2% (1) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 11.1% (3) 51.9% (14) 33.3% (9) 3.7% (1) 3 Female 27

students being required to take at least one online course as a

graduation requirement.

0.0% (0) 17.8% (8) 37.8% (17) 26.7% (12) 17.8% (8) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 29.6% (8) 33.3% (9) 33.3% (9) 3.7% (1) 3,4 Female 27

students adhering to an ethics

policy for student behaviors in online courses.

0.0% (0) 2.2% (1) 42.2% (19) 46.7% (21) 8.9% (4) 4 Male 45

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 55.6% (15) 44.4% (12) 0.0% (0) 3 Female 27

districts providing for students

with limited access to

technologies at home.

2.2% (1) 13.3% (6) 46.7% (21) 26.7% (12) 11.1% (5) 3 Male 45

0.0% (0) 3.7% (1) 59.3% (16) 33.3% (9) 3.7% (1) 3 Female 27

teachers having ongoing

professional development in technology.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 37.8% (17) 62.2% (28) 0.0% (0) 4 Male 45

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 29.6% (8) 70.4% (19) 0.0% (0) 4 Female 27

Note. SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree, U = Undecided, M = Modal Rating,

G = Group, R = Response, ( ) = actual number of responses, bold = majority.