Technology Integration and Educational Change: Is it Possible?

Select a different paper
Download a copy of the entire paper

Introduction

As you read the literature on educational change, a couple of themes emerge rather quickly. First, that change not only continues at an unprecedented rate and this rate of change has been increasing for more than 30 years. Secondly, after years of intensive study and research into the “hows and whys” of educational change, there is very little agreement on the findings. This combined with the changing role of schools and increased pressure on schools to meet the needs of all students would seem to bring the need to understand change to the educational forefront.

Among the numerous changes that schools have faced over the past decade or so has been the on-going evolution of technology use in schools. It is no secret that schools have not progressed as quickly in this area as many educational partners would like. For example, Trottier (cited in Earle, 2002, p. 6) found that 43% of the people surveyed said that technology integration in schools is not happening fast enough. However, the reasons as to why this is so are not clear.

The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the barriers to technology integration in schools, examine educational change theory and see if utilizing technology in teacher professional development might be a catalyst that inspires the transformation in schools that will be necessary to realize the full potential of technology in education.

Barriers to Technology Integration

The change process is complex. One could therefore assume that the problems and barriers associated complex change are also complex. According to Fullan, technological change is considered to be a major innovation not a minor one (Fullan, 1992 p. 57).

As with any educational change, there are many barriers that can cause any innovation to be less than substantially realized. Technological change is no different. One of the most alarming facts is the fact that the same barriers have existed for a very long time without much organizational success in overcoming them. For example, during the post World War II era, picture film became one of the world’s most prominent technologies. This new technology was alleged to transform not only the way we lived but in the way students would learn at school. There were however, disappointments in how educators used film and there were some barriers to its implementation as a teaching tool. Barriers included:

1. finding the right match between the film resources and the curriculum;
2. inaccessibility of equipment;
3. cost of films and upkeep; and,
4. lack of teacher skills in using the equipment and film. (Leggett & Persichitte, (1998).

More than fifty years later, the literature describing barriers to technology integration looks strikingly similar. For example, today’s most commonly cited barriers are:

1. lack of time;
2. lack of access;
3. lack of resources;
4. lack of expertise; and,
5. lack of support (Butler and Sellbom, 2002; Leggett & Persichitte, 1998; Rogers, 2000).

Perhaps one of the reasons why the same barriers persist today is that these barriers have been dealt with in isolation. For example, a simple strategy to overcome such barriers might be to simply remove them. However, that has not always resulted in the appropriate or increased use of technology in schools. This would suggest that there are more complex factors involved in successfully integrating technology into the curriculum.

Part of the problem could be the educational system’s inability to break free of the ways that staff development has been done for years. Salomon (2002) observes that there is tremendous potential in integrating technology into schools but it is not being realized. Part of the reason is that teachers do not separate the computer training they receive from the new learning theories they are trying. In a study of teachers being trained in constructivist teaching using technology, the training was not fully realized because teachers felt they learned about computers, not about a new learning theory. This again shows the skill bias associated with technology integration and the effect that such a bias has on change. In Saskatchewan we have had similar experiences with the use of graphing calculators and spreadsheets in mathematics and various other instructional and productivity software in a variety of other subjects. Teachers need staff development in these areas but these skills must be learned in context and student learning needs to be the focus, not the technology. Teaching skills in isolation will not motivate teachers to use them. It is the same as teaching shooting skills and dribbling skills in basketball. We would not teach these skills independently to student sunless we expected them eventually to play a game.

The Butler and Selbom (2002) study recently conducted at Ball State University in Indiana and, a similar study conducted at Illinois State by Chizmar & Williams (2001), confirms both the existence of the aforementioned barriers, and they added reliability as another barrier. Reliability included hardware failures, incompatible software between work and home, poor or slow Internet access and out of date software (students have better and more up-to-date software at home). They also concluded that the attitude of faculty has a strong influence over how technology is integrated. Faculty attitudes were partly shaped by the skepticism that faculty had regarding the overall effect technology integration had on student learning. There also seemed to be a connection between teacher attitude and where they could be placed on a continuum of technology use and innovation.

The categories that people tend to fall into during a particular technological change are innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards (Butler and Sellbom, 2002). Rogers (2000) argued that that teachers fall into one of five categories as they move through the change process. These five categories are familiarization (base-line exposure to technology), utilization (occurs when teachers try to use technology), integration (marks the beginning of appropriate technology use in the classroom), reorientation (computer based technologies become part of the learning context) and evolution (the ability to change and grow as the needs of the learner and the learning context change). Both of these authors list barriers to technology integration based on how teachers are categorized and there seems to be some evidence that these barriers not only are not only different; they are also perceived differently by each group. However, merely listing and categorizing barriers oversimplifies a complex issue.

Earle (2002) suggests only three stages or categories that teachers move through on their way to adopting a change. Those stages are confidence, competence and creativity. Although these stages are not as detailed as the ones indicated by other researchers, this still suggests that the teacher is an important part of the complex process that is involved with the integration of educational technology into schools.

Change Theory

Research on educational change has been going on for decades. Many studies were conducted in the U.S. as early as the 1930’s and many more studies were done over the following twenty year period. Some of the most significant findings from these early studies were:

• The time between innovation and institutionalization takes decades although there is a surge in the system when many schools adopt at the same time.
• Schools vary greatly in both their willingness or ability to adopt new practices.
• Interest groups both inside and outside of the school are critical elements in the adoption process (Mort, cited in Louis, 1996, p. 1).

Technology integration in schools in the year 2004 can most certainly be described in these same terms. Integrating technology into schools is taking a long time and the time frame is best described in terms of decades. There seems to be willingness on the part of some schools and school systems to embrace technology as a teaching tool but there also appears to be some skepticism on the part of others. And interest groups most certainly have a role to play both at then local level and provincially in Saskatchewan. For example, at the 2003 annual convention of the Saskatchewan School Boards Association held in Saskatoon this past November, there was a question posed to delegates about the possibility of making at least one online course a compulsory part of K-12 education and a requirement for graduation. The position taken by an influential organization such as the Saskatchewan School Boards Association could be a catalyst for things to come.

However, when you consider all of the research on educational change and all of the factors that either contribute to or detract from change, the teacher is a key player in the process. When examining the role of the teacher in relation to an educational change such as the integration of technology into the curriculum, a number of factors need to be considered. For example, teachers and administrators need to see technology as contributing to student learning before they will “buy in” to the process. Therefore this is an important factor that must be built into a change plan. This must be done in a purposeful way and cannot be left to chance. Other important factors would be involving the community and other educational stakeholders early in the process of planning. If pressure is important as well as support, then support needs to be planned.

Additionally, rural schools, according to the research, will have a more difficult time in planning and implementing change by virtue of the community infrastructure. This has tremendous implications for provinces like Saskatchewan where a large part of the school population and the teacher population still reside in small rural communities.

Fullan (1991, p. 315) says that “continuous development of all teachers is the cornerstone for meaning, improvement and reform. Professional development and school development are inextricable linked.” He also argues that

“the theory of change that we have been evolving clearly points to the importance of peer relationships within the school. Change involves learning to do something new, and interaction is the primary basis for social learning. New meanings, new behaviors, new skills and new beliefs depend significantly on whether teachers working as isolated individuals or are exchanging ideas, support and positive feelings about their work” (Fullan, 1991 p. 77).

Dooley (1992, p. 6) states “The active seeking of change is essential to the continuous renewal of both the educational system and of the educators within it.” Dooley also says that “teachers as lifelong learners need to be part of a culture characterized by collaboration, dialogue, action planning and reflection” (1992 p.7). Fullan (1991, p. 41) also says,

“beliefs guide and are formed by teaching strategies and activities; the effective use of materials depends on their articulation with beliefs and teaching approaches and so on. Many innovations entail changes in some aspects of educational beliefs, teaching behaviors, use of materials and more. Whether or not people develop meaning in relation to all three is fundamentally the problem”.

These quotations indicate that teacher learning is at the heart of fundamental educational change. In the ideal system, teachers would be engaged in continuous, life-long learning activities that would promote constant growth and improvement. The question then becomes, can we move toward this ideal system with any kind of confidence? The answer would seem to lie somewhere in the realm of teacher professional development. School-based teacher development is a powerful process for change. No plan for change within a school can take place without a corresponding plan for teacher development (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992 p 151).
In the case of technology integration, perhaps some new forms of teacher professional development need to be explored.

Online Professional Development – The Teacher is the Key

Although the research on teacher development is as equally expansive as the educational change theory literature, new practices in this area are emerging that hold promise for educational change, including technology integration. Slowly, teacher development is moving away from the “one shot” awareness type of workshop and more meaningful practices are emerging. Technology has been used in a variety of contexts to assist teacher development in schools and school systems over the past number of years and with the technology associated with online environments becoming more sophisticated, so has the available opportunities for teachers.

According to Pease and Magnuson, (2003) online learning is a term that covers a wide range of educational mediums. It includes the use of the Internet, intranets, satellites, interactive TV, and other various other technologies to develop and deliver learning opportunities in an “any-time any-place” environment. It is estimated that by 2005, an online learning industry that didn't exist a decade ago is expected to become a $33.6 billion global market. Pease and Magnuson (2003) project that more than 90 percent of the nation's institutions of higher learning will offer online courses by the end of 2004.

But, according to Killion (2003), if online learning is to become part of teacher professional development, there are a number of points to consider:

1. Online professional development requires that teachers be self motivated professionals with a desire to improve and expand their skills as teachers.
2. Online professional development allows teachers to network with teachers with similar motivation and skills and needs. This is especially useful in rural areas where there may be only one teacher in a particular subject area on staff.
3. Ongoing support is critical if an innovation is to reach institutionalization. Online professional development can provide this opportunity because teacher movement and access to experts is made easier in this environment.
4. A leading cause of failure in online environments is lack of interactivity. The creation of learning communities will help foster an environment where learners feel part of the experience and there is ample opportunity for active engagement by the learner
5. Cost can be less, the same or more depending on a variety of factors. Costs can be less in terms of travel, substitute teacher costs, facilities, materials and consultants but initial costs for adequate technology can be expensive as well.

In the public school system, online learning offers a number of advantages over traditional face to face professional development. Probably the biggest advantage is the flexibility that this medium offers professionals. Barriers of time and space are all but eliminated and the freedom to participate at a time of their choosing makes this a viable option for busy teachers. There are several ways of conducting online courses, using a combination of synchronous and asynchronous strategies as well as a combination of online and face-to-face strategies (Treacy, Klieman & Peterson, 2002). It is this ability to adapt and to adjust to the needs of the teachers that makes online learning not only appealing, but effective (Canning, 2003). Since online course research is still in its infancy, much is still to be learned about what is effective and what is not. However, there are several patterns that have emerged so far that may help in making this type of professional development effective.

Mentorship/Peer Support

Collegiality is a very important part in successful educational change. However, collegiality cannot be imposed or contrived. True collegiality takes time to grow and be nurtured. It is for this reason that change at the school level takes time (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1992 p 153). Online professional development can provide opportunities for peer support in almost any teaching environment. In small schools, peer support or mentorship is sometimes very difficult, if not impossible, simply because of the small number of teachers available to interact. Technology can help close the distance between peer support, expert support and mentorship relationships. According to Pease and Magnuson (2003), by teachers using interactive technology, like e-mail, the Internet, and online discussion forums, online learning makes networking easier for teachers and for principals.

Rewards, Incentives and Growth Plans

It is not difficult to understand how imposed change can lead to low morale, dissatisfaction and reduced commitment (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992 p. 49). Imposed changes for teachers usually require teachers to acknowledge their inadequacies (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992 p. 37). This coupled with the fact that teachers are in a unique position whereby they are both the subject of change as well as the agent of change and the complexity of the change process begins to reveal itself.

However, instead of imposing change, why not create opportunities to reward teachers who risk change? Why not create incentives for teachers to encourage involvement in change? One example of such a project was the CATT project in Newfoundland (Computer Assisted Teacher Talk) (Armstrong and Young, 1996). In this program, teachers were given a laptop to use for the year. All that was expected of them was to commit to a one week workshop in the summer and one Tuesday evening a week during the school year. At the end of the year, teachers were allowed to trade in their laptops for a brand new desktop computer for their classroom. This was a very successful program in enhancing technology integration in the classroom and was not as a result of imposed change.

In Saskatchewan, schools boards and administrators need to be creative in providing incentives for teachers to get involved in technology integration. For example, teachers could be encouraged to take a course for professional development purposes and be allowed to do it during the school day. Schools that are facing staff reductions as a result of declining enrollments could use this as an opportunity to maintain staffing levels and provide teachers with the time to engage in meaningful online professional development. This may mean some additional costs but, by creating opportunities and incentives for teachers to develop professionally, the length of time to successfully integrate technology into schools could be greatly minimized and students could benefit from this earlier adoption of technology.

Barriers: New and Old

In the early part of this paper, I stated a number of barriers to technology integration and it appeared that many of the barriers that existed many years ago still exist today. It could also be argued that a number of the barriers are not exclusive to technology integration but apply to almost any educational change or innovation. Some of the research to date regarding online professional development indicates that some of those barriers have remained constant but there are a few new ones that are emerging. For example, a lack of skill and a fear that students will know more than the teacher, is a relatively new phenomenon (Ali, 2003). Tien and Luff (2001) also found that the relationship between the teacher and the technical support person could be a barrier. A lack of support has always been deemed a barrier but now, it seems, even adequate support without a positive relationship being built between the support person and the teacher can be a barrier.

Goldenberg and Outsen (2002) completed a study of an online professional development activity for teachers and also cited a couple of additional barriers. For example they found that teachers did not want to correspond via email because they did not feel comfortable in that environment. Teachers felt they did not have the skills nor did they possess knowledge of all of the nuances that are associated with that medium.

Additionally, teachers did not want to read email (especially lengthy ones) from the computer screen. Not having ready access to a printer meant that teachers would forgo reading an email if they could not print it out.

Eib (2002), also indicated that teachers need to be selective in choosing online professional development opportunities that are not specifically designed for them. There are numerous courses and workshops to choose from online but, they are not all of high quality. Poor quality courses can be a barrier to teachers deciding to take future courses.

There has also been a tremendous amount of research done on the management of change and how that relates to the environment in which schools exist. Change can be very difficult in an environment where some of the problems are politically based and stem from people’s attempt from outside the system to control and change the system (Bascia and Hargreaves, 2000 p. 15). This need for control by outside agencies and groups can be a barrier to almost any school initiated change and especially the changes that potentially can consume a considerable amount of system resources, like technology. This political influence on the educational system also directly affects teachers in many ways. For example, teachers are expected to do more work because of the times we live in, but, at the same time, they also find themselves more restricted, more regulated and less supported to do that work. According to Bascia and Hargreaves (2000, p. 20) this paradox is the most crucial context of all when it comes to understanding educational reform.

Environmental stability is also a key factor in the institutionalization of any innovation or change. Frequent or unexpected changes in leadership can have a devastating effect on change. Changes in government or board polices, changes in student demographics, economic changes either locally or provincially can all be barriers to implementation of a change (Fullan, 1992 p. 53). In rural parts of our province, many of these barriers occur frequently making change very difficult.

The Academic Importance of Teacher Development

Recent research has shown that not only do students do better when technology is effectively integrated into the curriculum but, research is also showing that students whose teachers have received staff development training on technology integration outperform students whose teachers did not have the training. (Wenglinsky cited in Shibley, 2001, p 63)

Additionally, Tiene and Luff (2001), researched what they termed a classroom of the future where teachers could immerse their students (and themselves) in technology integration activities for two months for at least half a day on a campus at a local university. The results showed positive responses from students and staff and in addition, the staff felt their teaching was more effective as a result of their using technology.

Funding Staff Development

Schools and school systems have struggled to keep up with the cost of technology integration and sometimes have rushed to purchase hardware and software without sufficient planning. In most cases, professional development for teachers integrating technology is an after thought and is considered an add-on at a later date. Unfortunately if it is not planned for, professional development will not get the attention it needs. School systems are slowly starting to realize that that money spent on school technology is wasted without a proportional effort to help teachers with its use and integration into the curriculum Zehr (cited in Earle, 2002, p. 24). This attitude needs to change and decision makers need to stop thinking about technology first and then education later.

For example, according to Weiner (cited in Shibley, 2001, p 61) in the U.S. in 1999-2000, 5.6 billion dollars was spent on technology and only 17% was on training. In most states the amount is typically around 5% and therefore this figure seemed high. When asked to supply figures associated with technology integration, 50% of the states that were asked to provide figures for teacher training could not.

Teachers typically feel that they need more time to effectively integrate technology into the curriculum. As a general rule, successful school systems are using approximately one-third of their technology funding for teacher development. If teacher development is funded in this manner then what Beavers (2001) says becomes possible:

“Effective integration of technology into education calls for a new vision of professional development-not one that attempts merely to add technology to an established system but one that takes a fresh look at teaching and learning in general. Professional development composed of a few days of inservice workshops every year must be replaced by ongoing programs that are tied to your school's curriculum goals, designed with built-in evaluation, and sustained by adequate financial and staff support”.

The Importance of Skill Acquisition

Technology integration is unique when compared to other educational innovations in that there is a skill bias associated with the desired level of change. This is implied by Dwyer (2002, p. 17) when he says that “computer technology will eventually become our constant companion; this is when true change will occur”. Previous large scale innovations even in Saskatchewan have not had the skill bias that technology integration has. The Common Essential Learnings, Instructional Strategies, Student Evaluation, and Schools Plus (to name a few) are all innovations that have had and will continue to have a huge impact on Saskatchewan schools. However, for the most part, teachers, administrators and other central office personnel have had the skills to implement these changes. Of course, there was professional development for teachers and administrators, but the professional development was geared more towards a honing of the skills teachers already had rather than the adoption of a whole new set of skills. In many cases, technology integration is asking teachers to learn a whole new set of skills; and not just technology skills. If technology is to reach its potential in the classroom, teachers need to not only learn how to use the technology but they need to know how to plan learning experiences for their students that takes advantage of the strengths that technology brings to the classroom. This lack of skill will hinder the technology integration effort. However, when teachers do develop the skills to the point where computer technology is “their constant companion” then large scale change will not be far away. Online professional development can provide an excellent opportunity for teachers to acquire these skills.

The Type of Change Makes a Difference

There is a connection between the change itself and teacher development. Some changes produce more opportunities for teacher development than others (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1992 p. 151). If we look at technology integration as a complex change that has the potential to impact almost every aspect of the school and the public education system, there will indeed be many opportunities for teacher development. Because of the different stages of development, implementation and skill level of teachers, planning staff development for large groups will not get the kind of results that educational stakeholders will want. Online professional development has the potential to meet the challenges associated with this complex change and to do it on a large scale.

Leadership

The literature is replete with the importance of leadership and its essential role in affecting change (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1992 p. 153). Recently, the International Society for Education has drafted technology standards for administrators (Paben, 2002)
These standards are as follows:

1. Leadership and vision (shared vision of where you are going)
2. Leadership and teaching (what is meaningful technology integration and when can it enhance student learning)
3. Productivity and professional practice (further develop their own professional practice and increase their own productivity as well as the people around them.
4. Support, management and operations – integration of technology tools into a productive system.
5. Assessment and evaluation – use technology to assist in a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of the system

Principals who are agents of change need to be able to provide support, create incentives, develop and cultivate learning communities, and accurately assess local needs. Principals need also to remember that reflection and debriefing are important for teachers and time needs to be set aside for these activities. Principals must also recognize existing teacher networks and try to ensure that new networks that are being developed don’t interfere and conflict with each other. Principals also need to remember that teachers are people and not to forget the basics of good staff development and adult learning (Paben, 2002). If principals can gain the skills and practice them effectively, then online professional development for teachers will have even a greater opportunity for success in helping schools learn and grow as professional organizations. Additionally, principals may be able to further their own development in this area by utilizing online professional development and networking themselves.

Other Implications

There are a number of other potential positive consequences of online professional development being used to support educational change in schools. This applies not only to technology integration but to other changes as well. For example:

• Teachers taking online professional development are acting as role models to their students as life long learners. This will benefit the climate and culture of the school and contribute to it becoming a learning organization.

• Teachers who take high quality online courses and professional development will become cognizant of what comprises a quality online learning experience and may be able to utilize this in teaching online courses of their own.

• Teacher isolation may be minimized and teacher turnover in small rural schools may be reduced if teachers can network and learn from other teachers without traveling great distances. This may have a stabilizing impact on rural schools and enable them to embrace change in a more meaningful and effective way

• Online professional development can help facilitate change not only in teachers but also administrators, educational assistants, clerical staff, central office staff, board members etc. This medium has the potential of making schools true learning organizations and may be the catalyst that sparks a community of learners and brings education to the forefront in the community.

• As successful online professional development becomes more widely used, communities may begin to embrace online courses and distance learning as a viable alternative; especially in rural areas where teachers shortages and a lack of teachers for specialized areas means possible school closures or severely curtailed programs.

• If online professional development became widely utilized, Saskatchewan Learning could utilize this approach in initiating and developing change on a province wide basis. Previous change attempts have been difficult and change in a province that is as geographically diverse as Saskatchewan can be a challenge. The online professional development model would be impervious to distance and change efforts could be coordinated in a much more efficient manner.

• Support and professional development for first year teachers could be easily done on a more global basis. This kind of support may encourage first year teachers to remain in rural areas longer or to not prematurely leave the profession due to lack of support.

• Support for out-of- province teachers or teachers returning to the profession from a brief absence could also be enhanced by online professional development. Saskatchewan’s education system is substantially different from other provinces in Canada. If we want teachers to teach in a manner that is supportive of these initiatives, they will need professional development to bring them up to the same level of knowledge and skills as teachers who have been trained under this system.

Summary

Change is indeed a complex process. Whether you view the process as one of managing change or one of learning as an organization to promote change, the journey is not an easy one. Many jurisdictions are now focusing on the teacher as the key to successful implementation of educational change. For example, many school divisions in Saskatchewan now expect their teachers to develop yearly professional growth plans as part of the regular teacher supervision and appraisal cycle. Some provinces, such as Alberta and Ontario have taken this process a step further and made it mandatory via legislation. However, teachers need to be convinced that whatever change is being proposed will positively impact student learning. Additionally, teachers will need well planned, well executed professional development opportunities that are flexible and designed to specifically meet individual teachers’ needs. Online professional development for teachers has the capability of providing the kind of training and the kind of networking that all teachers in this province can draw upon in successfully implementing a large scale educational change such as technology integration into the curriculum. If properly supported, maybe we can report a few years from now that large scale educational change no longer take decades; we can now do it in terms of years. Can this be done? Pardini (2002) studied three large school systems in the U.S. with teacher populations of 7000, 8000 and 14, 000. These school systems were able to make tremendous strides in technology integration by utilizing some form of online professional development and underscoring these three principles:

1. Staff development is delivered in a variety of ways to meet the needs of all teachers
2. Teachers acts as the leaders and the teachers during the professional development opportunities
3. Technology based lesson plans and units are available as exemplars online for teachers to access any time.

Perhaps its time Saskatchewan Learning examined its own vision of technology integration into schools and embarked on a large scale change effort that would utilize online learning and professional development as a means to realizing that vision. The infrastructure exists to make this a reality. All that is needed is the vision to plan and the will to try.

References

Ali, A. (2003). Faculty adoption of technology: Training comes first. Educational Technology, 43(2), 51-53

Armstrong, D., & Young, G. (1996). Technology integration at the middle and high school levels. NASSP, 80(582), 81-89.

Bascia, N., & Hargreaves, A. (2000). The sharp edge of educational change. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Beavers, D. (2001). Professional development: Outside the workshop box. Principal Leadership (High School Ed.), 1(9) 43-46.

Butler, D. L., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning. Educause Quarterly, 25(2), 22-28.

Canning, T. (2003). Online professional development for teachers. Media Methods, 39(4), 14-16

Chizmar, E., & Williams, D. (2001). What do faculty want? Educause Quarterly, 24(1),18-24.

Dooley, P. (1992). In pursuit of change: Practical strategies for school reform. Vancouver: Eduserv Inc

Dwyer, D. (2002). Since computers came to school. Educational Technology, 42(4), 17-18

Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. Educational Technology 42(1), 5-13.

Eib, B. J. (2002). Online learning and professional development. Principal Leadership (Middle School Ed.), 3(4) 61-64

Fullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Teachers College Press

Fullan, M. G. (1992). Successful school improvement. Philadelphia: Open University press

Fullan, M. G., & Hargreaves, A., (1992). Teacher development and educational change. London: Falmer Press

Fullan, M.G. (1993). Change forces. London: CasselGoldenberg, L., & Outsen, N. (2002). Missed connections can be instructive. Journal of Staff Development, 23(1) 28-31

Killion, J. (2002). Loading the e-learning shopping cart. Journal of Staff Development 23(1), 12-16

Leggett, W. P., & Persichitte, K. A. (1998). Blood, sweat and tears: 50 years of technology implementation obstacles. TechTrends, 43(3), 33-36.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 4 (498-518).

Paben, S. (2002). What’s in it for the busy leader? Journal of Staff Development, 23(1) 24-27

Pardini, P. (2002). Inside the wired district. Journal of Staff Development, 23(1) 18-22

Pease, P. S., & Magnuson, P. (2003). Online staff development. Principal Magazine, 82(4), 62-63

Rogers, P. L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 455-472.

Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution? Educational Technology, 42(2), 71-75

Shibley, I. B. (2001). Technology integrated learning, staff development: It’s a total package. Educational Technology, 41(6), 61-63.

Tiene, D., & Luff, P. (2001). Teaching in a technology rich classroom. Educational Technology, 41(4), 23-31

Treacy, B., Kleiman, G., & Peterson, K. (2002). Successful online professional development. Learning and Leading With Technology, 30(1) 42-47