|Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
2004, 20(2), 149-170.
The lessons learned from a decade long, site based school reform project are used to examine the relationship between technology integration and school reform. The nature of the reforms will be described along with implications and conclusions for technology planning. Six key school reform takeaways will be shared that are necessary to build a foundation for successful IT integration.
The results of these studies, combined with a broader societal push for placing technology in schools, has stimulated a rapid growth in the deployment of IT. For example, in the US, access levels in schools improved from 39:1 to 6:1 over the period from 1985-1998 (Anderson & Ronnkvist, 1998). In Australia, the improvement in access levels has followed a similar pattern. According to the NSW Department of Education and Training, student computer ratios have improved from 22:1 in 1995 to 6:1 in 2002 (NSW Department of Education and Training, 2002).
Yet, despite the promise of the IT research and improved user to computer ratios, the actual deployment in secondary schools is disappointing. Studies show an immense gap between the promise of the broader IT research and the day to day reality of computer deployment. For example, in the US, there are over ten million computers in schools, and annual expenditures on technology of around six billion dollars. However, the predominant uses fall into four relatively predictable categories. They are:
A study by Cuban (2001), conducted in Silicon Valley, the home of the technology industry, found less than five percent of high school students had intense technology experiences and where they did, they occurred mostly in non-academic subjects or where students served as part of the school's technical support system. Less than five percent of teachers in that study integrated technology into their regular curricular and instructional routines. Further, when a small percentage of computer using teachers do become serious, they largely maintain existing approaches to classroom practice. This research supports the view that more or even better technology does not necessarily mean more effective or inspired use. Clearly, this is not the kind of deployment that results in major learning impacts.
Abundant availability of a "hard" infrastructure (wiring, machines, software and a growing "soft" infrastructure (technical support and professional development) in schools in the late 1990's has not led, as expected, to frequent or extensive teacher use of technologies for tradition-altering classroom instruction. (Cuban, 2001, p. 171).These findings are not confined to the US. The IMPACT 2 study (Harrison et al., 2003) found relatively low levels of computer use in British schools, a finding confirmed by Gipson (2003) who also indicated that the deep embedding of IT in the curricular life of British schools was rare. Angrist & Lavy (2002) found similar uninspired use in a study of a large 1:1 deployment in Israel. There has not been a recent large scale Australian study of classroom use analogous to Becker's work. However, there is little evidence regarding the way in which technology is planned for and deployed to expect that a different set of circumstances would prevail in the Australian context.
Further, school reform models frequently seek to differentiate themselves from current practice by addressing aspects of schooling that are highly amenable to IT integration (e.g., delivering more effective feedback, diversifying the role of the teacher, and improving curriculum and curriculum management). Yet, despite this apparent synergy, it seems that in the vast majority of cases, the existing potential of technology to leverage and connect these aspects of school reform have not been developed as a deep and integral part of school reform designs.
Unfortunately, major school reform studies describe the same kind of outcomes for reform as Becker (2001), Gipson (2003) and Cuban (2001) described for technology integration, including inconsistent and sporadic adoption (e.g., Berends et al., 2001; Borman et al., 2002; Cook et al., 1999). The explanations offered for these outcomes are also related to similar factors: time, cost, leadership and difficulties associated with curriculum integration. Given the current challenges in both areas (school reform and technology integration), a need exists to look more closely at the connections between the specifics of school reform and IT and the ways in which an interaction between these forces can result in successful innovation with a reciprocal value or benefit.
What follows is a perspective on using a comprehensive school reform approach to bridge the gap between the potential of technology and its current use. The lessons learned from a decade long, site based school reform project at Brewster Academy are employed to examine the relationship between technology deployment in secondary schools, technology planning and broader school reform.
The SDM curriculum design is embedded in a suite of curriculum software tools known as the Curriculum Authoring Tools (CATs) (Bain, 1997; Bain & Huss, 2000). This software represents an elaborated schema for those transactions associated with the design model and implementation of curriculum. Specifically the CATs are designed to integrate contemporary research on curriculum design including frameworks; authentic and portfolio assessment (e.g., Wiggins, 1993, 1998); effective teaching (e.g., Greenwood & Delquardi, 1995; Rosenshine, 1986; Slavin, 1990); heterogeneous grouping (Wheelock, 1992); and adapting instruction to deal with individual differences (Huck, Myers & Wilson, 1989). They include tools for curriculum framing, for the design of authentic and curriculum based measurement, for the management of materials, lesson planning and the design of differentiated instruction.
Further, the CATs are a repository for additional technologies including presentation tools, instructional/content software, simulation tools, and other web based resources. These can be launched from the software on a needs basis for the delivery of classroom instruction. The CATs are employed to translate the school's learning statement into a manageable design and delivery system, with a focus on developing instruction at multiple levels in the same classroom. The goal of the software and the curriculum solution is to flatten the learning curve of faculty in the acquisition of knowledge in all areas associated with curriculum building and implementation. The tools are used to establish a common lexicon of best practice and a common development and delivery methodology.
In day to day use, teachers employ the tools to design curriculum around existing state and national standards. This includes building the scope, sequence and authentic assessment items for 5-6 week modules of instruction, and building week long units, as well as individual lessons. The lesson planning tools permit teachers to build outcomes for multiple levels of instruction in the same classroom and use lesson design templates that translate those outcomes into classroom practice. At the lesson planning level, the tools also incorporate a feature for managing the activity of different teaching groups, organising the electronic resources required in class (e.g., concept maps, study guides, web pages) and for student homework. Teachers can launch the tools in the classroom to guide their own practice, and display the tools for students to use as a guide for their participation in the lesson.
The tools also serve as a repository for other content related and application software, enabling them to be launched from within lesson plans that frame the teacher's instructional design. For example, a science teacher employing simulation software in a cooperative learning lesson can launch the simulation from within the lesson, ensuring that its use is embedded within the lesson's instructional design and intent. These features of the software reconcile both the design and delivery of instruction, in a single format. They also ensure that pre-exiting application software can be deeply embedded in the actual transactions of the teacher's lesson design. A complete account of the use of the tools including a case study is described in Bain & Huss (2000).
These tools were developed by basing upon the learning statement, the body of practice in teaching, curriculum design, collaboration and teamwork, professional growth and the use of technology. The tools have been in use for seven years at Brewster to build collaborative performance reports, gather and analyse surveys and reflections, and conduct classroom observations over a school network (Bain, 2000). Formal evaluation reports are developed in partnership with faculty twice per year, while the process of observing, meeting and mentoring occurs in a natural ongoing cycle. Teachers can go online to observe peers, complete surveys, and receive and give feedback to peers and administrators, as well as receive feedback from students (Bain, 2000).
Each tool in the suite is based upon the body of practice, curriculum and professional expectations as defined in the learning statement and articulated in the position description. The feedback model in the SDM uses IT to more directly connect the relationship between teaching and learning, in ways that avoid a focus on any single evaluation methodology or stakeholder perspective (Bain, manuscript submitted for publication).
The technology provides the community with a vehicle to connect those essential functions of schooling that frequently remain disconnected because it is very hard to bring them together in a single format or location. The beliefs, values and pedagogy about feedback, curriculum, teaching approaches, grouping and inclusion that underpin the design are represented in tangible and practical ways in the fields and functions of the tools. As such, each of the relational databases in the system is designed to bring the SDM to the classroom in ways that are accessible for teachers and students. The school's design is a prerequisite for the technology system design. The technology tools sit atop the design, enabling the other seven elements of the design approach to work in practice (Bain, 1999; Bain & Huss, 2000; Bain & Smith, 2000).
The overall technology design at Brewster includes a 1:1 teacher and student computer ratio, and a high bandwidth computer network. For the purposes of benchmarking or comparison, the current Brewster program exceeds the requirements identified by the CEO Forum STaR Assessment for a Target Technology School (TTP, 2000). This designation includes those schools where the learning process has been redefined to take advantage of technology, including access levels in excess of 3:1, and a redefined physical layout of classrooms, with online access to digital resources from within and outside of the school. The technology design in the SDM is based on the software system, and is not dependent upon such a ubiquitous technological infrastructure. From a technological perspective, the net result of the introduction of the SDM is the constant pivotal use of technology by teachers and students in all aspects of their engagement with the school.
A cohort design was employed to study the effects of ubiquitous access to technology on student IT skill. Students who experience the SDM outperform those in a traditional technological program, by over fifty percent in applied IT skills (Bain, Hess, Jones & Berelowitz, 2000). In a study employing an alternating treatments design, the IT tools were shown to improve student achievement and extend opportunities for discussion beyond the classroom to the home (Bain & Huss, 2000).
During a decade of implementation, the SDM has resulted in significant improvements in the formative factors associated with the on going conduct of the school. This includes decreasing the ratio of students on an at risk disciplinary status at the end of the year, from one to three to one to ten, accomplished over a decade long period (LeBlanc, 2002; NEASC, 1996). Further, during the same period the number of students recognised for their positive contribution has increased from less than five percent to over sixty percent of the student body (LeBlanc, 2002; NEASC, 1996). The implementation of the SDM has co-varied with high levels of college retention, that have consistently exceeded ninety percent in a longitudinal study of the process over a decade (NEASC, 1996; Richardson, 2002). This compares to the US national average of approximately sixty-eight percent for students returning to college for their sophomore year. Over sixty percent of the students enter colleges in the most competitive, highly competitive and very competitive categories.
One of the most pressing issues in comprehensive school reform initiatives like the SDM is the integrity with which these designs are implemented. Implementation has been described as weak and generally incomplete (Berends et al., 2001; Desimone, 2002). To address this issue the SDM gathers 360 degree feedback on the implementation of the design as part of its day to day implementation. Over 15,000 teacher evaluations (by students) have been gathered and analysed over a seven year period. The integrity of implementation of the core teaching practices has been established in over 2000 classroom observations that indicate levels of implementation of teaching practice between 86% and 92% (Bain, manuscript in progress). The quality of team process has been established through peer, supervisor, and self reflection, and corroborates the finding of the summative study of faculty described previously. Since 1997, nearly 50 Brewster faculty members have made a successful transition in the career path since the full school implementation of the design. Examples of early career and advanced teaching portfolios can be seen at The Endeavour Group (2001b).
For example, if we were to build a template in the curriculum tools for designing cooperative learning lessons, it would make sense to first decide on those characteristics of cooperative learning that we believe make a difference in terms of student learning. We could then design those characteristics into the fields in the cooperative learning tool. If we are going to build a feedback tool to reflect on our practice we need to decide what we value in order to frame those reflections. If we are going to build a piece of software for designing curriculum based measures (CBMs) we need to articulate those things that make for effective CBMs when we build such a tool. In the absence of these essential educational features, our technology tools are examples of automation, "electronic stationery," absent of the research that could make our technology distinctively educational.
In the SDM, the definition necessary to create this type of educational technology is part of an emergent process. It emerges from the connection between learning statement, body of practice, curriculum, teamwork, the human resource model, feedback and evaluation, and ultimately technology. The technology tools reside on a foundation of research and practice provided by the school's interconnected design elements. This foundation is built from within the school community, as an articulation of what the school believes in practice. The result is an ever evolving professional order with respect to what the school does. This order permits teachers to work together within a common framework or culture of practice (Elmore, 1996; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001). It also permits the embedding of what we know about teaching and learning in technology tools that teachers can use every day. This is the opportunity to craft an educational technology as distinct from the downstreaming of technologies from other fields. By articulating what the core activity of the school actually means the conditions are created for reconciling what we know about teaching and learning with a role for technology.
When IT deployment is closely connected with classroom teaching and learning transactions, a school can build a much clearer picture of where, how and how often technology will be used. This creates an opportunity to be far more specific, focused and fiscally confident when we enter a discussion about hardware, software and infrastructure. Instead of a conversation about counting classes, teachers and students to determine access, the plan would ask the following:
What kind of hardware, software, backroom and physical infrastructure do we need to run our school design?Clearly, a technology plan extends beyond those relational base tools in the school's operating system. Figure 4 describes the conceptual trajectory from the tools to the broader planning needs for software, hardware and infrastructure.
Consistent with the cycle described in Figure 4, the planning framework begins with the tools and then reconciles hardware, software and infrastructure demands with factors of recycling, surplussing (the retirement of old technology) and dynamic user needs. The tools drive the technology plan. They represent the school's overall design. Everything in the plan embodies everything in the school. When the school decides what it means by teaching, learning and curriculum decisions about access and site licenses and whether to upgrade can occur in a context.
In nearly every case the results of these efforts were much more akin to the descriptions of Becker and Cuban than the visions of ubiquitous IT use on which they were based. While the schools and systems encountered sometimes faced barriers of time and finance and the different constraints associated with being a public, private or charter school, none of these forces could explain the results. Numbers of these schools were unconstrained financially, or were well-funded startups with few organisational or resistance to change type constraints. Others were engaged in a host of school reform efforts, including new curriculum initiatives, the development of new physical space, and the implementation of new professional development programs. The common feature that united these schools was that none had built a deep, cohesive school wide culture of classroom practice that could catalyse the development of genuine educational technology. These findings, shared anecdotally, are confirmed by an analysis of broader school reform efforts (cited previously in this report) that have failed to show consistent and sustained impact on classroom practice.
The conclusion from these experiences is that the connection between technology and reform is less about whether reform is occurring and more about what that reform yields in terms of a coherent and sustainable change in classroom practice. School reformers generally agree that unless a reform process results in change in the classroom, then there is no reform. Further, that change needs to be evident with integrity across classes and ultimately across schools. The key takeaways from the experience presented here extends this position. To capture the potential of technology the whole of a reform needs to produce a common culture of professional practice. That culture should be the product of research driven beliefs and values. Yet beliefs and values are not enough. They need to be translated into methods and tools used in classes every day. When the latter occurs consistently across classes, teachers and students, the conditions exist for the development of genuine educational technologies that can assist teachers, students, parents and administrators. They can also be planned for in a more complete and emergent fashion.
The recent history of technological innovation in schools suggests this should be the decade when it all happens. We spent the nineties putting the four pillars of hardware, software, connectivity and professional development in place (CEO Forum, 2000). We should now be able to accrue the benefit. However, as we have seen from the research described to date, it is unlikely that deep and meaningful use will characterise this first decade of the new millennium.
The evidence provided by existing reform efforts suggests that we need much more than the four pillars to drive meaningful embeddedness. Despite extensive research demonstrating the potential of IT, schools have managed to under-utilise a host of promising technologies because they have been unable to deploy them to truly serve what schools are all about - teaching and learning. The gap between the potential of technology as a scalable tool for better practice and the current reality of its deployment in schools may be about a different kind of technology, the technology of school reform. Increasing attention needs to be paid to models for undertaking school reform and the role of educational technologies in the reform process. The model described here represents just one way to do so. At a minimum, those models must produce the articulated classroom impact required to build and deploy genuine educational technologies.
Angrist, J. & Lavy, V. (2002). New evidence on classroom computers and pupil learning. The Economic Journal, 12, 1-31.
Bain, A. (1993). The Brewster Model and collaborative consultation: At the center of school change in independent secondary education. The Consulting Edge, 5(2), 1-6.
Bain, A. (1994). The School Design Model Future School Institute at Brewster Academy Handbook. Wolfeboro NH: The Endeavour Group.
Bain, A. (1996). The School Design Model at Brewster Academy: Technology serving teaching and learning. Technological Horizons in Education, 23(10), 72-79. [verified 19 May 2004] http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A551.cfm
Bain, A. (1997). Curriculum Authoring Tools [Computer Software]. Wolfeboro, NH: The Endeavour Group.
Bain, A. (1997). School Tools: Management software for the school design model [Computer Software]. Wolfeboro, NH. Endeavour Group.
Bain, A. (1999). A transformational vision. In T. Hillman & C. Thorn (Eds), Oh what a web we weave (pp. 298-305). Gilman, NH: Avocus Press.
Bain, A. (2000). Meaningful evaluations of teachers and teacher education programs. In American Association of Colleges for Teachers Education, Log in or lose out: Technology in 21st century teacher education (pp.244-254), Washington, DC: AACTE Publications.
Bain, A. Emergent Feedback Systems. (Manuscript submitted for publication).
Bain, A. The integrity of implementation of comprehensive school reform initiatives. (Manuscript in progress).
Bain, A. & Hess, P. T. (2003). School reform and faculty culture: A longitudinal case study. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED472 655.
Bain, A., Fallon, M. & Smith, D. (1999). Designing the Future. In T. Hillman & C. Thorn (Eds), Oh what a web we weave, 262-272. Gilman, NH: Avocus Press.
Bain, A., Hess, P. T., Jones, G. & Berelowitz, C. (1999). Gender differences and computer competency: The effects of a high access computer program on the computer competence of young women. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1). [verified 19 May 2004] http://www.ao.uiuc.edu/ijet/v1n1/bain/index.html
Bain, A. & Huss, P. (2000). The Curriculum Authoring Tools: Technology enabling school reform. Learning & Leading with Technology, 28(4), 14-17.
Bain, A., Huss, P. & Kwong, H. (2000). Evaluation of hypertext discussion tool for teaching English literature to secondary school students. The Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 203-216.
Bain, A. & Ross, K. (2000). School re-engineering and SAT-1 performance, A case study. The International Journal of Educational Reform, 9(2), 148-154.
Bain A. & Smith, D. (2000). The School Design Model at Brewster Academy, Part II: Technology enabling school reform. Tustin, CA: Technological Horizons in Education, 28(3), 90-97. [verified 19 May 2004] http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A3130.cfm
Barnett, H. (2001). Successful K-12 technology planning: Ten essential elements. ERIC Digest ED457858.
Becker, H.J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association. [verified 19 May 2004] http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/FINDINGS/special3/
Becker, H.J. (1994). Analysis and trends of school use of new information technologies. [verified 19 May 2004] http://www.gse.uci.edu/doehome/ EdResource/Publications/EdTechUse/C-TBLCNT.HTM
Berends, M., Kirby, S. N., Naftel, S. & McKelvey, C. (2001). Implementation and Performance in New American Schools: Three Years into Scale-Up. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T. & Brown, S. (2002). Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Center For Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (No. R-117-D40005). [verified 19 May 2004] http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report59.pdf
Brosnan, M. (1996). Make it new: Brewster Academy reinvents itself. Independent School Magazine, Spring, 12-16.
CEO Forum (2000). School technology and readiness report: The power of digital learning: Integrating digital content [verified 19 May 2004] http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/report3.pdf
Cicchinelli, L. F., & Barley Z. (1999). Evaluating for success. Comprehensive school reform: An evaluation guide for districts and schools. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory.
Cook, T.D., Habib, F., Phillips, M., Settersten, R.A., Shagle, S.C., Serdar M. & Degirmencioglu, S.M. (1999). Comer's School Development Program in Prince George's County, Maryland: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 543-597.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dimmock, C. (2000). Designing the learning-centered school: A cross-cultural perspective. London: Falmer Press, Garland Inc.
Downs, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, C., Oliver, R., Vickers, M. & Williams, M. (2001). Making better connections: Models of teacher professional development for the integration of information and communication technology (ICT) into classroom practice. Australian Council for Computers in Education: Canberra: Goanna Print. [verified 19 May 2004] http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/publications/2002/MBC.pdf
NSW Department of Education and Training (2002). 11,250 Computers on the way. [verified 19 May 2004] http://www.det.nsw.edu.au/newsroom/yr2002/jun/new_computer.htm
Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-78.
Gipson, S. (2003). Issues of ICT, school reform and learning-centered school design. Full International Practitioner Enquiry Report, National College for School Leadership. http://www.ncsl.org.uk/ [article not found 19 May 2004]
Greenwood, C. R. & Delquardi, J. (1995). Peer tutoring and the prevention of school failure. Preventing School Failure, 39(4), 21-25.
Harrison, C., Comber, C., Fisher, T., Haw, K., Lewin, C., Lunzer, E., McFarlane, A., Mavers, D., Scrimshaw, P., Somekh, B. & Watling, R. (2003). Impact 2: The impact of information and communication technologies on pupil learning and attainment. [verified 19 May 2004]
Herman, R., Aladjem, D., McMahon, P., Masem, E., Mulligan, I., Smith O'Malley, A., Quinones, S., Reeve, A. & Woodruff, D. (1999). An Educators' guide to school-wide reform. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Huck, R., Meyers, R. & Wilson, J. (1989). ADAPT: A developmental activity program for teachers. Pittsburgh, PA: Allegheny Intermediate Unit.
Idol, L., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. & Nevin, A. (1986). Collaborative consultation. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Integrated Technology Education Group (2002). Facilitating a total system approach to education technology planning and implementation. [verified 19 May 2004] http://www.iteg.com/
Kavanaugh-Brown, J. (2000). Putting vision into practice. Converge, 3(2), 56-62. Sacramento, CA. [verified 19 May 2004] http://www.centerdigitaled.com/converge/?pg=magstory&id=3585
Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-Analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E. L. Baker and Harold F. O'Neil Jr (Eds), Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
LeBlanc, S. (2002). Student conduct. Presentation to Brewster Academy Board of Trustees, Wolfeboro, New Hampshire.
Mann, D., Shakeshaft, C., Becker, J., & Kottkamp, R. (1999). West Virginia Study: Achievement gains from a statewide comprehensive instructional technology program. [verified 19 May 2004] http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME155.pdf
Marshall, J. M. (2002). Learning with technology: Evidence that technology can, and does, support learning. A white paper prepared for Cable in the Classroom. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University. [verified 19 May 2004] http://www.ciconline.com/NR/rdonlyres/emafywh4tgbnmtui6r5qk766nly3uerivatberz5jv3ahhbvfspifomwvmu2htqfdmfygohcd6hntg/CICReportLearningwithTechnology.pdf
McCord, M. (1999). Exploring the frontier of technology and education reform. New Hampshire Business Review/Tech Net, 12 February, 33-36.
McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Moll, M. (Ed.). (2001). But its only a tool!: The politics of technology and education reform. Ottawa ON: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
NEAS&C (1996). Self-study report for Re-accreditation by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. Brewster Academy: Wolfeboro.
Richardson, S. (2002). College placement report. Presentation to the Brewster Academy Board of Trustees Meeting, Wolfeboro, New Hampshire.
Rosenshine, B. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43(7), 60-69.
Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. E. Stake (Ed), Curriculum evaluation. American Educational Research Association Monograph Series on Evaluation, No.1. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Sivin-Kachala, J. & Bialo, E. R. (2000). 2000 Research Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools (7th ed). Washington, DC: SIAA.
Sizer, T. (1984). Horace 's compromise: The dilemma of the American High School. MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stallard, C., & Cocker, J.S. (2001). The promise of technology in schools: The next twenty years. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
The Endeavour Group (2001a). Body of Practice at Brewster Academy. [verified 23 May 2004] http://www.theendeavourgroup.net/SDM/body_of_practice.html
The Endeavour Group (2001b). Early Career and Advanced Teaching Portfolios. [verified 23 May 2004] http://www.theendeavourgroup.net/SDM/human_resource.html
2002 Education (2002). In The Software & Information Industry Association - Building the Digital Economy. http://www.siia.net/
Wang, M. C. (1992). Adaptive education strategies. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Wenglinsky, H.(1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Wheelock, A. (1992). The case for un-tracking. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 6-10.
Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment, authenticity, context and validity. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(3), 200-208, 210-214.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative Assessment: Designing assessment to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
|Author: Alan Bain, School of Teacher Education|
Charles Sturt University, Panorama Avenue, Bathurst NSW 2795
Phone: +61 2 6338 4133 Fax: +61 2 6338 4417 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please cite as: Bain, A. (2004). Secondary school reform and technology planning: Lessons learned from a ten year school reform initiative. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(2), 149-170. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet20/bain.html