Date of Award
Doctor of Philosophy
Michael L. Waugh
Russell French, Edward Counts, Howard Pollio
The purpose of this study was to investigate how public school systems in Tennessee developed and implemented their district technology. The target population of the study was all of the 136 public school systems in Tennessee. Data were collected using two methods: (1) content analysis of the district technology plans and (2) survey analysis of selected participants. A survey was administered to employees of the participating school distracts who represented the following groups: (1) district technology coordinators, (2) principals, and (3) teachers who were involved in developing the district’s technology plan. Those districts in the study which contributed a district technology plan and at least one complete survey form were included in the analysis. As a result, thirty-one school districts elected to participate in the study (23%). The results of the study showed that the overall quality of the technology plans was inadequate. The technology plans examined were grouped into three categories: (1) TLEA – those plans that followed TLEA guidelines; (2) TPC – those plans that followed TPC guidelines; and (3) Others – those plans that did not appear to follow either set of guidelines. The most commonly included elements in the technology plan were timeline, goals and objectives, integration of technology into the curriculum, and professional development. A significant number of the technology plans from rural school systems did not appear to have followed the state guidelines. The entity that was most often identified as being responsible for developing district technology plans was the technology committee or district technology coordinator. District technology directors, principals, teachers, school level technology coordinators, and curriculum supervisors were found to be the major stakeholders in district technology committees. In most suburban school districts, technology committees were responsible for implementing the plans. In most rural districts, individuals, usually district technology coordinators, were responsible for implementing the technology plan. Many of the school district technology plans appeared to had been recently updated or developed. All school districts sampled specified the intent to revise their technology plan at some point in the future. Almost all of the school districts studied to some extent are making progress in implementing their technology plan. However, the implementation of technology plans was reportedly most often hampered by the lack of budget. Most of the school districts did not appear to be engaged in unplanned technology integration activities. The most frequently reported unplanned technology activities were grants that school districts received for professional development activities and integration of technology into the curriculum.
Rai, Raj Kumar, "Development and Implementation of Technology Plans in Tennessee Public School Systems. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2004.