Support for the creation of this document was provided by the American Institutes for Research under the contract ED-04-CO-0040/0010.
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Technology
Examples Are Not Endorsements
This document contains examples and resource materials that are provided for the user’s convenience. The inclusion of any material is not intended to reflect its importance, nor is it intended to endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered. These materials may contain the views and recommendations of various subject matter experts as well as hypertext links, contact addresses and websites to information created and maintained by other public and private organizations. The opinions expressed in any of these materials do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education. The U.S. Department of Education does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of any outside information included in these materials.
This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce this report in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, Future Ready Learning: Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education, Washington, D.C., 2016.
This report is available on the Department’s Web site at https://tech.ed.gov.
Requests for alternate format documents such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at email@example.com.
Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons: If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services for Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1- 800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202.
Cover photo credit Hive NYC/Brooklyn Public Library
Appendix A. Future Ready Resources
- Alberta Education. (2013). Learning and technology policy framework 2013. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Alberta Education, School Technology Branch. Retrieved from http://www.education.alberta.ca/media/7792655/learning-and-technology-policy-framework-web.pdf
- Alliance for Excellent Education. (2012). The digital learning imperative: How technology and teaching meet today’s education challenges. Retrieved from http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DigitalLearningImperative.pdf
- American Association of School Administrators. (2010). 2011 district excellence award for digital learning. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Programs_and_Events/Awards_and_Scholarships/Technology_Award/2011_Technology_Award/2011_Technology_Award2011_AASA_LS_App_procedure_082410.pdf
- Amirian, S. (2007). Digital backpacks: Facilitating faculty implementation of technologies for teaching and learning. Computers in the Schools, 24(1/2), 5–14.
- Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. L. (2000). School technology leadership: Incidence and impact. Irvine: University of California, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/76s142fc#page-7
- Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. L. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49–82.
- Anderson, T., & Elloumi, F. (Eds.). (2004). The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca, AB, Canada: Athabasca University Press.
- Annenberg Institute for School Reform. (2004). Professional learning communities: Professional development strategies that improve instruction. Providence, RI: Author. Retrieved from http://www.annenberginstitute.org/pdf/proflearning.pdf
- Argueta, R., Huff, J., Tingen, J., & Corn, J. O. (2011). Laptop initiatives: Summary of research across seven states (Friday Institute White Paper No. 4). Raleigh: North Carolina State University, the William & Ida Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. Retrieved from https://www.fi.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/laptop-initiatives-summary-of-research-across-seven-states.pdf
- Armstrong, M., & Earle, L. (2012). Sustained blended professional development in the 21st century. Retrieved from http://etec.ctlt.ubc.ca/510wiki/Sustained_Blended_Professional_Development_in_the_21st_Century
- Attwell, G. (2007). Personal learning environments—The future of elearning? eLearning Papers, 2(1), 1–8.
- Barnett, H. (2002). How to guarantee a learning return on your technology investment. eSchool News, 1–5.
- Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546.
- Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities (Research Report No. 637). Bristol, England: University of Bristol. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5622/1/RR637.pdf
- Buckingham, D. (2007). Digital media literacies: Rethinking media education in the age of the Internet. Research in Comparative and International Education, 2(1), 43–55.
- Burden, K., Hopkins, P., Male, T., Martin, S., & Trala, C. (2012). iPad Scotland evaluation. Hull, England: University of Hull. Retrieved from http://www.janhylen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Skottland.pdf
- Cavanaugh, C., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2011). An evaluation of the conditions, processes, and consequences of laptop computing in K–12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 359–378.
- Clifford, M., Behrstock-Sherratt, E., & Fetters, J. (2012). The ripple effect: A synthesis of research on principal influence to inform performance evaluation design. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/1707_The_Ripple_Effect_d8_Online_0.pdf
- Clifford, M., Fetters, J., & Yoder, N. (2014). The five essential practices of school leadership: A framework for assessing practice. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://tle.vide.vi/data/userfiles/14-2159_AIR_5_Essential%20Practices%20USVI%20FINAL.pdf
- Clifford, M., & Ross, S. (2011). Designing principal evaluation systems: Research to guide decision-making. Washington, DC: National Association of Elementary School Principals. Retrieved from https://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/PrincipalEvaluation_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
- Coggshall, J. G., Rasmussen, C., Colton, A., Milton, J., & Jacques, C. (2012). Generating teaching effectiveness: The role of job-embedded professional learning in teacher evaluation. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/GeneratingTeachingEffectiveness.pdf
- Consortium for School Networking. (2012). Framework of essential skills of the K–12 CTO. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cosn.org/sites/default/files/Framework_1218_2013_Public.pdf?sid=4509
- Consortium for School Networking. (2013). Administrator’s guide to mobile learning. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/cosnlmlresources/
- Consortium for School Networking. (2014a). The empowered superintendent: Professional learning module 1—Five imperatives for technology leadership. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://cosn.org/sites/default/files/pdf/CoSN%20Empowered%20Superintendent%20Module%201%20FINAL.pdf
- Consortium for School Networking. (2014b). The empowered superintendent: Self-assessment for superintendents. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://cosn.org/sites/default/files/pdf/CoSN%20Superintendent%20Self-Assessment%20FINAL.pdf
- Consortium for School Networking. (2014c). Rethinking educational equity in a digital era: Forging a strong partnership between district Title I and technology leaders. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cosn.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Rethinking%20Educational%20Equity%20in%20a%20Digital%20Era,%20June%202014.pdf
- Consortium for School Networking. (2015). NMC horizon report: 2015 K–12 edition. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2015-k-12-edition/
- Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_2008.pdf
- Croft, A., Coggshall, J. G., Dolan, M., & Powers, E. (with Killion, J.). (2010). Job-embedded professional development: What it is, who is responsible, and how to get it done well. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/JEPD%20Issue%20Brief.pdf
- Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council and the School Redesign Network at Stanford University. Retrieved from http://www.learningforward.org/docs/pdf/nsdcstudy2009.pdf
- Dawson, K. (2012). Using action research projects to examine teacher technology integration practices. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(3), 117–124.
- Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2008). Florida’s EETT Leveraging Laptops Initiative and its impact on teaching practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 143–159.
- Dede, C. (1998). The scaling-up process for technology-based educational innovations. In C. Dede (Ed.), Learning with technology 1998: ASCD yearbook (pp. 199–215). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
- Dede, C., Breit, L., Ketelhut, D. J., McCloskey, E., & Whitehouse, P. (2005). An overview of current findings from empirical research on online teacher professional development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.117.1285&rep=rep1&type=pdf
- Derntl, M., & Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2005). The role of structure, patterns, and people in blended learning. The Internet and higher education, 8(2), 111–130.
- Devono, F., & Price, T. (2012). How principals and teachers perceived their superintendents’ leadership in developing and supporting effective learning environments as measured by the superintendent efficacy questionnaire. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 29(4), 1–14.
- Digital Promise. (n.d.). Educator micro-credentials. Retrieved from http://www.digitalpromise.org/initiatives/educator-micro-credentials
- District Reform Support Network. (2015). Blended learning readiness and progress rubric. Raleigh, NC: Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. Retrieved from https://rttd.grads360.org/#communities/pdc/documents/7209
- Duty, L., & Kern, T. (2014). So you think you want to innovate? Emerging lessons and a new tool for state and district leaders working to build a culture of innovation. Retrieved from http://learningaccelerator.org/media/29004d8f/Assessing%20Culture%20of%20Innovation_2Rev-TLA__10.9_final.pdf
- Education Reform Initiative (ERI) & Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International. (2013). Turkey’s FATIH project: A plan to conquer the digital divide, or a technological leap of faith? Istanbul, Turkey: ERI, and Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. Retrieved from http://erg.sabanciuniv.edu/sites/erg.sabanciuniv.edu/files/Fatih.rapor_.ENG_.son_.pdf
- Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.
- Evans, M. (2012). A guide to personalizing learning: Suggestions for the Race to the Top–District competition. San Mateo, CA: Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/A-guide-to-personalizing-learning.pdf
- Flipped Learning Network. (2014). What is flipped learning? Retrieved from http://flippedlearning.org/cms/lib07/VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/46/FLIP_handout_FNL_Web.pdf
- Forner, M., Bierlein-Palmer, L., & Reeves, P. (2012). Leadership practices of effective rural superintendents: Connections to Waters and Marzano’s leadership correlates. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 27(8). Retrieved from http://jrre.vmhost.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/27-8.pdf
- Fox, C., Waters, J., Fletcher, G., & Levin, D. (2012). The broadband imperative: Recommendations to address K–12 education infrastructure needs. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association. Retrieved from http://www.setda.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The_Broadband_Imperative.pdf
- Freeland, J., & Hernandez, A. (with Samouha, A.). (2014). Schools and software: What’s now and what’s next? San Mateo, CA: Clayton Christensen Institute. Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Schools-and-Software.pdf
- Fullan, M., & Donnelly, K. (2013). Alive in the swamp: Assessing digital innovations in education. London, England: Nesta. Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/alive_in_the_swamp.pdf
- Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
- Gray, T., & Silver-Pacuilla, H. (2011). Breakthrough teaching and learning: How educational and assistive technologies are driving innovation. New York: Springer.
- Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research—What path should we take “now”? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–259.
- Grismore, B. A. (2012). Mini technology manual for schools: An introduction to technology integration. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED533378)
- Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
- Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.
- Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. (2013). The flipped learning model: A white paper based on the literature review titled “A review of flipped learning.” Retrieved from http://flippedlearning.org/cms/lib07/VA01923112/Centricity/Domain/41/WhitePaper_FlippedLearning.pdf
- Hanover Research Council. (2009). Best practices in online teaching strategies. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.uwec.edu/AcadAff/resources/edtech/upload/Best-Practices-in-Online-Teaching-Strategies-Membership.pdf
- Horn, M. B., Gu, A., & Evans, M. (2014). Knocking down barriers: How California superintendents are implementing blended learning. San Mateo, CA: Clayton Christensen Institute. Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Knocking-down-barriers.pdf
- Hsu, P., & Sharma, P. (2008). A case study of enabling factors in the technology integration change process. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 213–228.
- Iiyoshi, T., Hannafin, M. J., & Wang, F. (2005). Cognitive tools and student-centered learning: Rethinking tools, functions and applications. Educational Media International, 42(4), 281–296.
- iNACOL. (2011). National standards for quality online courses. Vienna, VA: International Association for K–12 Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/iNACOL_CourseStandards_2011.pdf
- International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). ISTE standards: Teachers. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-T_PDF.pdf
- International Society for Technology in Education. (2009a). Essential conditions: Necessary conditions to effectively leverage technology for learning. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/netsessentialconditions.pdf
- International Society for Technology in Education. (2009b). ISTE standards: Administrators (ISTE standards•A). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-A_PDF.pdf
- International Society for Technology in Education. (2011). ISTE standards: Coaches. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-C_PDF.pdf
- Ivanova, M., & Popova, A. (2009). An exploration of formal and informal learning flows in LMS 2.0: Case study Edu 2.0. International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technologies, 3, 227–230. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
- John Edward Porter Professional Development Center at Learning Point Associates. (2004). School survey for professional development tool: A measure of capacity. Journal of Staff Development, 25(1), 23–25.
- Johnson, P. E., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2010). Linking the central office and its schools for reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 738–755.
- Joint Information Systems Committee. (2004). Effective practice with e-learning: A good practice guide in designing for learning. Bristol, England: Author.
- LaFee, S. (2013, March). Flipped learning. School Administrator, 3(70), 19–25.
- Lai, K. W., Pratt, K., Anderson, M., & Stigter, J. (2006). Literature review and synthesis: Online communities of practice. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/7480/lrs-online-com.pdf
- Laine, S. (with Behrstock-Sherratt, E., & Lasagna, M.). (2011). Improving teacher quality: A guide for education leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
- Learning Accelerator. (n.d.). District stakeholder blended learning readiness assessments. Retrieved from http://learningaccelerator.org/media/91350018/BL%20District%20Assessment-FIN.pdf
- Learning Forward. (n.d.). Standards for professional learning. Retrieved from http://learningforward.org/standards-for-professional-learning
- Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
- Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3009.pdf
- Lu, R., & Overbaugh, R. (2009). School environment and technology implementation in K–12 classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 89–106.
- Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
- McConnell, T. J., Parker, J. M., Eberhardt, J., Koehler, M. J., & Lundeberg, M. A. (2013). Virtual professional learning communities: Teachers’ perceptions of virtual versus face-to-face professional development. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 267–277.
- Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. (2000). Principles in action: Stories of award-winning professional development [Video]. Aurora, CO: Author.
- Money matters: Budgets, finances, and resources for tech programs. (2008). Technology and Learning, 28(12), 2. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-183422475/money-matters-budgets-finances-and-resources-for
- Moore, J. E., & Barab, S. A. (2002). The inquiry learning forum: A community of practice approach to online professional development. Technology Trends, 46(3), 44–49.
- National Association of Secondary School Principals. (n.d.a). Breaking ranks: The comprehensive framework for school improvement—Executive summary. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nassp.org/Content/158/BRFrameworkExecSummary.pdf
- National Association of Secondary School Principals. (n.d.b). Breaking ranks: A field guide for leading change—Executive summary. Reston, VA: Retrieved from http://www.nassp.org/Content/158/BR3Change_ExecSumm_web.pdf
- National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). NCTE framework for 21st century curriculum and assessment. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/governance/21stcenturyframework
- National Education Association. (2012). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: An educator’s guide to the “four Cs.” Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/A-Guide-to-Four-Cs.pdf
- National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2011). Educational leadership program recognition standards: District level. Austin, TX: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=tFmaPVlwMMo%3D&tabid=676
- National PTA. (n.d.). National standards for family-school partnerships. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.pta.org/files/National_Standards.pdf
- Next Generation Learning Challenges. (n.d.). Personalized learning. Retrieved from http://nextgenlearning.org/topics/personalized-learning
- North Carolina State University, The William & Ida Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. (n.d.a). 1:1 administrator survey. Retrieved from https://eval.fi.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1-1-Administrator-Survey_12-2013.pdf
- North Carolina State University, The William & Ida Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. (n.d.b). 1:1 implementation rubric. Raleigh, NC: Author. Retrieved from https://eval.fi.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/1to1implementationrubric.pdf
- North Carolina State University, The William & Ida Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. (n.d.c). Profile for administrators (NETS*A). Raleigh, NC: Author. Retrieved from https://eval.fi.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/NETS-Profile-for-Administrators_12-2013.pdf
- North Carolina State University, The William & Ida Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. (n.d.d). School technology needs assessment. Raleigh, NC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.fi.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/School-Technology-Needs-Assesment-STNA.pdf
- North Carolina State University, The William & Ida Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. (2015). North Carolina digital learning plan. Raleigh, NC: Author. Retrieved from http://ncdlplan.fincsu.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/09/NC-Digital-Learning-Detailed-Plan-9-14-15.pdfNussbaum-Beach, S., & Hall, L. R. (2012). The connected educator: Learning and leading in a digital age. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
- O’Dwyer, L. M., Masters, J., Dash, S., De Kramer, R. M., Humez, A., & Russell, M. (2010). e-Learning for educators: Effects of on-line professional development on teachers and their students—Executive summary of four randomized trials. Chestnut Hill, MA: inTASC.
- Owston, R., Wideman, H., Murphy, J., & Lupshenyuk, D. (2008). Blended teacher professional development: A synthesis of three program evaluations. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 201–210.
- Parsad, B., Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (2001). Teacher preparation and professional development: 2000 (NCES No. 2001-088). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001088.pdf
- Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.
- Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Desimone, L., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2000). Does professional development change teaching practice? Results from a three-year study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED455227.pdf
- Preece, J., & Shneiderman, B. (2009). The reader-to-leader framework: Motivating technology-mediated social participation. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 13–32.
- Project RED. (n.d.). Project RED: Findings. Retrieved from http://www.one-to-oneinstitute.org/findings
- Project RED. (2012). Project RED readiness tool. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1A0Ez6KTPmGf5vryM0bEnsshOa5RHz_fbC1GtDd41IPg/edit?usp=sharing
- Public Impact. (2013a). A better blend: A vision for boosting student outcomes with digital learning. Chapel Hill, NC: Author. Retrieved from http://opportunityculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/A_Better_Blend_A_Vision_for_Boosting_Student_Outcomes_with_Digital_Learning-Public_Impact.pdf
- Public Impact. (2013b). Redesigning schools: Financial planning for secondary-level time-technology swap and multi-classroom leadership. Chapel Hill, NC: Retrieved from http://opportunityculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Financial_Planning_Secondary_Level_Time-Tech_Swap_MCL-Public_Impact.pdf
- Rasmussen, C., Hopkins, S., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2004). Our work done well is like the perfect pitch. Journal of Staff Development, 25(1), 16–25.
- Reeves, T. D., & Pedulla, J. J. (2011). Predictors of teacher satisfaction with online professional development: Evidence from the USA’s e-Learning for Educators Initiative. Professional Development in Education, 37(4), 591–611.
- Rogers Family Foundation. (2014). Blended learning in Oakland: Initiative update, part 3. Oakland, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://rogersfoundation.org/system/resources/0000/0052/Oakland_Blended_Learning_Case_Study_Part_3.pdf
- Senge, P. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York, NY: Doubleday.
- Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the implementation fidelity of technology immersion and its relationship with student achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4), 5–68.
- Stansbury, M. (2008). Schools need help with tech support. eSchool News. Retrieved from http://www.eschoolnews.com/2008/01/09/schools-need-help-with-tech-support/
- Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration challenge: Cases from three urban elementary schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 285–311.
- Steiner, L. (2004). Designing effective professional development experiences: What do we know? Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
- Stronge, J. H., Richard, H. B., & Catano, N. (2008). Qualities of effective principals. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
- Thigpen, K. (2014). Creating anytime, anywhere learning for all students: Key elements of a comprehensive digital infrastructure. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from http://all4ed.org/reports-factsheets/creating-anytime-anywhere-learning-for-all-students-key-elements-of-a-comprehensive-digital-infrastructure/
- Thomas, L., & Knezek, D. (2008). Information, communication, and educational technology standards for students, teachers, and school leaders. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (Vol. 20, pp. 333–348). New York, NY: Springer.
- Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teacher practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.
- Wang, S.-K., Hsu, H.-Y., Campbell, T., Coster, D. C., & Longhurst, M. (2014). An investigation of middle school science teachers and students use of technology inside and outside of classrooms: Considering whether digital natives are more technology savvy than their teachers. Education Technology Research and Development, 62(6), 637–662.
- Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement (Working Paper). Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/ASC/4005RR_Superintendent_Leadership.pdf
- Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement (Working Paper). Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/ASC/5031RR_BalancedLeadership.pdf
- Waugh, R., & Godfrey, J. (1993). Teacher receptivity to system-wide change in the implementation stage. British Educational Research Journal, 19(5), 565–578.
- Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open University, Ruud de Moor Centrum.
- Wolf, M. A. (2010). Innovate to educate: System [re]design for personalized learning—A report from the 2010 symposium. Washington, DC: Software & Information Industry Association. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2010%20Symposium%20on%20Personalized%20Learning.pdf
- Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/REL_2007033.pdf
Appendix B. Acknowledgments
This plan was developed under the guidance of Richard Culatta, Joseph South, Katrina Stevens, Zac Chase, and Joan Lee of the U.S. Department of Education, OET. Within the OET, technical assistance was provided by Ernest Ezeugo, Daniel Kao, Ryan Lee, Laura McAllister, and Seth Wilbur. Additional support was provided by Heidi Silver-Pacuilla of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education.
Tracy Gray of AIR led a team of experts in the development of the 2016 NETP. Valuable support was provided by Alise Brann, Marshal Conley, Arayle Freels, Jillian Reynolds, and Kristin Ruedel. Additional contributions were made by Bani Dheer, Larry Friedman, Jessica Heppen, Michael McGarrah, Caroline Martin, Snehal Pathak, and Cheryl Pruce. Karen Cator and Doug Levin served as independent consultants.
Susan Thomas served as the principal writer for the NETP.
Graphics were developed by O2 Lab in Washington, D.C.
Technical Working Group
In addition, we extend our thanks to a Technical Working Group (TWG) of leading educators, technology innovators, and researchers who reviewed drafts of the guide and provided invaluable feedback, writing, and examples from their experiences.
- James Basham, Associate Professor, University of Kansas
- Cathy Casserly, Vice President, Learning Networks, EdCast Inc.
- Vint Cerf, Vice President & Chief Internet Evangelist, Google
- Dallas Dance, Superintendent, Baltimore County Public Schools
- Melissa Gresalfi, Assistant Professor, Learning Sciences, Vanderbilt University
- Harrison Keller, Vice Provost for Higher Education Policy & Research & Executive Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, University of Texas at Austin
- Michael Levine, Founding Director, Joan Ganz Cooney Center, Sesame Workshop
- Jeremy Macdonald, Director, Technology and Innovation, Redmond School District, Oregon
- Jennie Magiera, Chief Technology Officer, Des Plaines Public School District 62, Illinois
- Beth Simone Noveck, Professor and Director, The Govlab, New York University
- Kylie Peppler, Assistant Professor, Learning Sciences, Indiana University at Bloomington
- Candace Thille, Senior Research Fellow, Office of the Vice Provost for Online Learning & Assistant Professor, Stanford University
- Yong Zhao, Presidential Chair & Director, Institute for Global & Online Education, University of Oregon
We extend our appreciation to the thousands of individuals who participated in the numerous discussions, focus groups, presentations, webinars, public forums, and Web-based comment events that were held throughout the plan development process. A broad cross section of stakeholders contributed their input through the following activities. Our appreciation also goes to those who organized outreach efforts that helped gather valuable insights from across the field.
- Claudine Brown, Assistant Secretary for Education & Access, Smithsonian Institution
- Nadya Chinoy Dabby, Assistant Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement
- Seth Galanter, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights
- Dipayan Ghosh, National Economic Council, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
- Roosevelt Johnson, Deputy Associate Administrator, NASA, Office of Education
- Patrick Martin, Instructional Systems Specialist for Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Defense, Education Activity
- Ruth Neild, Director, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences
- Jim Shelton, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education
- Adrian Talley, Principal Deputy Director & Associate Director for Education, U.S. Department of Defense, Education Activity
- Bob Wise, Director, Alliance for Education
- Michael Yudin, Acting Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education & Rehabilitative Services
Leaders of National Organizations
- Karen Cator, President & Chief Executive Officer, Digital Promise
- Gail Connelly, Executive Director, National Association of Elementary School Principals
- Betsy Corcoran, Chief Executive Officer & Co-founder, EdSurge
- Dan Domenech, Executive Director, American Association of School Administrators
- Elyse Eidman-Aadahl, Executive Director, National Writing Project
- Scott Ellis, Chief Executive Officer, Learning Accelerator
- Ann Flynn, Director of Education Technology, National School Boards Association
- Stephanie Hirsch, Executive Director, Learning Forward
- Margaret Honey, Project Director, New York Hall of Science
- Michael Horn, Co-founder & Executive Director for Education, Clayton Christensen Institute
- Keith Krueger, Chief Executive Officer, Consortium for School Networking
- Doug Levin, Executive Director, State Educational Technology Directors Association
- Brian Lewis, Chief Executive Officer, International Society for Technology in Education
- Evan Marwell, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, EducationSuperHighway
- Barbara Means, Director, Technology in Learning, SRI International
- Chris Minnich, Executive Director, Council of Chief State School Officers
- Diana Oblinger, Chief Executive Officer, EDUCAUSE
- Shelley Pasnik, Director and Vice President, Center for Children and Technology
- Susan Patrick, President and Chief Executive Officer, iNACOL
- Shawn Rubin, Director, Technology Integration, Highlander Institute
- SETDA October 29, 2014
- iNACOL Conference November 4, 2014
- Higher Education Experts November 9, 2014
- ConnectED to the Future Superintendent Summit November 18, 2014
- Open Education Experts November 20, 2014
- ISTE Conference December 5, 2014
- Silicon Valley — Innovators February 24, 2015
- Silicon Valley — Developers and Investors February 24, 2015
- PDX — Portland State University Conference February 25, 2015
Target Virtual Outreach
- Classroom Teachers: February 9, 2015
- Assessment Experts: February 11, 2015
- Adult Education Experts: February 18, 2015
- Librarians: February 18, 2015
- Teacher Preparation Experts: February 18, 2015
- District Administrators: February 19, 2015
- Informal Learning Experts: February 20, 2015
- Researchers: February 20, 2015
- Frederick Brown, Deputy Executive Director, Learning Forward
- Stevie Chepko, Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation
- Elyse Eidman-Aadahl, Executive Director, National Writing Project
- Keith Krueger, Chief Executive Officer, Consortium for School Networking
- Evan Marwell, Chief Executive Officer, EducationSuperHighway
- Diana Oblinger, President Emeritus, EDUCAUSE
- Desiree Pointer-Mace, Associate Professor and Associate Dean for Graduate Programs in the School of Education, Alvemo College
Appendix C. The Development of the 2016 NETP
The 2016 NETP builds on the foundation of the 2010 Plan, Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. The 2016 NETP explores the exciting advances, opportunities, and research that illustrate how teaching and learning can be enhanced with the innovative use of technology and openly licensed content and resources. The 2016 NETP offers a vision of how technology can transform formal and informal learning, the critical elements such as qualified teachers and staff, high-quality curriculum and resources, strong leadership, robust infrastructure, and aligned assessments.
The development of the 2016 NETP began with a series of meetings with the TWG, which consisted of 13 leading educators, technology innovators, and researchers. The first meeting was a one-day gathering to develop the vision and overarching themes. On the basis of expertise and interest, each of the TWG members was assigned to a sub-group to focus on one of the five key topic areas: Learning, Teaching, Leadership, Assessment, and Infrastructure. TWG members provided feedback that informed the development of the 2016 NETP outline and working drafts, including the identification of relevant research and exemplary programs. The TWG reviewed two drafts and offered their comments and recommendations, which were incorporated into the final document. In addition, a group of national content experts and members of key stakeholder groups reviewed and provided feedback on an early draft, which was also incorporated into the document.
The 2016 NETP also was informed by a series of interviews conducted by the AIR team with 31 leaders from the U.S. Department of Education; the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; and other government agencies, technology innovators, and nonprofit organizations. These interviews provided valuable insight into the priorities and practices being implemented to further the goals of ensuring equity and accessibility to high-quality instruction enabled by technology for all students.
In addition, the AIR team convened a series of nine face-to-face and eight virtual focus groups to gather further insights and recommendations for the 2016 NETP. The participants represented a broad cross section of key stakeholders, including practitioners, state and local administrators, technology innovators, experts, and developers. The focus groups also provided the opportunity for participants to identify exemplars of the innovative use of technology in formal and informal educational settings.
Throughout the development process for the 2016 NETP, attention was focused on the compilation and review of proposed examples to illustrate the innovative use of technology across the five areas of Learning, Teaching, Leadership, Assessment, and Infrastructure. Suggestions were collected from the TWG members, interviewees, focus group participants, and AIR and OET staff. In addition, the AIR team conducted a review of the literature, a survey of national education technology initiatives (for example, Future Ready, CoSN, ISTE, and Digital Promise), and Internet searches to identify these exemplary programs and initiatives. More than 235 examples were identified during the course of the project. In an effort to identify those examples that best aligned with the 2016 NETP, the AIR and OET teams used the following screening criteria to make the final selection: quality of the user experience, evidence of success, and clear use of technology (where appropriate). A total of 53 examples are included in the 2016 NETP to deepen an understanding of the innovative use of technology to enhance teaching and learning in formal and informal settings.
Appendix D. Release Notes
- Clarified introduction’s reference to ITECH program to more accurately reflect the Activities to Support Effective Use of Technology (Title IV A) included in the Every Student Succeeds Act.
- Added new Appendix for release notes.
- Aligned recommendations at the end of each chapter to the recommendations listed in the conclusion.
- Corrected typographical errors, refined example language, and fixed one broken hyperlink.