POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE

Federal Funding for Educational Technology and 

How It Is Used in the Classroom: 

A Summary of Findings from the Integrated 

Studies of Educational Technology 

2003

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DOC # 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY
U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige 

Secretary

Office of the Under Secretary 

Eugene Hickok 

Under Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan L. Ginsburg 

Director

Program and Analytic Studies 

David Goodwin 

Director 

October 2003 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to produce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, 

Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service, Federal Funding for Educational 

Technology and How It Is Used in the Classroom: A Summary of Findings from the Integrated Studies of 

Educational Technology, Washington, D.C., 2003. 

To order copies of this report, write 

ED Pubs 

Editorial Publications Center 

U.S. Department of Education 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398; 

Via fax, dial (301) 470-1244; 

Or via electronic mail, send your request to edpubs@inet.ed.gov.

You may also call toll-free 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your 

area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN); those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 8-800-437-0833. 

To order online, point your Internet browser to www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or 

computer diskette. For more information, please contact he Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 

260-9895 or (202) 205-8113. 
Federal Funding for Educational Technology and 

 How It Is Used in the Classroom: 

A Summary of Findings from the Integrated Studies of Educational Technology 

Technology is now considered by most educators and parents to be an integral part of providing 

a high-quality education. There is concern, however, that not all students, particularly students 

in rural schools or schools with a high percentage of minority or poor students, have equal access 

to educational technology, both in terms of the availability of equipment and the successful 

integration of technology into the classroom. To address these concerns, the federal government 

funds a number of programs designed to help encourage the effective use of technology in 

classrooms and eliminate differences in students’ access to technology. 

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) contracted with SRI International, the American 

Institutes for Research, and the Urban Institute to conduct the Integrated Studies of Educational 

Technology (ISET). ISET consisted of a nested set of state, district, school, and teacher surveys, 

designed to provide nationally representative information on federal funding for, and uses of, 

educational technology. This issue brief summarizes the major findings from the three final 

reports that ISET produced1

.

Federal Role in Supporting Technology 

The vast majority of direct federal funding for educational technology comes from two sources, 

the E-Rate program and a state formula grant program operated by ED that is dedicated to 

educational technology. From fiscal years 1997 through 2001, the state formula grant program

was known as the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund (TLCF) program; No Child Left Behind, 

the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, replaced the TLCF 

with the new Educational Technology State Grants (also know as the Enhancing Education 

Through Technology or EETT) program. There are several major distinctions between the two 

programs. Under the EETT program, half of the funds received by states are awarded to districts 

by formula while the other half are awarded competitively as they were under the TLCF 

program. 

 1

 The three reports are:

(1) Professional Development and Teachers’ Use of Technology: SRI International,

(http://www.sri.com/policy/cep/mst/SRI_Professional_Development_Report_2002.pdf) 

(2) A Formative Evaluation of the E-Rate Program: The Urban Institute 

(http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410579) 

(3) Implementing the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund Educational Technology State Grants Program: 

American Institutes for Research

(http://www.air.org/program_areas/teched/teched-set.htm) 

An additional E-Rate report (E-Rate and the Digital Divide: A Preliminary Analysis from the Integrated Studies of 

Educational Technology) was published as part of ISET, but did not rely on the survey data. 

3
In addition, grantees under EETT are now required to spend at least 25 percent of their funds on 

professional development in the integration of technology into curriculum and instruction unless 

they are able to demonstrate to the state that they already provide such training. Funds are 

further targeted under the EETT program to high-need LEAs and students served by these LEAs. 

A “high-need local educational agency” is defined as being among those LEAs in the State with 

the highest numbers or percentages of children from families with incomes below the poverty 

line and LEAs that serve one or more schools identified for improvement or corrective action 

under section 1116 of the ESEA, or that have a substantial need for assistance in acquiring and 

using technology. 

A great deal of money for educational technology also comes from the Title I program, as many 

local districts and schools choose to use their Title I allocations for technology-related 

expenditures. Other Department programs also provide considerable support for education 

technology, such as State Grants for Innovative Programs. ISET focused on the implementation 

of the two direct federal funding streams for technology—E-Rate and the TLCF program—while 

also analyzing the overall use of technology in the classroom, including activities and equipment 

funded through Title I or other sources. 

TLCF Program: The TLCF program was designed to assist states in integrating educational 

technology into classrooms. Funds were distributed to states using a formula based on each 

state’s share of funds under Part A of Title I. School districts, either individually or as part of a 

consortium, then applied to the state for competitive subgrants, with states directed to target 

awards based on economic need or need for education technology. Under TLCF provisions, 

states had great flexibility both in choosing who would receive funding and for which activities 

those funds would be spent. The statute authorized grantees to use funds for, among other 

things, purchasing computers, improving Internet connections, providing professional 

development related to technology, and integrating technology into the classroom. 

The nationally representative ISET survey of District Technology Coordinators found that 61 

percent of districts applied for TLCF funding between 1997 and 2001, with more than two-thirds 

applying as individual districts and the remainder applying as part of a consortium. High poverty 

districts were much more likely to apply for funds (77 percent) than were other districts (54 

percent). This pattern was likely due to the statutory directive to target TLCF funds to high need 

districts and the Department’s interpretation of those provisions. Among district technology 

coordinators, the most commonly reported reason for not applying was a lack of staff time to 

write the proposal (61 percent of districts that did not apply) followed by a lack of awareness of 

the program (56 percent of districts). Small districts were significantly more likely than large 

districts to report that their staff lacked time to write a proposal (76 percent versus 26 percent). 

Overall, the TLCF program provided funding to about 12 percent of all school districts in 1997. 

This number increased to 21 percent in 2000 as program funding doubled. States exhibited wide 

variation in the number of subgrants awarded and, hence, the average size of each subgrant. 

Some states awarded a few, large subgrants while others made numerous smaller awards. For 

the most part, states tended to use the same strategy from year to year. 

4
5

Analyzing the targeting of the TLCF program reveals that the percent of funds going to 

high-poverty districts declined between 1997 and 2000. Figure 1 presents an analysis of the 

distribution of TLCF funds using a uniform measure of poverty across states based on Census 

data on the share of families in a district considered to be in poverty. Using the Census data, in 

1997, the poorest quartile of districts received 55 percent of TCLF funds and the poorest half 

received 80 percent. However, by 2000, according to the Census data, the targeting of funds to 

high-poverty districts had declined significantly, with the poorest quartile of districts receiving 

only 32 percent of TLCF funds and the bottom half receiving funds just commensurate with their 

proportion of the population. Using state-defined measures of poverty (typically based on the 

share of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, although some states used other 

poverty measures), the percentage of TLCF funds going to high-poverty districts did not decline 

nearly as much over the period, falling only from 78 to 70 percent between 1997 and 2000. 

Figure 1. Proportion of district TLCF subgrants awarded to high-poverty districts, 1997–2000 

Top poverty quartile Top two poverty quartiles State-defined poverty 

Year 

Percent of 

funds 

Percent of 

subgrants 

Percent of 

funds 

Percent of 

subgrants 

Percent of 

funds 

Percent of 

subgrants 

1997 55% 48% 78% 71% 80% 81% 

1998 42% 35% 73% 66% 62% 63% 

1999 31% 27% 73% 64% 48% 51% 

2000 32% 28% 70% 60% 49% 53% 

Other findings regarding the distribution of TLCF funds to rural and smaller districts were: 

 In 1997 and 1998, rural districts received a disproportionate share of TLCF funds compared 

to their share of student enrollment. According to the 1997-98 Common Core of Data, rural 

districts enrolled 24 percent of students, yet they received 42 percent of TLCF funds in 1997 

and 39 percent in 1998. However, beginning in 1999, the distribution of TLCF funds to rural 

and urban districts roughly matched their share of student enrollments. 

 Average per-pupil awards were considerably higher for rural as compared to urban districts. 

In 2000, the per-pupil award for rural districts was $29.39, while for urban districts it was 

$10.48. 

 Smaller districts (fewer than 1,675 students) also received higher per-pupil awards than did 

mid-sized districts (1,675 to 5,262 students) or large districts (more than 5,262 students). In 

2000, the per-pupil award for smaller districts was $121.12 compared to $26.89 for mid-sized 

districts and $11.32 for large districts. 

Within districts, 39 percent of TLCF subgrantees reported targeting funds to specific types of 

schools rather than distributing the funds uniformly across all schools. High-poverty districts 

were significantly more likely to report targeting their funds to specific school types than other 

districts (57 percent versus 24 percent), most often to elementary schools. 

TLCF funds were most commonly directed at hardware purchases and providing 

professional development. Nationwide, 54 percent of TLCF subgrantees reported using at 
6

least 25 percent of their TLCF funds for hardware, and 48 percent of districts spent 25 

percent or more of their TLCF funds for professional development. Other uses of funds, 

such as expenditures on connectivity, maintenance and technical support, and software and 

online resources were rarely reported (less than 15 percent of districts) as having constituted 25 

percent or more of total TLCF funding. There was wide variation among states in the purpose 

for which subgrantees were reported to have used TLCF funds. 

UE-Rate ProgramU: The E-Rate program is administered by the Federal Communications 

CommissionTP

2

PT and seeks to improve access to digital technology by providing approved schools 

and libraries with discounts ranging from 20 to 90 percent on qualifying telecommunications 

services. Discount rates are based on the percentage of students eligible for participation in the 

National School Lunch program and on whether the school or library is located in a rural area. 

The program was first funded in 1998 and funding is subject to an annual cap of $2.25 billion. 

The E-Rate program supports the acquisition of digital technology infrastructure, including 

telephone services (basic, long-distance, and wireless), Internet and web site services, and the 

purchase and installation of network equipment and services. Other components of educational 

technology such as computer hardware and software, staff training, and electrical upgrades are 

not covered under E-Rate. Through January 2000, the largest share of E-Rate discounts (58 

percent) were used to support internal building connections, with the poorest districts receiving 

higher average discounts for this purpose. The remaining discounts were used for 

telecommunications services (34 percent) and Internet access (8 percent). 

An analysis of all E-Rate applications and discount approvals through January 2000 indicates 

that public schools were the primary recipients of the program, receiving 84 percent of the 

discounts. This is in part due to the fact that they are much more likely to apply—more than 75 

percent of public districts and schools applied for E-Rate discounts, compared to about 50 

percent of public libraries and 15 percent of private schools. The program is well-targeted to the 

poorest communities, with per-student discounts to the most disadvantaged school districts 

almost 10 times higher than those given to the least disadvantaged districts. 

In addition, analyzing school districts that received E-Rate discounts in school years 1998-99 and 

1999-00 revealed statistically significant increases in the: 

 Proportion of schools and classrooms connected to the Internet; 

 Number of phones per student; 

 Number of Internet-connected computers and Internet connections per student; and 

 Speed of Internet connections. 

UEffects of Federal Spending:U The gap in Internet access between high and low poverty schools 

has narrowed substantially, but significant differences remain in classroom access. While it is not 

possible to directly link federal funding with technology change in schools or classrooms, Figure 

2 reveals that, coinciding with the growth in TLCF and E-Rate funding, the gap in Internet 

 

TP

2

PT More precisely, the program is administered by the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service 

Administration Company on behalf of the FCC. 
access between high poverty schools (those at which 75 percent or more of the students are 

eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch) and low-poverty schools (those at which less than 35 

percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) has narrowed considerably, 

with few high-poverty schools lacking access to the Internet as of 2000. Gaps still exist, 

however, between high- and low-poverty schools in classroom access to the Internet, with 80 

percent of classrooms in low-poverty schools being connected to the Internet in 2000 versus 60 

percent in high-poverty schools. 

Another indicator of the narrowing gap between high and low poverty schools is the ratio 

between the number of students and the number of computers with Internet access. In high 

poverty schools, the student to instructional computer with Internet access ratio was 17 to 1 in 

both 1998 and in 1999, and 9 to 1 in 20003

, ratios that are well above the recommended ratio of 5 

to 1. The corresponding percentages in not-high poverty schools were 11 to 1 in 1998, 8 to 1 in 

1999, and 6 to 1 in 2000. 

Figure 2: Changes in School and Classroom Internet Access, 1994-2000 (NCES)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Percent Connected

Internet Connected Schools—Low

Poverty

Internet Connected Schools—High

Poverty

Internet Connected Classrooms—Low

Poverty

Internet Connected Classrooms—High

Poverty

High-poverty schools are those with

75% or more of their students eligible

for free lunch; low-poverty schools are

those with less than 35% of enrolled

students eligible for free lunch.

The next section of this report addresses the use of technology in the classroom and professional 

development, findings are presented on whether there was a significant difference found in a 

number of different areas relating to educational technology between districts receiving TLCF 

funds and those that did not. It should be emphasized that these differences, or the lack thereof, 

cannot be attributed to the presence or absence of TLCF funding since it is not possible to isolate 

the effect of TLCF funding from the numerous other potential factors affecting a district’s 

actions relating to educational technology. 

 3

 National Center for Education Statistics (2001). Internet access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-

2000. U.S. Department of Education, NCES 2001-071. 

7
8

Use of Technology in the Classroom 

One of the main purposes of ISET was to describe the use of technology in classroom settings, 

regardless of the funding source. Questions were asked to determine the availability of 

computers, the use of technology for instructional and professional activities, and perceived 

barriers to the use of technology. 

UComputer AvailabilityU: A key factor affecting the use of technology in the classroom is the 

availability of computers. In ISET, computer availability was categorized into the following 

three levels based on teacher reports: 

 High availability: Having two or more computers in the classroom and having access to a 

computer laboratory with 25 or more computers. This situation was reported by 30 percent 

of teachers. 

 Medium availability: Having two or more computers in the classroom or having access to a 

computer laboratory with 25 or more computers. This situation was reported by 51 percent 

of teachers. 

 Low availability: Not having two or more computers in the classroom and not having access 

to a computer laboratory with 25 or more computers. This situation was reported by 19 

percent of teachers. 

Teachers in rural districts were less likely to report that their schools met the criteria for the highavailability category; otherwise there were no significant differences in computer availability by 

school type (elementary versus secondary), poverty, or receipt of TLCF funding. 

UInstructional Use of TechnologyU: The above data suggest that the great majority of teachers 

have some access to computers that could be used for instructional purposes. Overall, more 

than half (55 percent) of teachers reported being frequent users of technology for 

instructional purposes (defined as engaging in at least one computer-related activity a 

week), with 37 percent of teachers reporting infrequent use of technology for this purpose, 

and 8 percent reporting no use. Frequent use of computers for any instructional activity was 

significantly more common among elementary teachers than secondary teachers (69 percent 

versus 43 percent). Teachers in high-poverty schools were also more likely than other teachers 

to report frequent instructional use of computers (64 percent versus 54 percent). However, 

technology use did not vary significantly by school location or TLCF funding status. 

As shown in Figure 3, the computer-related activities in which teachers reported most often 

engaging their students were as follows: expressing themselves in writing, improving their 

computer skills, doing research using the Internet, using computers as a free-time or reward 

activity, and doing practice drills. Significant differences between elementary and secondary 

teachers in the percentage using technology frequently (at least once per week) were found for 

the use of technology to improve students’ computer skills (46 percent versus 19 percent), as a 
free-time or reward activity (44 percent versus 15 percent), and for practice drills (40 percent 

versus 17 percent). Patterns of technology use were similar in high-poverty and other schools, 

except that teachers in high-poverty schools were significantly more likely to report the frequent 

use of technology for practice drills (42 percent versus 25 percent) and as a free-time or reward 

activity (42 percent versus 26 percent). 

Figure 3. Teacher use of technology with students for different instructional purposes 

86%

80%

60%

48%

56%

30%

50%

23%

40%

38%

30%

12%

18%

38%

46%

38%

60%

30%

55%

30%

32%

37%

2%

2%

3%

6%

6%

10%

19%

22%

29%

30%

33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

...participate in distance learning via the Internet or other interactive media

...correspond with experts, authors, students from other schools, etc. via e-mail or

Internet

...produce multimedia reports/projects

...do research using CD-ROM

...present information graphically

...do research using the Internet

...solve problems/analyze data

...express themselves in writing

...do practice drills

...have free time, as a reward

...improve their computer skills Never

Occasionally

Frequently

Professional Use of Technology: Figure 4 presents data on teachers’ use of technology relating 

to professional practices. The data indicated fairly widespread use of technology for 

common professional practices, with use growing in each area between 19994

 and 2001. 

However, the percentage of teachers indicating they used technology for professional 

practices frequently (at least once a week) was much lower. 

 4

 The 1999 data come from the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) survey, “Public School Teachers Use of

Computers and the Internet” presented in the report Teachers’ Tools for the 21st Century (2000).

9
10

Figure 4. Teachers’ Use of Technology for Professional-Practice Activities 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Creating instructional

materials

Gathering information

for planning lessons

Communicating with

colleagues

Doing administrative

record keeping

Communicating with

students’ parents

Percent Who Use Technology for

This Activity – FRSS (1999) 

Percent Who Use Technology for

This Activity – ISET (2001)

Dividing teachers into two categories depending upon whether their use of technology for 

professional practices was above or below the median revealed: 

 Secondary school teachers were significantly more likely to be in the Higher Professional 

Use category than were elementary school teachers (68 percent versus 42 percent). 

 Secondary teachers in high-poverty schools were significantly less likely to be in the Higher 

Professional Use category than were secondary teachers in other schools (47 percent versus 

73 percent). The use of technology for professional practices was similar between 

elementary teachers in high-poverty and other schools. 

 Teachers in rural schools were significantly more likely to be in the Higher Professional Use 

category than were urban teachers (60 percent versus 46 percent). Teachers in suburban 

schools fell in-between, with 56 percent classified in the Higher Professional Use group. 

 There was no significant difference in the use of technology for professional practices 

between teachers in TLCF and non-TLCF participating districts. 

UBarriers to the Use of TechnologyU: ISET also asked teachers about a variety of potential 

barriers to their use of educational technology. As shown in Figure 5, the three areas that 

teachers most often indicated as being a moderate to great barrier all had to do with time 

limitations: limited time to develop new activities that incorporate technology, limited time in the 

school schedule to conduct activities, and limited time to practice technology skills. 
11

Figure 5. Barriers to Use of Educational Technology: Teachers’ Reports of Moderate or Great 

Obstacles 

25

29

30

30

34

37

40

41

42

45

45

46

47

62

62

68

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Support from administrators

Students' lack of access to Internet at school

Reliability of Internet connection during class

Students' skills in using technology

School's collection of appropriate software resources

Student access to inappropriate material

Inadequate training opportunities

Alignment of software products with curriculum

Availability of peripheral devices

Technical support

Having to individually purchase relevant software 

Student access to technology/Internet outside of school

Enough computers/computers with Internet access

Time to learn/practice

Time in school schedule

Time to develop activities

Percent

Examination of teachers’ ratings of barriers to the use of technology by school poverty level 

revealed significant differences for three barriers: 

 77 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools cited students’ lack of access to technology or 

the Internet outside of school as a barrier, compared to 37 percent of teachers in other 

schools. 

 38 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools cited students’ lack of skills in using 

technology as a barrier, compared to 25 percent of teachers in other schools. 

 38 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools cited students’ lack of access to the Internet at 

school as a barrier, compared to 26 percent of teachers in other schools. 

Interestingly, fewer teachers in high-poverty schools in TLCF districts rated the barrier of limited 

time to develop activities/lessons that use technology as moderate to great, compared with 

teachers in high-poverty schools in districts not receiving TLCF funds. While this difference 

cannot be directly attributed to the presence of TLCF funding, it is a phenomenon that will be 

investigated in upcoming surveys related to the EETT program. 
The lack of home access to computers and the Internet for students at high-poverty schools 

affected how teachers in these schools employed technology, with far fewer having students 

use the computer or the Internet to complete assignments outside the classroom (34 percent 

of teachers in high-poverty schools versus 54 percent in other schools). 

Another potential barrier affecting how teachers use technology in the classroom is the 

availability of technology support. Nearly all teachers (97 percent) reported that support for 

education technology use in the areas of hardware, software, and networking were available to 

them as well as help with integration of computer activities into instruction (83 percent). 

However, only 50 percent of teachers reported that their needs for technical support in the 

integration of computer activities with curriculum were being met fairly or extremely well. 

Teachers most often indicated (38 percent) that a full-time, paid school technology coordinator 

was the individual primarily responsible for technology support. However, full-time, paid 

school technology coordinators were significantly less likely to be found in high-poverty 

schools (34 percent versus 52 percent for other schools). Ratings of the availability and 

quality of technology support did not differ significantly by district TLCF participation, school 

size, or school grade level. 

Professional Development

As described above, one of the two main uses of TLCF funds was providing professional 

development for teachers, with approximately half the districts spending 25 percent or more of 

their funds on this activity. ISET investigated a number of issues related to professional 

development, including how teachers learn to use technology, the amount and types of 

professional development received by teachers, characteristics of the professional development 

received, and the relationship between professional development and technology usage. 

How Teachers Learn to Use Technology: As shown in Figure 6, formal professional 

development in the form of courses, workshops, or institutes sponsored by the district is a very 

common way in which teachers report learning to use technology. Not surprisingly, age played a 

big factor in the extent to which teachers reported learning to use technology through courses 

taken as part of their undergraduate or graduate training, with younger teachers significantly 

more likely to cite their preservice preparation—65 percent of teachers under 30 compared to 

less than 40 percent for any of the older age groups. 

12
Figure 6. How Teachers Learned to Use Technology 

Method of Learning Percentage 

Teaching themselves to use it 95 

From other teachers at the school 88 

From technology courses, workshops, or institutes sponsored by the district 84 

From family/friends 78 

From students at my school

* 50 

From technology courses offered by a local college or organization other than your 

school district* 44 

From courses offered in your undergraduate or graduate training* 37 

From your own K-12 schooling* 13 

Note: Differences between adjacent rows are not always statistically significant. *

 Item response rates for these four items ranged from 76 percent to 86 percent. This report restricts attention to items for 

which item response rates were 90 percent or above. For the items designated with an asterisk, although the exact 

percentages may be unreliable, the data are retained because non-response bias would not substantively change the 

interpretation of the findings. 

Even though teachers felt fairly comfortable in their preparation for using technology for 

classroom instruction—almost 85 percent said they were at least somewhat well-prepared—they 

almost unanimously indicated a need for and willingness to obtain additional technology-related 

professional development. Teachers reported that professional development to integrate 

technology into instruction was their greatest need. When asked specifically in which of 13 

areas they needed professional development, the areas most often cited (by over 80 percent of 

teachers) related to how to integrate technology into instruction—not learning basic computer 

skills, which was cited by only 37 percent of teachers. 

Another indication of the demand for professional development is that over 90 percent of 

teachers reported being willing to undertake additional professional development in educational 

technology, with almost two-thirds willing to take 10 or more hours. Teachers in high-poverty 

schools seemed particularly willing to engage in more professional development related to 

educational technology, with 27 percent indicating a willingness to participate in 30 or 

more hours, compared to 13 percent of teachers in other schools. Teachers in high-poverty 

schools were also more likely to report a high need for professional development in how to use 

technology to help students improve basic academic skills (53 percent versus 39 percent). 

Otherwise, responses about willingness and need for technology-related professional 

development were similar regardless of school poverty level, urbanicity, whether the teacher was 

an elementary or secondary teacher, or whether the teacher was in a district that received a TLCF 

subgrant. 

Participation in Professional Development: In the past year, approximately three-quarters 

of teachers had participated in at least one type of formal technology-related professional 

development activity, with 20 percent of teachers participating in more than two activity 

types. The most common form of activity was the within-district workshop, with two-thirds of 

teachers participating. The next most common activities—out-of-district workshops or 

conferences; courses for college credit; or committees, task forces, or study groups—were much 

less common, with only one-fifth of teachers indicating participation in each of these activities. 

The total number of formal technology-related professional development activities teachers 

13
14

reported engaging in did not differ depending on the level of the school, location, poverty status, 

or whether the district received TCLF funds. 

Analysis of questions regarding the types of formal technology-related professional development 

activities engaged in revealed the following: 

 The most commonly covered software applications were e-mail, word processing, Internet 

browsers, and desktop publishing or presentation programs, which were training topics for 

more than half of the teachers. The least frequently covered topic was the use of integrated 

learning systems, with only one-quarter of teachers having training in this type of 

application. 

 Integrating technology into instruction was also a common topic of formal professional 

development—57 percent of teachers had training in using technology to teach basic skills, 

59 percent to promote active learning, and 68 percent to teach in their primary content area. 

This is consistent with the previously reported finding that the vast majority of teachers 

indicated a need for professional development in integrating technology into instruction. 

However, only about 40 percent of teachers had training in using technology related to 

assessment. 

 Teachers in high-poverty schools were significantly more likely to report having covered the 

use of technology to teach basic skills and facts through drills, tutorials, and learning games 

(70 percent) than were other teachers (54 percent). Elementary school teachers were also 

significantly more likely to emphasize basics skills practice than were secondary school 

teachers (57 percent versus 37 percent). Teachers in districts that received TLCF funds were 

not more likely to report professional development in the use of technology to teach basic 

skills, however. 

In addition, ISET asked teachers questions concerning the presence of a number of key features 

in their professional development activities. As shown in Figure 7, the majority of teachers 

reported that most of the key features were present at least to some extent in their professional 

development. As was the case with barriers to using educational technology, a lack of time 

appeared to be a major impediment to the effectiveness of the professional development 

received, with 75 percent of teachers indicating a lack of time to implement new practices in the 

classroom. 
15

Figure 7. Teacher Ratings of Formal Educational-Technology-Related Professional 

Development Activities: Characteristics Present “To Some Extent” or “A Great Deal” 

Characteristic Percentage 

Appropriate to teachers’ varying levels of knowledge, skills, and interests 82 

An opportunity for you to meaningfully engage with colleagues and materials 69 

Planned or delivered with input from teachers in your district 64 

Over multiple sessions, not a one-time experience 63 

Directly related to the content you teach 61 

For a substantial amount of time 60 

Accessible during evening/weekend hours 53 

Accessible during school hours (i.e., substitutes were provided for you to attend) 38 

Followed by planning time during the workday to implement new practices in the classroom 25 

Note: Differences between adjacent rows are not always statistically significant. 

Besides formal professional development activities, 78 percent of teachers also reported 

engaging in a number of informal professional development activities over the prior year. Most 

often, these consisted of reading journals or other publications, going to Web sites to get 

information or materials about educational technology, or informally working with peers or 

others. Almost 40 percent of teachers reported engaging in three or more informal professional 

development activities. As with formal professional development, there was no significant 

difference in participation in informal professional development activities by school type, 

location, poverty status, or TLCF funding. Combining formal and informal activities, only 10 

percent of teachers engaged in no professional development and 65 percent engaged in three or 

more activities over the past year. 

URelationship Between Professional Development and the Use of Educational TechnologyU: 

One of the issues analyzed in ISET was whether there was a relationship between professional 

development and the use of educational technology. While a causal relationship could not be 

estimated, there were several indications of a positive association between the amount and type 

of professional development teachers received and their increased use of educational technology. 

 The greater the number of technology-related professional development activities teachers 

engaged in, the more likely they were to be frequent users of technology for instructional 

purposes (even after controlling for a variety of other factors that predict technology use such 

as teacher age, computer availability, several school characteristics, etc.). The same result 

also held for professional (non-instructional) uses of technology. 

 The majority of teachers indicated that the professional development activities they engaged 

in prepared them to use educational technology in teaching. Among teachers engaging in 

within-district workshops, the most common formal professional development activity, only 

5 percent said the activity did not prepare them at all to use educational technology in 

teaching and 64 percent said it prepared them to a moderate or great extent. 

 Little difference was detected between formal and informal professional development in 

terms of their relationship to the use of educational technology. For example, when teachers 

were asked whether the ability to develop computer-based activities was due to professional 
16

development, their responses were almost identical for formal as compared to informal 

professional development (due to formal professional development: 39% - not at all or very 

little, 45% - to some extent, and 17% - a great deal; due to informal professional 

development: 36% - not at all or very little, 47% - to some extent, and 17% - a great deal). 

 Based on teachers’ characterizations of their professional development experiences and a list 

of the key features of professional development identified in the literature, the study 

concluded that the presence of more key features in teachers’ professional development 

activities increased the likelihood that the teachers would be more frequent users of 

technology for instructional purposes (even after controlling for a variety of other factors that 

predict technology use such as teacher age, the number of professional development 

activities, computer availability, several school characteristics, etc.). 

 Teachers whose professional development was more focused on integration into instruction 

were significantly more likely to report being more frequent users of technology for 

instructional purposes, even after controlling for a variety of other factors that predict 

technology use (e.g., teacher age, the number of professional development activities, 

computer availability, several school characteristics, etc.).