James Levin, Sandra Levin, Trudy Morritz, Greg Waddoups, Michael Waugh

College of Education
University of Illinois

Paper presented at
the National Educational Computer Conference
NECC ‘98
San Diego CA

• Executive Summary
• Details of the Evaluation of Project LINCOL’N
• Analysis of Pre- and Post-surveys
• Analysis of the Technology Mentor Interviews
• Analysis of the Network Infrastructure
• Analysis of Teacher Interviews and Observations
• Analysis of Student Interviews
• Summary
• References
• Acknowledgments

There is a lot of talk about the relationships between technology and systemic reform. However, going beyond the talk to implementing systemic reform with technology has proven more difficult, and there are numerous accounts of systemic failures. The Springfield School District 186 in Springfield Illinois has made major strides towards a successful systemic implementation of technology to support reforms in its educational system, through a process called Project LINCOL’N. This evaluation documents one year in that process, the 1997-98 school year. Given our evaluation, we make the following recommendations. The support for these recommendations is in the supporting documentation that follows.

There are a number of things that Project LINCOL’N is currently doing that our evaluation indicates that should be continued:

• Continue the unique systemic reform elements of Project LINCOL’N (technology, project-oriented, cross-curricular, cooperative group work)
• Continue to support the integration of the innovative teaching and learning strategies as a process which must be supported over time
• Maintain the role of teachers as active implementers and decision makers (rather than as passive recipients of mandated innovations)
• Continue the high level of support for teachers, especially early in the change process

There are a number of changes that we recommend, based on our evaluation:

Recommendations concerning support for teachers:

• Mentor teachers should be selected from each high school to serve teachers from that building
• Develop new ways to support collaboration among teachers at the high schools
• Show how to implement the Project LINCOL’N model at all ability levels
• Take into account the unique institutional characteristics of high schools for the implementation of the Project
• Better articulate for teachers assessment techniques and their application to Project LINCOL’N activities
• Clarify for teachers the advantages and disadvantages of different grouping mechanisms
• Help teachers draw upon parents and other resources outside the school

Recommendations concerning students:

• Clarify for students the role and value of group work
• Clarify for students how group work is assessed
• Plan activities that address the diversity of student experience with, access to, and attitudes toward technology

Infrastructure Recommendations:

• Increase institutional flexibility in the deployment of technology resources

There is a lot of talk about the relationships between technology and systemic reform (Means, 1994). It is often easy to introduce new technologies, but it is hard to sustain their impact (Cuban, 1986). Systemic reforms can produce sustained change, but are hard to introduce. Thus there is a synergistic effect of introducing new technologies in service of systemic reform.

The evaluation described in this paper has documented one year in that process (the 1997-98 school year). This documentation includes both those things that worked well and those that worked less well. This evaluation is based on several sources of data. We administered pre-surveys and post-surveys to the 41 high school teachers who participated in the Project LINCOL’N summer training during the summer of 1997 and were implementing Project LINCOL’N into their high school classrooms during the 1997-98 school year. We conducted classroom observations and teacher interviews of a selected set of six teachers ("focus teachers") several times during the school year and conducted interviews of selected students in those focus teachers’ classrooms near the end of the school year. We also conducted several interviews of the mentor teachers and district personnel during the school year.

Our analysis of these data focuses on examining which elements were crucial for successful implementation. We also probed for those elements which were specific to the particulars of this district, the particular schools, or the particular classroom, and those which were general across institutional settings. We compare the things that worked well and those that were less successful. The analysis also compares the general process that has worked for this district with the processes of reform in other cases which have worked less well, to help guide others considering systemic reform with technology.

The 41 high school teachers who attended Project LINCOL’N summer training were asked to complete a pre-survey (distributed in October 1997) and a post-survey (distributed in May 1998). The purpose of these surveys was to collect data on the broad group of teachers involved in Project LINCOL’N during the 1997-98 school year. The survey questions were similar to the questions asked in the interviews of the case studies covering the topics of computer and network access, summer and additional professional development, and activities during the school year. This information was used to determine whether the findings collected in the case studies were consistent across the entire group of teachers trained in the summer of 1997 and to consider the possibilities for a realistic implementation of this program across the school district.

The surveys asked for the last four digits of the teachers’ social security numbers, so that the pre- and post-surveys of the same teachers could be matched. District personnel distributed the pre-survey and teachers were asked to return the survey to the District Technology Coordinator who returned them to the evaluators. To expedite analysis of the final data, the post-survey was placed in teachers’ mailboxes with a self-addressed stamped envelope to be mailed directly to the evaluators at the University of Illinois. Twenty-eight (28) teachers (68%) responded to the pre-survey that was returned in November, 1997 while only sixteen teachers (39%) returned the post-survey by June 10, 1998. Of these, eleven teachers (27%) completed both surveys. The information in this section reflects the data collected from the 11 teachers who completed both surveys.

The participants who returned both surveys taught an average of 13.4 years in two or more high school grade levels and used computers an average of 7 years. At the beginning of the year, 55% of the teachers had email access and 64% web access at school. Seventy-three percent (73%) of the teachers had computers at home and were able to access email and the web from home. In contrast, by the end of the year, 100% of the teachers had email and web access from school, while at home, 82% of the teachers had access to a computer, with a drop in email access to 55% and a drop in web access to 64%.

Teachers completing the surveys were asked several questions concerning their experience in the 1997 summer training and if they would be repeating the training in the summer of 1998. They were also asked if they will be involved in any professional development during the 1997-98 school year or if they will attend non-LINCOL’N training in the summer of 1998.

When asked what they learned from the summer training, 91% indicated new instructional practices and technology skills and 82% selected technology implementation. These skills were incorporated into the classrooms in the following manner: Sixty-four percent (64%) used integrated thematic units, 73% focused on student centered instruction, 100% of the teachers used technology to support their curriculum, 18% restructured their school environment, 27% incorporated alternative assessment measures, and 36% participated in ongoing teacher inservice provided by the district. At the end of the summer training, teachers requested additional training in the current offerings, a graphics class, and training on the PC. They also requested more planning time with peers and instructors, more fine tuning on station and cooperative learning activities including more time and feedback on ideas and additional Internet search time to find web pages with relevant information in their subject areas. Two teachers were uncertain about what training they would need or wanted the district to offer.

During the school year, 64% of the teachers reported that they participated in ongoing Project LINCOL’N training. These included: classes on newsletter publishing, HyperStudio, connecting AV equipment, Web page construction, Netscape, PowerPoint, additional curriculum & hardware training and group meetings. Sixty-four percent (64%) of the teachers will be repeating the LINCOL’N summer training and 45% of the teachers will be involved in other types of professional development over the summer. This training includes: workshops for other projects to upgrade skills, to develop integrated projects in other subjects, to work on curriculum grids, to revise old plans and develop new ones, and to use technology in the classroom. At the end of the year, teachers continued to request additional training in instructional practices (55%), technology skills (55%), and technology integration (82%).

The instructional practices that were implemented include teaming, using technology to support teaching, incorporating stations, implementing thematic units, using alternative assessment measures, and focusing on student centered instruction. Teachers also extended their normal content by using the Internet and incorporating projects in their curriculum.

These practices were integrated into a number of different courses including: English, Informal Geometry, Introduction to Hospitality and Tourism, Social Studies, Biology 134, Basic Computer Skills, Computer Applications, and Cooperative Work Training.

At the beginning of the year, most of the teachers reported that they had ClarisWorks, KidPix, a variety of CD-ROMs, FlexCam and QuickCam cameras, TV-VCRs, computers (PC and Apple), PowerPoint, laserdiscs, scanners, Microsoft Office on PC, and limited access to the Internet using Netscape for web browsing and Eudora for email. Some teachers reported the need for additional hardware and software including: a computer cart, TV-VCR, a newer computer that can use the current software, an LTV, FlexCam camera, more CD ROMs for the PC, language specific software or culturally relevant software, HyperStudio, additional RAM, and more computers available in the classrooms.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of the teachers reported that during the year, they acquired the following hardware and software: grammar games, KidPix, QuickCam and QuickTake cameras, Encarta ‘98, PowerMac 5500/AV computers. One teacher won a second computer towards the end of the school year and now has two computers in the classroom. Another teacher was the recipient of a GTE/gift grant which provided a scanner, video camera, digital camera, TI-82/LRL with pH and pO probes, HyperStudio, Primer Print, KidPix, Bookshelf ‘98, and Encarta ‘98.

At the end of the year, teachers reported that they used: Eudora (64%), ClarisWorks (73%) KidPix (55%), HyperStudio (36%), PowerPoint (45%), Netscape (73%), FlexCam (55%), QuickTake camera (55%), Laser discs (27%), CD ROMs (73%), and other software and hardware including Microsoft Office, J&S Gradebook, QuickCam, and scanner. The number of times per month that students used technology in the classrooms varied widely from "once a week" to "too many to count."

Teachers integrated this technology into their curriculum in several different ways. Students used technology for research, word processing, creating graphics, and using spreadsheets for multimedia projects, presentations, and web page construction. Teachers used technology for their own classroom presentations, open house presentations and for teacher research.

During the course of the case studies, we noticed that some of the teachers were incorporating these new instructional practices in classes other than those identified in the previous summer’s training. For this reason, we included the following questions on the post-survey: Did you integrate any instructional practices or technology in classes other than those you identified in last summer’s training? If yes, what other classes did you introduce new instructional practices or technology? And, what instructional practices or technology did you use in these other classes?

Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the teachers integrated practices or technology beyond what they identified in the summer training, including Algebra/Informal Geometry, Foods 204, Biology 134, and Physiology 236. Teachers used problem-based learning and cooperative learning strategies. Students used PowerPoint ClarisWorks spreadsheets, CD ROMs, and laserdiscs to interpret and present research projects.

Technical and Curriculum support is a large component of Project LINCOL’N. At the beginning of the year, teachers were asked what kind of support they thought would be needed from the district. The responses on the pre-survey included: more computers, more software for both computer platforms, supplies and paper, a computer aide for technology support, classes for using the PC, lab tables, refresher courses, assistance with last minute plans or emergencies when using technology, planning time to develop ideas, peripherals, personnel to help out with stations and problems, computer videodisc player, Internet access, and biology/science videodisks.

The post-survey asked what kinds of support teachers needed and received. The support the teachers received during the year varied. Some teachers needed an extra person to help on the first couple of days of each project that the students did. Project LINCOL’N provided a mentor teacher. Teachers needed more computers in their classroom. Having only one computer made it difficult to complete projects. Teachers also received technical support, information on how to use certain equipment, and help with stations. Some teachers needed more technical assistance on the maintenance of the computer lab. Project LINCOL’N staff also helped out with technical problems, and suggestions, technical support; feedback on project ideas and problems that arose.

When implementing Project LINCOL’N activities, teachers encountered barriers and some found ways to overcome them. On the post-survey, teachers reported the following barriers to implementing change.

• "Not having enough computers in my classroom. Planning time to work with another teacher when you don't have common prep time."
• "Time, borrowing computers, and printing."
• "Not enough time to do all the planning and set up for projects."
• "There is not enough planning time and set up time during the school year."
• "Unable to try many of the things I wanted to because of construction in science classrooms."
• "None - the Project LINCOL’N staff and administration are so supportive that everything went very smoothly - common planning time was a minor complication."
• "Our 1st semester we did not have access to the Internet - which was a component of several of my projects."
• "Lack of willingness to provide minimally requested technology items, while others received whatever they requested."
• "My students resist any form of group work."
• "Lack of time and computers."

Some teachers were able to overcome these barriers in the following ways. In their own words, they begged and borrowed computers from other teachers. They planned their lessons "a little here, a little there" and commented that everything would have been a lot smoother if they had more planning time together. Teachers reorganized their time. Some teachers stayed at school late (5 PM) or got there early (7-7:30 AM). Teachers received half-day substitute teachers for planning, which was very beneficial, but it was hard to coordinate two half-days that worked for two or more people. One teacher had to wait until later in the second semester to incorporate this component. And another teacher was persistent and noted that it was extremely time consuming.

The LINCOL’N model includes cross-curricular activities which necessitates teachers working collaboratively. The respondents worked in teams of two and some worked with as many as six different teachers. Some of the cross-curricular projects included: Home Economics and English; Biology and Home Economics; English, Mathematics, Social Studies and Communications; English and Hospitality and Tourism; World History, Spanish, Psychology, and Math; Social Studies, English, and Business; Special Education, English, and Business Education.

The teachers were also asked if they would continue to team with other teachers during the 1998-99 school year. Ninety-one percent (91%) reported that they would continue team teaching, 64% would continue teaming with the same teachers they worked with in the 1997-98 school year, and 73% reported that they would continue teaming with some of the same teachers but would also include new teachers in their teams.

During the summer training, teachers were introduced to several assessment strategies that could be used with the LINCOL’N activities. On the pre-survey, teachers reported that they planned to assess students’ learning by using rubrics developed in the summer, tests, projects, group and self evaluations, attendance, portfolios, quizzes, research reports and presentations, Internet activities, and group work. The teachers were asked the same question on the post-survey and responded with the same assessment measures as on the pre-survey with the addition of two teachers using peer-peer evaluations.

Teachers were also asked what student outcomes they observed during Project LINCOL’N activities, whether these outcomes were the same or different than during non-Project LINCOL’N activities, and to explain what they thought the differences were. During Project LINCOL’N activities, teachers observed students with better teamwork skills, excitement about school and learning, and an increase in interest and skills with the latest technology for their activities. Teachers also observed an increase in cooperative learning, noticed that quieter students blossomed with Project LINCOL’N activities and reported that those students demonstrated a higher retention of the material. Students had a greater responsibility for their learning with some working better in pairs rather than larger groups. One teacher noticed a higher attendance rate during Project LINCOL’N activities, while another teacher noted poor attendance, but stated that students were willing to complete tasks vacated by others. Other teachers said that students spent more time on task, were more engaged in the learning process, enjoyed the integrated thematic units, and were able to cover the material in greater depth.

Thirty-six percent (36%) of the teachers reported a difference in outcomes during Project LINCOL’N activities, 18% responded that they noticed a difference some of the time and 45% did not respond to this question. Their comments about the difference in outcomes included: Student outcomes were much more enriched when doing Project LINCOL’N activities than non-Project LINCOL’N activities. Another teacher noted that it was more difficult to motivate the students during the non-Project LINCOL’N activities. Teachers also commented that some students like to be responsible for their own learning because they do not like depending on others, but Project LINCOL’N activities helped other students.

Sixty-three percent of the teachers noticed an increase or no change in their students’ level of expertise with technology and 27% did not respond to this question. An increase in skills was observed in students’ use of word processing, graphics, and toolbox. They had more chances to learn how to use the technology. Some teachers said that they were amazed at what their students could do in the computer lab. Some teachers noted that students that have not had much exposure to technology learned a lot and all students became more comfortable with it. Students loved to use the FlexCam and QuickTake cameras. Students’ level of understanding with particular applications increased. Students also had more opportunities to use the Internet, ClarisWorks, KidPix, HyperStudio and PowerPoint and TI-82/CBCK multimedia software.

When conducting projects in a classroom, teachers often drew upon outside resources. On both the pre- and post-surveys teachers were asked if they plan to include parents or the community in Project LINCOL’N activities. At the beginning of the year, 73% of the teachers were planning to include parents in their activities, 18% were not including parents, and 9% did not respond to this question. In contrast, when asked this same question at the end of the year, only 45% of the teachers included parents in their activities, 18% did not include parents, and 36% did not respond to this question.

Teachers reported that parents participated in open house activities, received school newsletters, came in to help build a project, helped on field trips, and viewed projects in the library. Parents were also asked to sign-off weekly on students’ projects. Teachers also invited advisors from the business community to meet with the class and give their input or speak to the class about particular topics.

One important component in the "infrastructure" provided by Springfield School District 186 for Project LINCOL’N is the "Technology Teacher Mentor" arrangement. During the fall of 1997, the district selected three classroom teachers to serve as Technology Mentors. They were released from their teaching responsibilities for two days per week so that they could provide technical and curricular support to other teachers in the district.

The primary mission of the mentors was to provide support for the high school teachers who had received technology training during the summer of 1997. The mentor teachers participated in the summer training program and the mentor program was explained to the high school teacher-participants during their training. A secondary mission of the mentors was to provide support to any other high school teachers or middle school teachers in the district, as time and resources might permit.

Each mentor teacher was expected to spend approximately 2 days outside of the classroom per week performing support duties. To minimize the disruption of these absences, each teacher was assigned a co-teacher to work with him/her during the school year. The co-teacher was expected to be present in the classroom every day to give the mentors maximum flexibility in coordinating their teaching and mentoring duties. The three teachers selected as mentors during 1997-98 were middle school teachers who had been through the Project LINCOL’N training in previous years.

These observations are based upon hour-long interviews with two of the mentors. The researchers asked a series of questions and also permitted the mentors to volunteer any information they felt was related to the progress of the mentoring program during the fall term. They are also based on the "logs" kept by two of the mentors over the course of the 1997-1998 school year.

The mentors felt that their mentoring proceeded satisfactorily during the year. However, they also felt that they had not made as much progress in mentoring the high school teachers as they would have liked. They mentioned differences in "culture" between middle school and high school, with more of a focus on fact acquisition and material coverage in high school. The high point for the mentors was the time they were able to spend with other teachers in their own buildings. They scheduled regular visits to the high schools starting in the middle of the first semester and continuing through the end of the school year and reported that specific high school teachers would anticipate these visits and request help on technology problems during these visits. But the heaviest demand on their time came from unplanned requests for help from teachers in the mentor teachers’ own buildings.

One mentor gave this evaluation of the elements of the Mentor Program at the end of the school year: "How would I rate the different aspects of the program? Teaching summer classes: A, working with my assistant teacher and within my own building: A+, working with high school teachers during the year: B-"

The mentors felt that they were staying quite busy during the fall. In fact, they indicated that they were busier during the 1997-98 school year than ever before.

It was expected and anticipated that the mentors would spend 2 days each week outside of the classroom. In fact, each mentor indicated that they were attempting to limit their support activities to a period of time which approximates 2 days in length but that it had been impossible to restrict their duties to 2 specific days during the week. The mentors indicated that they frequently spent their "planning period" involved in support activities.

One mentor described two types of assistance requests: 1) "just-in-time" requests, which are pre-planned and scheduled and 2) "I-need-it-now" requests, which are spontaneous and ad hoc. Of the two types of requests, the "I-need-it-now" requests were predominant during the fall. These requests were largely from teachers in the same middle school buildings as the mentors.

The mentors did not receive many scheduled requests for assistance but they spent a great deal of time responding to requests for immediate assistance. The scheduled visits to all the high schools later in the school year helped some of the high school teachers, but did not allow for the "just-in-time" or "I-need-it-now" help for high school teachers.

All three mentors spent the majority of their time supporting teachers and staff in their own buildings. Their activities included offering technical support, curricular planning support, teaching, mentoring their co-teachers, mentoring their own and other team members, performing team/department administrative duties.

The mentors reported that their participation in the mentor program gave them sufficient flexibility with their time that they often found themselves called upon to perform administrative duties for other members of their teams or departments. While these duties were not specifically focused on technology or curricular support, they felt that their ability to help out in this fashion was helpful in the broader scheme of things. It gave the mentors opportunities to interact with these individuals more frequently and thus was helpful in eliciting "invitations" from them regarding technology or curricular issues.

We asked the mentors how comfortable they felt interacting with one another and with members of the district’s technology support staff. They indicated a high degree of comfort and a willingness to share problems with one another according to their individual strengths and weaknesses. One reported in his log that the district staff was "quite organized and a pleasure to work with. They have a vision of what teaching in the future should be and are sharing that vision in the present." District personnel had no occasion to serve as an intermediary in channeling requests for assistance from high school teachers (or middle school teachers) to any of the mentors.

All three mentors participated in district training programs during the summer, fall, and spring in order to be better able to assist the other teachers in the district. Two of the mentor teachers related anecdotes about being able to provide effective technical support to other teachers even though they considered themselves to be relative novices with technology.

The mentors felt quite comfortable about working with their co-teachers. Each expressed some uncertainty about how these individuals were selected but felt that their co-teachers were working out well. The co-teachers were given primary responsibility for day-to-day operation of the classrooms and the mentor teachers were present as their schedules permit. All mentor teachers indicated that they were present in their classrooms for some portion of nearly every day.

Mentors and co-teachers collaborated on curriculum planning, technology and disciplinary procedures as well as other aspects of their programs. One co-teacher was encouraged to innovate and personalize the curriculum while another was required to follow the well-established curriculum with relatively few changes.

The mentors felt that this program might be useful in helping the district identify future permanent employees. Given the significant costs associated with bad hiring decisions, this aspect of the mentor program should be promoted as strong point.

One mentor said the biggest problem she faced was "balancing time", being in/out of the classroom constantly due to the demands of providing unplanned support to teachers in her building. Another said that the biggest problem was that his life wasn’t his own anymore, meaning that he was responsible for the success of his colleagues in multiple instructional activities and the constant demands on his were very taxing. The responsibilities of this assignment seem to provide numerous administrative challenges for the mentors and it would seem that such a program would also be valuable in identifying future part time administrators for the district.

Another major problem identified by the mentors was that they realized that they were not providing as much support to the high school teachers as was originally anticipated. During the spring semester, the mentors initiated regular visits to the high schools, which increased the amount of support drawn upon by the high school teachers. During the fall, one mentor’s log documented more than 5 times as many days spent helping middle school teachers than days spent helping high school teachers. But during the spring, that ratio was almost even, with approximately the same number of days spent helping middle school teachers as those spent helping high school teachers.

They also ran into a "cultural" barrier, because they were middle school teachers helping high school teachers. One mentor wrote that "high school teachers often mention the differences between middle school and high school when I offer any past experiences. It seems important to acknowledge that ‘fact’ before we can move on in any other discussions." Another mentor wrote: "Often we heard that if the mentors were high school teachers, they would better understand the situation high school teachers are in. We middle school teachers could not relate. I think that was just an excuse to cover the fact that they felt uncomfortable taking suggestions from us. They felt comfortable for years being the ‘sage on the stage’ and it will not be an overnight change in philosophy."

One mentor indicated that to improve the program the mentors should probably be more proactive in contacting the high school teachers, perhaps by email. Since all the buildings were not reliably connected until the middle of the fall semester, this strategy could not really be used until later in the Fall. Other web-based collaborative software might also help.

Another mentor mentioned that the "gap" between middle school and high school teachers might just be too large to bridge effectively, especially in a short time as a year. Perhaps high school mentors will be required to provide effective support to other high school teachers. Proximity of the resource to the location where the resource is needed is clearly an important factor and should be considered in planning the future of the mentor program.

During the course of this evaluation, the Springfield School District 186 began a three-year district-wide networking to install fiber connectivity to all thirty-eight school buildings. This section summarizes the progress of this plan and its impact on implementation of the LINCOL’N Project.

The computer networking in the Springfield School District has grown over the past several years. Beginning with the 1997-98 school year, the district began to implement an expanded networking plan. District personnel were hired to install and upgrade wiring in the school buildings (getting telephone wire from each of the classrooms into the networking closet in each building) and contracted with City Water, Light & Power Company (CWL&P) in Springfield to install fiber connectivity between their buildings to increase the bandwidth and accessibility to the Internet. When the plan is completed, CWL&P will have linked all the district buildings with fiber to the Illinois State Board of Education Communication Center (ISBECC). From the ISBECC, there is a D3 connection to Chicago which connects to the Internet at 45 MB per second. Payment to implement this plan was included in the regular district budget and was to be implemented in phases with Phase I taking place during the 1997-98 school year.

During the 1997-98 school year, the district maintained several servers for email accounts, dialup access, and a web server. In the previous year, all of the buildings were connected to a wide-area network, but in some buildings that meant one point of presence (i.e. All the secretaries were connected either by a 14.4 KB or 28.8 KB modem). All mail accounts were created and the principals, secretaries and teachers were on email. The district averages 1,500 — 1,600 current email accounts. So before fiber was installed in most of the buildings, a teacher would have to take a floppy disk into the secretary’s office to check their email account using Eudora (an email program used district-wide). Only one high school (Southeast) was connected with an ISDN line and was the only building wired all of the previous year. At that point, the connection was used very little because computers were kept in labs. The district has had several types of connectivity over the past year as well as different types of computers. In the elementary buildings, Apple IIe computers are still being used because they have 150 titles of MECC software. These older computers were being phased out when they stopped working. Apple Macintosh computers were used widely around the district for email and other applications. Some of the high schools also have Wintel computers.

This evaluation focused on the three high schools connectivity and computer use by teachers and students. Timing of the network installations, location of the computers in the buildings, and activities of district and school personnel had an impact on the implementation of Project LINCOL’N activities.

Springfield High School was wired in the summer of 1997 then in the fall, fiber was connect to this first building in October, 1997. This process of working out an arrangement with the local utility to share the use of their existing fiber network took approximately two years. Lanphier High School was the second building to get fiber shortly after Springfield High School. The third high school, Southeast High School, had fiber installed around January, 1998, the delay being due to construction of new science labs at that building. So, because of construction, Southeast High School was still not totally functional during the first semester of the 1997-98 school year. During the course of the year, since some of Southeast High School was still on a 56K ISDN connection which could only handle 5-6 Netscape connections at one time, the school decided to not allow anyone access the Internet so that guidance and attendance which also required the use of the Internet could be transmitted. This put a halt to all Project LINCOL’N activities in that building. Between February and March of 1998, fiber was available at Southeast High School and teachers were again allowed access. As of May, 1998, the district had finished Phase I of their networking plan and about eight out of 38 buildings in the district have had fiber wiring installed.

In the summer of 1997, 41 teachers from the three high schools and several teachers from two alternative schools participated in Project LINCOL’N training. By participating, teachers received a Macintosh computer for their classrooms. At the same time, Lanphier HIGH SCHOOL decided to dismantle their computer labs and place the computers in the classrooms. This meant that every classroom in Lanphier HIGH SCHOOL had a computer at the beginning of the schools year; however, the building was not completely wired until October, 1997. While the computer labs in the other high schools stayed intact, Project LINCOL’N and the disbursement of computers to classrooms at Lanphier HIGH SCHOOL allowed teachers and students easier access to computers and after October 1997 to the Internet.

At the inception of the Networking Plan, money for networking was written into the regular district budget. During the first year of installation, the funds for implementing the plan in years two and three were cut. This put pressure on district personnel to apply for grant money to continue with networking and professional development activities. There were four possible funding sources for these activities. Two ISBE Challenge Grants were submitted, one a grant to fund the mentor teacher initiative which began this school year and the second a statewide grant to fund the Summer Academy which provides professional training to teachers in outlying rural school districts. Announcement about these grants has been delayed. The district has also submitted a Federal Challenge Grant to expand Project LINCOL’N activities. Announcement on this award is expected in October, 1998.

The final funding possibility comes from the E-Rate legislation where schools can received discounts on networking. The district is now past phase 2 of the E-rate application process. So they are now in a pool of 30,000 others waiting for the next step in the application process. If the district gets approved, they will be entitled to an 80% discount. This discount will be used to complete the remainder of the three year networking plan.

The most significant difference in the implementation of Project LINCOL’N activities and the successful development of web related activities lies in the teachers and students involved. While teachers participating in Project LINCOL’N came from all three high schools, Springfield High School showed the most dramatic progress toward networking and web development when a computer aide and the librarian took it upon themselves to start a computer club. These teachers are exceptionally talented and have a lot of energy. Between the two of them, they started a computer club with approximately ten freshman and sophomores and gave them the task of building an intranet for the school. In February, 1998 they put up their first intranet web server which includes announcements, projects, classroom resources and the school newspaper. These two teachers also organized the computer club to handle troubleshooting problems in the building. Because of these efforts, the other teachers in the building are now starting to notice that the resource is out there and are putting in requests for help. The computer club has been called upon to do some translations for the Latin club, post some science projects on the web, and have worked with an AP Biology teacher interested in posting projects and assignments on the web for students to do over the summer. These activities have increased students’ interest in classroom activities. Teachers became aware of a need for a computer in the classroom beyond email. They have become aware of resources available from other teachers and ways to collaborate with others, so that teachers who have been less involved with technology have now started to see the benefits of networking.

The teachers involved in Project LINCOL’N activities utilized the networking capabilities of the district in all high school buildings as fiber was installed. Through the development of thematic units in the summer training, these teachers have begun to encourage students to incorporate web resources into their research projects and delve into a particular subject in more depth than they could have done previously with local resources. Students have become more familiar with productivity tools and web publishing. Through long-range planning, teacher training, and the energy of district personnel, students have been given the opportunity to learn skills needed for the 21st century.

The major goal for the district has been improved student learning. The district has taken a major initiative to train teachers in new methods of instruction, curriculum development and the use of technology. With state-of-the-art network connectivity, it hopes to see teachers from the different buildings collaborating with one another. During the 1997-98 school year, the district had a shared curriculum, but resources and collaboration among teachers and across buildings have not been fully utilized. The district continues to look for good teachers who are interested in using technology. In the words of a district trainer "Nothing can equal how a good teacher relates to kids." Based on this evaluation, educational change has already taken hold in the district and is likely to continue as more teachers participate in Project LINCOL’N training and network connectivity continues to be installed.

"They gave us the outline and told us how -- we will learn when we do it" said Bill Windom, a veteran teacher in Springfield School District 186, in an interview in October, 1997. His explanation was that the training he and 49 other teachers participated in during the Summer of 1997 couldn’t entirely prepare teachers for the complexities and odd turns of events that occur when adoption and adaptation is the goal of a training program, but that the training prepared the teachers to acquire the necessary skills in practice.

Teachers who participated in the Project LINCOL’N training in the summer of 1997 were expected to adopt inquiry-based approaches to instruction for student learning. Literature from Project LINCOL’N describes the concept underlying the project as a process which will result in changes in how teachers in District 186 teach and how their students learn. The understanding of change as a process is consistent with Fullan (1991) and Hall & Hord (1997). Specific changes in the LINCOL’N program include movement away from a teacher-centered to a more student-focused inquiry approach, improved access to technology, and the expanded uses of thematic units and inter-disciplinary team-teaching. In addition, teachers were charged with the responsibility to provide students with more opportunities to explore new ideas, and become part of a learning community. This model of instruction encourages teachers to act as facilitators, coaches, and collaborators rather than simple purveyors of information. A second component of project LINCOL’N is the use of information technology to support and enhance the teaching and learning of students who have different learning styles and educational needs. Two connections between the changes teachers make and the effects on students are described in the program proposal. The first is a statement that a change in the teacher’s role will lead to a change in the learners’ role, "students ... challenged to demonstrate their newly constructed knowledge through inquiry-based projects which require the application of skills from all curricular areas." Also, students will be affected by the assessment strategies envisioned in this project as performance-based assessment which will be incorporated as part of the instruction.

We focus on two sets of teachers in this evaluation. The first set had two original members, Bill Windom and Larry Russell. Bev Carstairs, Larry’s team teaching partner, became a tangential member of this set of teachers due to her and Larry’s coordinated activities. This first set of teachers had the most extensive interview sessions and data-analysis. We used our preliminary analysis of the data from this group of teachers to guide our discussions with the second set of teachers (Jen Patrick, John Cone, Molly Collis, and Mike Hastings).

The seven participants were interviewed and their classes were observed for several sessions each. The interview and observational data were analyzed according to the constant comparative method (Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This method facilitated the discovery of salient themes and the relations among themes in the experiences of these participants in adopting and adapting both inquiry-based instruction and the use of information technologies in the classroom. Our analyses of the interviews were supplemented by analyses of the curriculum for the LINCOL’N summer training program. We describe the transitions in teachers’ early ideas of inquiry-based instruction and the use of information technologies by analyzing the content of the teacher interviews.

In addition, case-studies (e.g., Merriam, 1988) of the first set of teachers were constructed to determine how individual teacher’s models of instruction and models of technology interacted during the movement from one set of practices and beliefs to another. More specifically, we document the transitional narratives constructed by two individuals as they attempt to adopt and adapt inquiry based learning, team teaching, group projects, thematic units, and the use of information technologies in the context of their classrooms. In particular, we compare the public statement of LINCOL’N program goals in training materials with the individual adoption and adaptation of this program. This comparison provides a rich account of the institutional and individual dynamics as teachers change their pedagogical practices and use of information technologies.

Larry has been a special education instructor in Springfield District 186 for over twenty-five years. Prior to participating in Project LINCOL’N he was comfortable with his method of instruction and the content in his classroom. In his words, "I literally wrote the book for my class and it works for my students." He agreed to participate in the summer training program because the incentives were good. He said that the possibility of gaining a block of eight continuing education points meant a one thousand dollar raise, and the opportunity to get a summer salary made the decision to participate in the summer project a "no-brainer." For Larry, the financial rewards were the primary motivator that "got him hooked" into Project LINCOL’N. Like many experienced teachers, Larry had participated in district-wide in-service teacher training programs. In his words, "The district has had [these kinds of programs] in the past, but they wouldn't follow up after the training. This project gave you the plan, and then backed it up with what we needed to implement it." According to Larry, his adoption of Project LINCOL’N activities was not only contingent on the quality of summer training but also depended on technical and curricular support from the district personnel.

During the summer training, Larry planned four units that utilized the concept of team-based instruction incorporating educational technologies and inquiry-based instruction. According to Larry, team-based instruction includes working with other teachers in his building to facilitate student learning. Because special education in District 186 is organized as "a school within a school," the concept of teaming provides Larry's students with a unique opportunity to collaborate with students from other classrooms. Larry and his students worked extensively with a business education class that met at the same hour. The teacher of that class, Bev, also participated in the summer training. Their first LINCOL’N project was the production of resumes. Larry's work transition students and Bev’s business students wrote resumes and electronically sent them to an English class who revised and proofread them. Subsequently, the English students forwarded the resumes to students in a computer applications course who formatted each resume. In this set of lessons, the technology facilitated the implementation of teaming among teachers in this building.

Larry and Bev continued this team approach with projects later in the year, including the timely and real-life use of computer software for tax preparation. They planned another coordinated project earlier in the year which they were not able to implement because their access to the fiber optic network was cut off for a time. Had they been able to use the network, their students would have planned a vacation using a web-based mapping program. They would have estimated the distance, time needed, and cost of their vacations and would have determined strategies for saving the money needed for their trips.

Even though they continued this team approach through the entire school year, Larry and Bev expressed concerns that their students do not necessarily work well together. They first voice it as a reluctance to work together. Larry suggested that his students don’t always want to work on projects, that they can be "lazy." Bev didn’t disagree but suggested that Larry’s students were intimidated by working with her students. She also expressed a belief that her students "don’t have the ability to empathize. They know they [Larry’s students] are coming from Special Education, but they don’t feel responsible for helping them."

Larry and Bev highlighted a difference in their teaching styles which they have had to work on during the year: The teachers suggested that Bev’s students were less diverse in their learning styles than Larry’s students and have a longer attention span. They have had to work together to find accommodations for merging the two classrooms and finding complementary teaching styles.

The technology Larry has available to him includes word processing software, CD-ROM programs, statewide job databases, the tax preparation software, and information and projects on the World Wide Web. He also has several computers and a television as computer monitor system in his classroom, and two more computers when he and Bev work together. Like many parents, teachers, and administrators, Larry believes that his students need to be technologically literate to compete in the new economy. According to Larry, "ninety percent of the people will have computers, you have to know how to use them, you have to own a computer, it can make your life enjoyable, but you have to know how to use them." In addition, Larry believes computers provide an added benefit of motivating students to engage in the learning process. This belief in technology as a potential motivator for learning did not lead him to reserve "computer time" to reward only the "well behaved" students. In contrast, Larry voiced strong feelings against using the computer as a form of behavior modification.

He said:

Larry commented in our first interview that the summer training program gave him "tools" for utilizing the computer technology in the classroom. He said: "Had I not had the LINCOL’N class last summer, I would have been in trouble. I would not have known what to do with the computers." In our later interviews he revealed a continuing contemplation of his relationship with using technology in the classroom. Although he reported several problems with using the technology during the year (both because of his relative inexperience and because of problems with the network) his outlook for next year was optimistic: "I think I will have a better handle on how to use it. I don’t think next year I will be able to do it as well as the Project LINCOL’N people in the elementary and middle schools who have been doing it for years, but that doesn’t bother me either." His discussions of the uses of technology during that interview, however, revealed a growing sophistication. He identified limitations of the equipment provided by the district in terms of one of the planned projects, (the TV screen was too small for the students to see the tax software in use), and also identified other equipment that could have worked in that situation (e.g., a multimedia projector).

Larry suggested that he is not going to turn his students into "computer wizards," but he is convinced that for them to be successful in the work place they must possess basic computer literacy skills. In this regard, he related the story of a former student who was functionally illiterate, but with the help of a job coach was able to work as a data input operator for the Illinois Department of Transportation.

Larry viewed the computer as a tool that could scaffold students to gain jobs that previously were unimaginable. In other words, Larry seemed to suggest that computer technology might be one means for filling the gap between his special education students and the general population of students.

Prior to entering the summer training, Larry’s view of inquiry-based instruction was a problem-based approach in which students were given real-world problems and were asked to solve them. For example, Larry described an ethics-in-the-workplace program that focused on "real world" problems in the workplace, such as how to deal with dishonest co-workers. Following the summer training, Larry's view of inquiry-based instruction expanded beyond individual problem-solving to include students collaborating and working in groups. Larry commented that his special education classes had students from varying ability levels, making it difficult for him to meet the students’ individual learning needs. According to Larry, students could work at their own speed and receive assistance from more capable peers when the class was involved in group activities. The collaborative work encouraged by Project LINCOL’N provided one means for meeting the varying needs of his students.

Bev described a situation in which the students started to "realize the importance of carrying over the knowledge from one class to another." She said that although they first rejected learning how to use a computer application in her class, "This isn’t a computer class," they soon realized that " . . . they are expected to bring the knowledge from one class into another."

Perhaps the most important aspect of inquiry-based learning for Larry is the extent to which it teaches students the skills necessary for being successful in the workplace. He said:

Through his summer training and early implementation of Project LINCOL’N, Larry not only developed a new set of teaching strategies but modeled the importance of life-long learning that many of his students will inevitably need as they enter the work force.

Bill is similar to Larry in several ways: both have a long history of successful teaching, both are comfortable with their pre-LINCOL’N teaching styles and beliefs, and both are simultaneously enthusiastic and somewhat dubious about using technology and team approaches in their classrooms. In addition, both entered Project LINCOL’N in part due to the financial incentives for the training, yet have adopted and adapted many beliefs and behaviors from the training.

Bill has been teaching social studies and history for 34 years and anticipates taking retirement benefits within the next few years. He takes pride in his ability to quickly develop rapport with his students and at motivating his students to learn. He clearly and plainly states his affection for his students.

Bill agreed to participate in the LINCOL’N Summer 1997 training because he was told that he would receive points toward retirement. Although the retirement points were not awarded, (due, it appears, to conflicts with teacher contracts), he received other financial compensation for his participation. The financial incentive attracted him to the training, but the LINCOL’N concepts, strategies, and follow-up provided the opportunities he needed to develop the abilities to use the technologies, to work in collaborative groups, and also to develop the beliefs which supported their continued use.

Although Bill had not, at the time of our first interviews, asked for support from the mentor teachers from the middle schools, he had asked for and received help from the librarian and from the LINCOL’N district staff. He is very positive about the training as a whole and the support offered by the project staff in specific. His concerns are related mainly to the changes he needs to make in his teaching style and in his relative lack of technological sophistication. His major criticism of the training is that it was developed for teachers in middle school and he believes that high school teachers have different needs:

Bill started using a computer to do bookkeeping at home about two years before the LINCOL’N training. He also had the idea that he should be exploring an expanded use of technology in the classroom. He didn’t have concrete plans to do so due to an ambivalence about this expanded use and a lack of experience and skill.

Bill seems very comfortable with the nature of collaborative work and technology-based projects promoted by the LINCOL’N training. He expressed frustration, however, that he has been unable to collaborate with another teacher. His frustration seems to have as much to do with the limited number of teachers who were in the training group this past summer as with the tracking system used in the school. He states, "At Springfield High School we’re tracked. Seven track is AP, six track is one step lower. And it keeps going down. That aspect of it is difficult to work around. We’re all thinking of future ways that we can tie in; certainly English and Social Studies naturally go together."

This lack of an apparent logical partner was a barrier to his full implementation of the LINCOL’N approach in his first project. Even so, he has implemented the projects he proposed during the summer training. A strong motivating factor in this adoption of LINCOL’N appears to stem from his stated affection for students and desire to see them do well in life, paired with the responsibility he feels for preparing them well for their future. He believes that technology is a major part of his students’ futures and that "we’re killing our kids if we don’t" use newer technologies in classrooms.

Bill started his first LINCOL’N project in the second week of the Fall semester. This project, a slide show on Colonial Williamsburg, presented many challenges for him. He says that he was not entirely prepared to start this project: "I probably should have waited, but I knew if I didn’t jump in I wouldn’t, so I jumped in." He "jumped in" to a topic which previously had taken a small portion of the two weeks he usually spends on a Colonial American unit. This year the Colonial Williamsburg topic alone took the entire two weeks to complete.

Bill identified several of the challenges he faced in this project as constants in using technology, particularly the amount of time the project took and the level of organization and the amount of planning needed.

Bill also stated that the students are far more advanced in the use of these technologies than he is:

"And I learned more than they did. About what I have to do and how I have to do things." He states, "It was too much for me," yet doesn’t consider the project to be a failure and still is enthusiastic about future projects. He describes his reaction to technical problems as, "oh my head was spinning, " yet almost immediately goes on to say,

Bill ascribed some of his lack of skill in using technology to his age as well as his comfort and success in his more traditional style of teaching. He said that he is a "manual typewriter kid of guy" and that people in his generation have a technology barrier. His affection for his students combined with the LINCOL’N training provided the impetus he needed to overcome his own technology barrier.

He is not threatened by not being the classroom expert in the use of technology, rather, he seemed to enjoy having a student lead him through a HyperStudio project: "We’ve just started on that. I’m giving extra credit on it. A student did a project. I quizzed him. He’s teaching me. That makes him feel really good." Bill described a similar change in role when he talks using a more inquiry-based model of instruction with his students.

Bill described the district encouragement of inquiry based classrooms as an attempt to foster an inquisitive nature in students so that they will want to know the "why" of things.

He said that inquiry can be instilled all the way through LINCOL’N activities. He said it is a matter of how teachers conceive of it.

Bill entered LINCOL’N training with ambivalence toward his own use of technology in the classroom as well as in education in general. His participation in the summer training was purely the result of getting a good financial incentive from the district. His continuation in the program, however, was not due to any financial incentive. It was due to the intersection of features of the LINCOL’N training and follow-up support with his experiences and needs as a teacher -- something far different from other training programs he had been involved with in his years as a teacher. The training and follow-up appealed to Bill’s concern about his students’ futures after they leave his classroom and leave high school. This concern seems to be the major motivation in why he chooses what he does in the classroom and how he does it. When we first interviewed him, he hadn’t made any plans for further developing his skills at incorporating newer technologies into the classroom, although he was developing a belief that an increased use of technology would be of benefit to his students. At our second in-depth discussion he noted that he was going to attend a district-sponsored workshop on one of the multi-media software packages he has his students use.

Bill seemed to be truly invested in implementing this program even though it makes his last years of teaching more difficult and more frustrating. Even so, his perspective, mission, and identity as a teacher hasn’t been changed:

A key finding of this inquiry was that Bill and Larry (and Bev) were influenced by Project LINCOL’N to re-think and to change seemingly successful manners of teaching. They were willing to make these changes in order to adopt both new methods and new roles. The LINCOL’N training presented a strong argument to these experienced teachers that their students’ success in the future relies on their ability to identify and solve problems; to work in collaboration with others; and to use technology to identify resources, to perform tasks, and to link with others. The needs of their students appear to be motivating factors in these changes.

Our understandings of the intersection between the Project LINCOL’N philosophies and the changes in both of these two rather different teaching styles can be discussed in terms similar to a thought from John Dewey. He wrote about children and curriculum, "Development doesn’t mean just getting something out of the mind. It is a development of experience and into experience that is really wanted." (Dewey, 1990, p. 196). Baldwin frames this idea in her rejection of a passive style of teaching " . . . . that is not natural because it fails to take into account the interactive characteristic of experience and life itself." (Baldwin, 1996). McMahon (1997) suggests that for Dewey, thinking was the solving of problems and that the development into experience leads learners first to identify problems that might contradict their prior experiences. The learners then develop a solution to the problem.

Bill seemed to identify contradictions in both his teacher education program and the Project LINCOL’N training. He identified them as starting points for his skills and seems to refer them as knowledge-based. Thirty years ago, as a new teacher, he threw much of his teacher training "out the window" in preference for what he learned in practice. He was in a similar process as a Project LINCOL’N participant: he was developing an understanding of the relevance of Project LINCOL’N activities to his practice, and of barriers to implementation. He also was learning how to incorporate the beliefs and skills from the training into his style of teaching.

As such, the students in these classrooms are not alone in learning both about and in these new ways; their teachers are as well. We wonder if there is an intersection between the students and the teacher that could be described as a transactional zone of proximal development. The students provide the scaffolding for much of the use of the technology while the teacher has the content knowledge and teaching expertise. Both the teacher and the student engage each other as authority in the zone of proximal development (Diaz, Neal, & Amaya-Williams, 1990).

This transactional relationship is seen most clearly in Bill’s experiences. His students in the seven track were the most able (or were those allowed) to meet him in this type of relationship. Bill relied on their ability and willingness to provide leadership in the classroom use of technology. Bill admitted that this style means that he either won’t have as much control over the classroom or that his control will be different.

This transactional relationship did not appear to play a role in Bill’s four track class. He reported that these students had a tougher time with the technology and that "it was too much" for him. We suspect that these students didn’t have the technological expertise needed by Bill to enter into a transactional relationship of mutual support and development.

Larry’s students, on the surface, were more like Bill’s four track students than like his seven track students. Larry did not engage in a transactional relationship with his students. Larry, however, told his students about his own development through Project LINCOL’N. He provided a strong and specifically stated rationale for his involvement in the program that combined collaboration and technology. This rationale can be easily applied to his students who appear to come to his classroom with little experience with technology (other that video games) and with the need to get a job in what is most likely to be a collaborative work environment.

A guiding question of our in-depth case studies was "What are the factors that motivated Bill and Larry to initiate these changes?" After all, many of their former students have been successful in realizing the teachers’ goals of their participation in these classrooms -- Larry’s students "find, get, and keep" jobs; Bill’s students pass the AP exam in history. Why do these experienced teachers maintain their participation in this program when the classroom projects seem to be overwhelming at times -- a situation which does not occur when they use their comfortable and successful methods?

One of the clearest statements that these teachers made for their willingness to adopt this program and the changes it entails is that their students would be harmed if they didn’t. Our discussions suggest that both Larry and Bill had pre-existing beliefs that both the use of technology and working collaboratively were vital in their students’ continuing development as students and as members of the work force in the greater society. Neither of them, however, had discrete plans for how to make this happen in their classrooms. Both of these teachers entered the program for personal financial reasons but appear to have been hooked by the program message that collaborative work and the use of technology are vital to their students’ success inside and outside of high school. Other factors in their continuing participation is the provision of equipment and on-going support.

Still, we ask why it is that they were "hooked." We understand some of what drives these teachers’ classroom practices, but are left with the question of how the LINCOL’N program effected teacher change. After all, change in schools is very difficult to achieve (Fullan, 1991; Hall & Hord, 1987; Hall, Loucks, Rugerford, & Newlove, 1975) and can be accompanied by various "negative" emotions including feelings of consternation, indignation, and shock (Hall, Loucks, Rugerford, & Newlove, 1975).

Bill, and to a lesser extent Larry, had times when they doubted their abilities to make these changes, these doubts appear to have become weaker over the course of the year. They were able to articulate their concerns and move on. Bill in particular expressed the belief that the concerns that he has about the training being more pertinent to needs of middle school have been heard by the district staff. He also believes that changes will be made in the training and in the program to meet more of the needs of the high school teachers. Our discussions with the district staff and the mentor teachers, however, indicate that they might not see the same need for modifying the training program to meet the need of the high school teachers. Furthermore, the responses from the district staff to a question about how they get evaluative information from teachers indicates that they might not have a system in place to monitor the concerns of the teachers. Fullan (1991) focuses on the importance of understanding what change means and of understanding teachers’ concerns. He suggests that these meanings are vital in maintaining change and change processes, and that these processes involved ambivalence and a rejection of the innovation. These processes must be allowed to play out. Those attempting to cause change must allow others to feel and express their concerns.

Hall and Hord (1987) developed the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM). They describe the word "Concerns" as the integral issue in the title:

Teachers (and others) move through developmental stages and levels in becoming more able and sophisticated in their use of innovations. Loucks-Horsley (1997) discuss CBAM as a "framework that has implications for the practices of professional development [and which] acknowledges that learning brings change, and supporting people in change is critical for learning to ‘take hold’ ":

Fullan (1991) suggests that we need to understand both the meanings and the processes of change in schools. He writes of "real" change:

It is too early to be confident in our beliefs that Larry and Bill have completed the real change that Fullan describes, but we have good indications that they are involved in a process that can leave them fundamentally changed in their practice as teachers.

Although we identify a potential weakness in the district training and support in terms of understanding the meaning of change for these teachers and are making related recommendations in this report, (see Recommendations, below), we believe that the district staff are doing many of the "right things right" in promoting changes:

• The program emphasized the incorporation of the new strategies as a process toward a more complete change and not as an event or a series of events (see Fullan, 1991; Hall & Hord, 1987) or as a decision point (see Hall, Loucks, Rugerford, & Newlove, 1975).
• The teachers have vital roles as implementors and decision-makers.
• The support from the district was evident in the provision of the resources the teachers required and the conditions which fostered their use: the promised equipment arrived on time and the teachers were not called on to do paper work in favor of "people work" (Fullan, 1991).
• The ability of the district team to react quickly to problems which occurred in the teachers’ first projects seems to be very important to successful implementation. Claims about benefits to students may be a factor in getting a teacher to try an innovation, but early success or progress must occur for the use to continue (Fullan, 1991).

The two teachers who were featured in this part of the evaluation have had experiences with failed innovations in the district. Understanding the success of these two teachers’ experiences may be very important in this stage of program implementation. The very survival of the program at the high school level may be a factor in the success of future innovations in the district. Fullan (1991) describes the importance of the district's history of innovation projects with a proposition: "The more the teachers or others have had negative experiences with previous implementation attempts in the district or elsewhere, the more cynical or apathetic they will be about the next change presented regardless of the merit of the new idea of program. Districts. . . can develop an incapacity for change as well as a capacity for it." (p.74)

Each of the teachers in the second group had fewer years of experience and were closer in time to their initial teacher training than are Bill, Larry, and Bev. Their motivations for becoming involved in the training appear to be similar to those of Bill and Larry, including the financial rewards and continuing education points. Their more recent teacher training experiences, however, appeared to have prepared them for Project LINCOL’N better than the first group’s years of experience. One of the teachers, for example, had extensive experience with problem-based learning (PBL) before she became a teacher in District 186. She said that Project LINCOL’N was very compatible with PBL and that she had melded the approaches with her teaching strategies.

The teachers in the second group also had different ways of talking about why they accepted the Project LINCOL’N approaches than did the teachers in the first group who went through teacher training decades before. The second group were less likely than the first group to repeat the rationale provided by the district in the training and more likely to cite the theoretical constructs which structured their teaching. As an example, the newer teachers were more likely than the teachers in the first group to talk about different educational theories. One of the teachers in the second group talked about taking unorthodox approaches with her students. She said that the students call her "crazy" -- but a good kind of crazy: "yea, that’s a good thing. I hope so. You can’t be wild without some theoretical background and you can try innovative ways of getting the material out."

One of the teachers had a very strong background in collaborative group work prior to the LINCOL’N training. She said that group work is compatible with her philosophy of teaching. She cites other, more experienced teachers’ opinion of it as "cheating." She also described her classroom as more student-centered than most.

Another of the teachers in the second group also had prior experience working with groups and expressed his comfort with working with them. He values group work as a benefit to his students, "they assist each other and become less dependent on me." He also stated that his students are more active in their learning when working on group projects. A third teacher in this group stated that her students have become comfortable with group work although they were not comfortable with it in the beginning of the year.

Several of the teachers reported a tension between doing LINCOL’N projects and "getting in the expected curriculum." It appears that some of the teachers do not have a LINCOL’N strategy for meeting their curriculum goals. One stated that she uses student presentations as culminating activities more than as opportunities for new learning.

Another teacher explicitly reported feeling pressure between having to cover the curriculum and using inquiry teaching and learning strategies. Although she admitted that she finds giving up control in the classroom to be difficult, she said,

Another of the newer teachers seems to have strong philosophical support for student-centered activities for at least some but not all of the topics in his classroom and at different learning stages, ". . . what we're covering in class now, I am more comfortable teaching them and letting them learn on their own. As the semester progresses and we do more animals, it becomes easier to let them do more learner centered stuff. I think we'll utilize stations pretty soon, we do a lot of dissecting which is group work and hands-on."

Not all of the teachers articulate the issues of changing the locus of the control for learning activities. One teacher gave several examples of how she maintained strong control of the classroom. One example is that her students used the technology to gather information but had a limited set of information sources. This less student-centered approach appears to be more static than active however: her students used CD-ROMs and vocabulary drills. She did, however, give the students more latitude in how they presented their material.

The issues of using these strategies with students at the different tracking levels also are varied. One of the teachers, in contrast to Bill, wanted "special needs" students in her classes. She says that her methods allow her to include topics and authors that other teachers have said "you can’t" teach to "low track freshmen." She became less positive during the year about her ability to implement LINCOL’N types of projects with a class in which most of the students are "Honor Society -- pretty bright kids." She describes it as "a totally different beast."

Another teacher in this group sounded very much like Bill in the beginning of the year when talking about how difficult it was for him to use the LINCOL’N strategies with his lower track students. His attitude seemed to change during the year, however, as he has had more experience with the strategies. When asked if he had noticed any change in his students from this different way of teaching he said that it seemed that there are fewer discipline problems in his lower track biology class when they work with projects.

Yet another teacher in this group appears to actively resist the practice of tracking. When asked if she follows the LINCOL’N model in all of their classes, she responded that she does and that she thinks of the students in all of her classes as being at the same level in terms of teaching strategies. This teacher also reported that she is seeing a change in her students, ". . . some of the students who aren’t academically intelligent become a lot more active and involved. They get pressure from the other students when they are in groups since these are their friends. . . Working in groups, peer teaching, helps." She also suggested that attendance in her classes, particularly for the students who have attendance problems, improves when they are working on projects.

Assessment of these styles of teaching and learning appear to need additional support from the district. Assessment of student learning seemed to be problematic for most of the teachers in these groups.

For example, one of the teachers talked about grading as separate from how the students come to understand what they have learned and the skills they have acquired. Her grading appears to be process oriented and very teacher dominated. It seems that each of her students gets at least one grade each day, usually based on how they cooperate. Her discussion of grading didn’t disclose anything about measures of what her students know and can do. She said, "I like when they see how they’ve progressed" but didn’t link that to assessment practices. Another teacher says that the hardest thing for him in the projects is to evaluate them. He believes that he will get better at it, "I think the more I do it, the better it will get. I will find what works for me. Right now, that was my private downfall for the whole thing."

Only one of the teachers stands out as having a flexible and positive philosophy toward newer more performance-based assessments.

Another teacher stated that the training program schedule of short blocks of training became problematic. "I’m not trying to be critical, but I think they’re trying to structure the time differently this summer." This teacher suggested that the training be done in one block of time, "I would have one block of time instead of breaking it down so that you’re on a week, off a week. I would rather have a straight four-week session or three-week session." The same teacher, however, liked the pace and the variety of the training. She echoed the Project LINCOL’N goal of teaching for the various ways that students learn when she talks about her own learning needs. She claims to have "attention deficit disorder" like many of her students and the pace of the training worked well for her and for other teachers she perceives to have attention deficits as well.

This same teacher also echoed Bill’s statement regarding learning about versus learning by doing:

Station rotation became less of a problem to her after she attended a supplemental training program and gained more experience using it with her students. Another teacher also says he benefited from one of the district’s follow-up workshops. ". . . they've offered us classes during the school year which has been good. It helped with the other problem of not being able to spend enough time on things. Like I didn’t really get a chance to work with HyperStudio last summer when they did the training. But they offered a class on it, so I actually got to go and figure out all the ins and outs of the program. So that was nice."

The teachers in the second group echoed Bill and Larry again when they almost unanimously said that they had learned from what didn’t go well this year and were willing to try again next year. One of the newer teachers said that she felt ready for the time when most of the students who come into her classroom have had years of Project LINCOL’N classroom experiences. She said that learning the technology was stressful, but will be worth it when she can work better with the students who come into high school with more technological experience and competence.

The teachers were uniformly dissatisfied, however, with the planning grid they were required to complete during the training. They said that although planning is necessary, the grids were too complicated and time-consuming. They said that they would prefer grids that are more flexible. The teachers did follow the plans they set out in the grids when they could, and altered their plans as needed.

Most of the teachers also suggested that the training wasn’t entirely appropriate for high school teachers. One teacher cited other programs which have been adapted and then modified when used in the high school setting.

Another problem that the high school teachers noted was the time that they needed to plan once they were out of the training, especially those teachers who were involved in extracurricular activities such as coaching. They also expressed concern that they were not as able to access the district support staff as other teachers. (Several of the teachers cited help from support personnel other than the district staff. The most common source of assistance cited was the school librarian.)

These recommendations are intended to inform the continued decisions about the training and implementation of Project LINCOL’N.

The mentor teachers were, in theory, equally accessible to all of the Project LINCOL’N participating teachers. The services of the mentor teachers, were not used, however, by the high school participants to the extent that the district technology staff were used. Some of the questions/concerns faced by Bill, Larry, and a couple of the other high school teachers we interviewed were related to perceived limitations in the mentor teachers’ knowledge of the unique needs of high school teaching practice.

We suspect that the differences between the use of the mentor teacher services are due both to distance (location) and of grade level experiences. Potential solutions include redesigning the mentoring system so that each school has a mentor, or so that mentors seek out the opportunities to help teachers in other buildings. We also suggest that successful high school teachers from the 1997 summer training become mentors for the 1998 training and the 1998/1999 academic year.

Tracking by ability level was well entrenched in the District 186 high schools. Although we are not in a position to evaluate the merit of ability tracking, we are able to make some assessment of its effects on the teachers’ implementation of Project LINCOL’N. For example, Bill was unable to enter into a collaboration with another teacher because he and she taught classes in different tracks -- they couldn’t find a way to work together meaningfully. Larry, however, was able to overcome his beliefs that students in special education services had to be in "a school within a school." His students collaborated with students in vastly different school tracks and career paths. This "de-tracking" (Mehan, Hubbard, & Villanueva, 1994) seems to be an exemplar of a LINCOL’N collaborative model that might need additional emphasis in training and support. Yet another teacher said that she had more difficulty making these changes with her highest track students.

A few of the high school teachers in addition to Bill expressed concerns that the LINCOL’N training was more specific to the needs of middle school teachers than to their needs. These concerns related most to interdisciplinary projects, the number of students taught daily, and tracking (see also the recommendation tracking, above). The concerns of the high school teachers might not have been fully understood by the district staff and the mentors. Fullan (1991) suggests that anyone working with teachers to implement change must understand the phenomenology of teacher roles. Fullan goes on to suggest that the strategies used to promote change often don't work because they are not taken from the teachers' world and thus are not rational according to the teachers’ world. We recommend that further evaluations of Project LINCOL’N include an inquiry into the institutional constraints for teacher collaboration suggested by the concerns of the high school teachers. For example, the use of asynchronous networks could improve teacher-to-teacher and class-to-class communication and block-scheduling could allow the concentrated time these efforts require.

The two focus teachers expressed a belief that the use of technology and an inquiry emphasis in the classroom increased student motivation. Their evidence of student learning, however, seems to stem from what they read and discussed in the training session. The newer teachers, however, seemed to have a stronger theoretical background which seemed to facilitate their integration of the Project LINCOL’N philosophies and practices into their work. We suspect that the teachers will not be able to evaluate the range of student learning in this program as their current tools are product versus process based. We recommend that Project LINCOL’N focus part of the efforts in the Summer of 1998 on methods of assessing student learning and ability.

One of the objectives of the LINCOL’N reform initiative is to provide students with a wide range of project-based curricular activities. It was clear from our classroom observations and interviews that students were asked to participate in projects that utilized a combination of lectures, discussions, group work, and computer based modules. In our observations, we found that teachers used a combination of these modalities within lessons and across thematic units.

The Project LINCOL’N students we talked to reported that they participated in a wide range of curricular activities. Some of the activities they participated in included the following:

• Writing, producing, performing, videotaping, and analyzing plays
• Doing topical research using the Internet
• Gathering scientific data in the laboratory and in the field
• Conducting surveys in the community
• Conducting Internet-based surveys
• Accessing community resources
• Developing and delivering presentations using PowerPoint.

One student summarized the range of activities she had participated in the following quotation: "We made videos, we did slide shoes, we did all kinds of stuff, we surfed the Internet. Right now we are working on a ClarisWorks project, we have got stuff off the Internet. In our group, we picked basketball around the world, we are putting together a slide show about how basketball is popular around the world." To complete these projects, students worked in peer groups and used computer technology to organize and present information.

All Project LINCOL’N students we talked to reported that they spent time working in groups with classmates to complete projects. In light of this focus on group work, what do students report they have learned? Students generally agreed that working in groups made learning more interesting and provided motivation for completing classroom activities. Students also reported that working in groups provided them with the opportunity to develop competence in solving interpersonal disputes and working with other students. In addition, they also reported that working in groups facilitated content learning by allowing them to share their knowledge with varied audiences through formal and informal presentations.

From our interviews with students we found that if group work was properly organized, students were motivated to participate in group activities. Students identified several characteristics of successful group work: First, students were more likely to be motivated to participate in groups if teachers organized the activities so group participation was necessary for completing the activity. For example, some teachers had students complete worksheets in groups, instead of individually, students saw this use of group work of little pedagogical value. Informally, students in one science class said that the teacher had them complete worksheets in groups and that it was "boring". In contrast, if group work was necessary for completing all or part of the activity, students reported that group work helped them learn to work with other classmates and motivated to learn the content.

Student’s repeatedly identified the ways in which working in groups helped them to "learn to work" with their classmates. According to the students we talked to, group members were often off task and did not do "their fair share of the work". To solve this problem, students separated work among groups members to create individual accountability. In addition, they used compliance gaining techniques such as encouraging students to participate and using the teachers authority to create an equitable group relationship.

One unintended consequence of participating in groups is the ability to make new friends and to expand a student’s social network. For example, one student, Hannah, said that she did not have a lot of friends in school and that working in groups allowed here the opportunity to "get to know" her fellow students. Another group member, Mandy, mentioned that working in groups was beneficial because it gave her the opportunity to get to know people. However, she did mention that something did need to be done to make people focus more and not "joke around" so much.

The students we interviewed reported that the use of project based group work changed the ecology of their classroom by decentering the teacher as the expert. One effect of this change is that students relied more heavily on peers as sources of expertise. When asked, all students either reported being called on as an expert, or using other students as experts in the context of Project LINCOL’N activities. A student said the following about group work: "it’s better because you don’t have it all on your shoulders." Another student said: "I like to work in groups, I think it is better to work in groups so you can get a lot more done. When you work in groups you can see what other people think and do. I like groups because I can get more done than I can alone."

Students also accessed their classmates’ knowledge of computer technology. For example, if students did not know how to use a particular software application, they asked a group member who had more experience. In addition, students talked about being in this helping role and felt positive about sharing their knowledge with classmates. They felt that through teaching other students they were deepening their knowledge of the computer application. For example, one student did not have knowledge of the use of a presentation application and they were able to figure out how to make it work through the group process. The student said: "We don’t have any wizards in our group, we take things as they come, we sit here and try to figure them out." This same student said: "it is a lot of fun to do, you get to work together in groups." About group work he said: "(Group work) gives me a break from having to take notes, what I like best is you can learn a lot but you don’t have to sit there and write, it gives you more time to take it in."

Students did have some apprehension about working in groups, they were concerned that they are doing more work than classmates, and were unclear about the pedagogical value of group work. For example, one student said: "I would like her to teach more, she really didn’t teach anything. We worked by ourselves while she did whatever she did." Another student said: "I really didn’t like working in groups. I think it would be easier to be taught one thing a day. Working in groups for me was confusing and plus nobody could decide who did what." Another student complained that the groups were not well organized in the following statement: "The stations we did yesterday in class are time-eaters. We only had five to ten minutes to get it done. I didn’t learn a thing, not even a little bit. I think it is a waste of time. I learn more when the teacher speaks to the whole class."

What these comments all have in common is that teachers need to systematically integrate group work into the context of classroom activities. Indeed, using group work is not a panacea for all curricular problems, but if integrated properly into the classroom, group work can be effective in helping students develop social skills and motivating them to become more central participants in the learning process.

Another component of Project LINCOL’N is the use of computer technology to facilitate the completion of thematic units and group projects. New technologies functioned as sources of information (Internet, CD-ROM software) and as a means for organizing and presenting information (FlexCam, PowerPoint, word processing etc..). Student’s reported using a wide range of computer applications and reported that the use of technology made learning more interesting and "opened up" avenues for creativity.

Students in LINCOL’N classrooms utilized a wide range of computer applications in the context of completing thematic units. The following list represents a subset of the technologies and activities students reported that they used in their classrooms:

• Developing and delivering slide shows through HyperStudio
• Using various web browsers to search the Internet
• Finding information using referencing programs such as Encarta and Groliers
• Capturing images using a Flex camera
• Creating slide shows for classroom demonstrations
• Completing individual and group projects using Word processing applications such as ClarisWorks
• Computer programming
• Using a LTV hookup to facilitate classroom presentations
• Creating multimedia presentations using multimedia software such as ClarisWorks and KidPix
• Using Macintax tax preparation program to learn tax preparation techniques

The data we collected seems to suggest that integrating computer technology in the context of meaningful activity does foster student learning. Some students we talked to reported that computers were faster and provided more efficient ways to access information. "I think computers are good, because it saves you time, because you don’t need to go downstairs and look at books. Everything you need to know is right there." In addition, students identified the importance of computers as sources of more updated information. For example one student said: "Basically, all of the teachers use the computer it is like a faster way, than using books, since we have the Internet, all you have to do is go to the Internet and you don’t have to go to the library."

Some students felt like computers were "more of a pain" than they were worth. For example, Megan was trying to figure out how to get the HyperStudio program to work and it was very difficult for her, she didn’t know the right keys to punch and found it difficult. She felt like she could have made a more traditional presentation using overheads and poster boards. Although Megan identified the computer as a "pain", she developed greater competence through asking a classmate how to use this software application.

Students also used technology to present their work to the teacher and their classmates. Students who presented their work were able to learn through teaching and classmates were able to learn through listening to the presentations. For example, one student mentioned that she learned more from listening to other students' presentations then she did from the teacher's lectures.

Project LINCOL’N activities consist of thematic units, group work, and the use of information technology to facilitate the teaching and learning process. One student said: "Project LINCOL’N is fun. You get to work with other people and you like can learn stuff, you don’t have to sit alone and read, and then we use the computers and that’s fun." Some students expressed the desire to be creative and found a creative outlet through using computer technology.

Students also mentioned that they participated in LINCOL’N activities in elementary and junior high school, and that they were pleased with the possibility of having the opportunity to do projects and use technology in high school. One student described her experience of being in Project LINCOL’N in the following way: "Can I tell you one more thing? I was in a Project LINCOL’N classroom in sixth grade that had just started using technology, every project was hands on. I probably learned more that year through the interactions, there was not the pressure to type a certain amount of words. It was so much fun, they did a lot of CD-ROM’s. In Art History class there was almost a computer for every student...I learn a lot more from hands on, I go to sleep in lectures. I get tired of coming to school and listening to lectures. It gets really old and boring a wall gets built and you don’t learn, because it is everyday and every class. Project LINCOL’N is amazing, that was probably the best year I have ever had." This student also mentioned how happy she was to see Project LINCOL’N making its way into the high schools.

Another student said: "Besides working with people better, I can do ClarisWorks a lot better. I can get a paper done faster. It got me thinking about a lot of stuff, I can think of stuff more rapidly, I have learned that a computer can work for me instead of against me." Later this same student said: [before Project LINCOL’N] "I could not get on the computer and know how it works. Now I can get things done faster, it has opened my mind. I have learned to listen to other people and be more open minded about things."

In this section, we point to specific changes that, if instituted, will improve the quality of instruction in Project LINCOL’N classrooms.

One problem with the implementation of Project LINCOL’N in the classrooms is the high student to computer ratio in the high schools. In many classrooms there was one computer per fifteen students. One student said: "Sometimes it is not available when you need it, she only has two computers, if people are on it, she gives us time on it and there is not enough to get what we need." One solution to this problem is putting a certain number of computers on carts and moving them in and out of classrooms.

Students reported that teachers play a key role in laying the foundation for successful group work. Teachers can make group work more successful by providing clear assessment criteria for group work and giving assignments that are best accomplished by group cooperation. A subset of the student’s we spoke to expressed concern that student’s who did not participate were not receiving sanctions from the teacher. It seems that clear criteria for group participation is important for many students. In particular, the students were not comfortable with the assessment standards in many if the classes. One student said: "I don’t think group projects are fair, a few students do the work while the rest mess around."

Students sense that there needs to be a balance between the use of projects and more traditional content. They believe that there is a need for content delivered from the teacher as well as other things. Teachers need to be trained to explain to students more explicitly the balance they are trying to strike between more traditional and project-based approaches to teaching and learning. "I would like her to teach more, she really didn’t teach anything. We were all by ourselves." From this statement and many others by students we think students need to be educated with respect to understanding the reasoning behind project-based approaches to learning and instruction.

Not all students come to high school with advanced computer background. Those students with less experience reported that they were "afraid to use the computers." For example, one student said: "I don’t like computers, because I am always afraid I am going to break something." Teachers need to be made aware of potential ways to make students less afraid of the technology.

Springfield School District 186 in Springfield Illinois has made major strides towards a successful systemic implementation of technology to support reforms in its educational system. This evaluation documented one year in that process, the 1997-98 school year. This evaluation examined what the elements were crucial for this overall systemic success by comparing the things that worked well and those that worked less well. The evaluation generated a number of recommendations of strategies the district should continue and of strategies it should change to improve the implementation and positive impact of Project LINCOL’N.

Baldwin, B. W. (1996). A Pedagogy of Conversation, Chapter II of Conversations, Computer-mediated Dialogue, Multilogue, and Learning http://www.missouri.edu/~rhetnet/baldwin/chap2.html (Print version information: Baldwin, B. W., Ph.D. Conversations: Computer Mediated Dialogue, Multilogue, and Learning. (1996). Directed by Dr. Hephzibah Roskelly. 232 pp.).

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dewey, J. (1990). The School and Society and The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Diaz, R. M., Neal, C. J., & Amaya-Williams, M. (1990). The social origins of self-regulation. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and Education (pp. 127-154). New York: Cambridge.

Fullan, M. G. with Stielgelbauer, Suzanne (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change, Second Edition. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rugerford, W. L., & Newlove, B. W. (1975) Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education 26(1). Reprinted in Loucks, Newlove and Hall: Measuring Levels of Use of the Innovation: A Manual for Trainers, Interviewers, and Raters (1975). Austin: University of Texas at Austin.

Hall, G., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process. Albany: SUNY Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996). Professional development for science education: A critical and immediate challenge. In R. Bybee (Ed.) National Standards and the Science Curriculum. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. Excerpted at http://www.nas.edu/rise/backg4a.htm

McMahon, J. (1997). Notes on Progressive Education. http://education.canberra.edu.au/units/ste/critref/lect3.html

Means, B. (Eds.). (1994). Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mehan, H., Hubbard, L., & Villanueva, I. (1994). Forming academic identities: Accommodation without assimilation among involuntary minorities. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25(2) 91-117.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.

This material is based upon work supported by Illinois State Board of Education, as a subcontract of a grant to the Springfield School District 186. We would like to thank the teachers, students, and staff of District 186 for their cooperation with this evaluation. Thanks also to Jean Krysko for her excellent transcriptions of audio tapes of interviews. Pia Bombardier and Evangeline Secaras Pianfetti contributed to early stages of the evaluation.