A Maturity Model for Assessing the Use of ICT in School Education
A Maturity Model for Assessing the Use of ICT in School Education
A Maturity Model for Assessing the Use of ICT in School Education
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Solar, M., Sabatt<strong>in</strong>, J., & Parada, V. (2013). A <strong>Maturity</strong> <strong>Model</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Assess<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Use</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>School</strong> <strong>Education</strong>. <strong>Education</strong>al<br />
Technology & Society, 16 (1), 206–218.<br />
A <strong>Maturity</strong> <strong>Model</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Assess<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Use</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>School</strong> <strong>Education</strong><br />
Mauricio Solar 1 , Jorge Sabatt<strong>in</strong> 2 and Victor Parada 2<br />
1 Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Chile // 2 University <strong>of</strong> Santiago de Chile, Chile //<br />
mauricio.solar@usm.cl // jorge.sabatt<strong>in</strong>@usach.cl // victor.parada@usach.cl<br />
(Submitted April 11, 2011; Revised September 26, 2011; Accepted November 25, 2011)<br />
ABSTRACT<br />
This article describes an <strong>ICT</strong>-based and capability-driven model <strong>for</strong> assess<strong>in</strong>g <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong> education capabilities and<br />
maturity <strong>of</strong> schools. The proposed model, called <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM (<strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>School</strong> <strong>Education</strong> <strong>Maturity</strong> <strong>Model</strong>), has<br />
three elements support<strong>in</strong>g educational processes: <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation criteria, <strong>ICT</strong> resources, and leverage doma<strong>in</strong>s.<br />
Chang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> traditional and exclusive focus on <strong>ICT</strong>, five Leverage Doma<strong>in</strong>s are def<strong>in</strong>ed: <strong>Education</strong>al<br />
Management, Infrastructure, Adm<strong>in</strong>istrators, Teachers and Students. The Leverage Doma<strong>in</strong>s generate a<br />
hierarchical structure with a second level named Key Doma<strong>in</strong> Areas. These areas should be measurable and<br />
controllable, so <strong>the</strong>y are related to a third hierarchical level, called Critical Variables, allow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> model’s<br />
elements to be assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. The capability and maturity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se variables<br />
associated with <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tersection with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two elements establish five levels <strong>of</strong> capability. The proposed<br />
model is strongly supported by <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternational standards and best practices <strong>for</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> management. It has been<br />
validated through data collection <strong>in</strong>struments and its associated web–support tool was also ref<strong>in</strong>ed with a small<br />
pilot study. In summary, <strong>the</strong> proposed <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM model provides a basis <strong>for</strong> self-assessment and improvement<br />
plann<strong>in</strong>g. It is not just a diagnostic tool but has also been found to be useful <strong>for</strong> guid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>cipals <strong>in</strong> <strong>ICT</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>vestment.<br />
Keywords<br />
Evaluation methodologies, Secondary education, <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong> education, <strong>Maturity</strong> model<br />
Introduction<br />
Different studies <strong>in</strong>dicate that several parameters considerably affect <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> new technology <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
school environment (Condie & Munro, 2007; Kozma, 2008; Zamani, 2010; Underwood et al, 2010). For example,<br />
<strong>the</strong> op<strong>in</strong>ions and attitudes <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>cipals with regard to In<strong>for</strong>mation and Communication Technology (<strong>ICT</strong>) adoption<br />
<strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>the</strong> extent and quality <strong>of</strong> technological applications’ usage (Pelgrum, 2001). In fact, two schools with <strong>the</strong><br />
same <strong>in</strong>frastructure, same human resources and same students can have very different results. There are concrete<br />
cases <strong>in</strong> which a mere change <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school’s pr<strong>in</strong>cipals has generated, with <strong>the</strong> same teachers, strik<strong>in</strong>g results <strong>in</strong> a<br />
short time (Waissbluth, 2010). Given this, pr<strong>in</strong>cipals and adm<strong>in</strong>istrators need a vision to help <strong>the</strong>m towards <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
goals. It is especially important at <strong>the</strong> school level <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>cipal to have a vision <strong>of</strong> what is possible through <strong>the</strong><br />
use <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>, and to be able to work with o<strong>the</strong>rs to achieve that vision (Sun, Heath, Byrom, Phlegar, & Dimock, 2010).<br />
As an example, consider <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g very well-established technology vision <strong>of</strong> a school (Nido, 2011):<br />
“The purpose <strong>of</strong> technology use at school is to support teach<strong>in</strong>g and learn<strong>in</strong>g. Technology is a<br />
powerful learn<strong>in</strong>g tool that, when properly <strong>in</strong>tegrated <strong>in</strong>to a challeng<strong>in</strong>g curriculum, improves<br />
learn<strong>in</strong>g and helps us achieve our educational goals.<br />
Students are active learners who use technology responsibly to solve problems, develop critical<br />
th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g skills and communicate ideas. Teachers <strong>in</strong>tegrate technology across <strong>the</strong> curriculum where<br />
appropriate to enhance <strong>in</strong>struction and assessment <strong>of</strong> student learn<strong>in</strong>g. They take advantage <strong>of</strong> staff<br />
development designed to improve teach<strong>in</strong>g and learn<strong>in</strong>g with technology. Technology provides<br />
parents with user-friendly access to up-to-date and mean<strong>in</strong>gful <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation about <strong>the</strong> school and<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir children’s academic status. The school adm<strong>in</strong>istration is committed to improv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> efficiency<br />
<strong>of</strong> school technology by provid<strong>in</strong>g current and effective resources, appropriate tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g and<br />
qualified personnel.”<br />
Every school needs an <strong>ICT</strong> plan to achieve its vision, but accord<strong>in</strong>g to Zhihua and Zhaojun (2009), evaluation is<br />
usually <strong>the</strong> weakest component <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> plans. There are several factors <strong>in</strong>volved, but an important one is that policy<br />
makers <strong>of</strong>ten have unrealistic expectations about <strong>the</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g improvements that will result from <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiatives. For<br />
example, when you consider that it takes an average <strong>of</strong> four to five years <strong>for</strong> most teachers to reach a level <strong>of</strong><br />
ISSN 1436-4522 (onl<strong>in</strong>e) and 1176-3647 (pr<strong>in</strong>t). © International Forum <strong>of</strong> <strong>Education</strong>al Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>um jo<strong>in</strong>tly reta<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
copyright <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies <strong>of</strong> part or all <strong>of</strong> this work <strong>for</strong> personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies<br />
are not made or distributed <strong>for</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>it or commercial advantage and that copies bear <strong>the</strong> full citation on <strong>the</strong> first page. Copyrights <strong>for</strong> components <strong>of</strong> this work owned by<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs than IFETS must be honoured. Abstract<strong>in</strong>g with credit is permitted. To copy o<strong>the</strong>rwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior<br />
specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from <strong>the</strong> editors at k<strong>in</strong>shuk@ieee.org.<br />
206
technological pr<strong>of</strong>iciency at which <strong>the</strong>y can use computers fluidly and effectively, <strong>the</strong>n an impact on student learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
will not occur any sooner.<br />
On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>the</strong> degree <strong>of</strong> success that a school has <strong>in</strong> implement<strong>in</strong>g <strong>ICT</strong> will depend, <strong>in</strong> part, on <strong>the</strong> quality<br />
and maturity <strong>of</strong> its <strong>ICT</strong> plan. There<strong>for</strong>e, <strong>the</strong> school needs to monitor its progress towards <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong>tegration and use <strong>the</strong><br />
evaluation results to plan its <strong>ICT</strong> program, e.g., identify<strong>in</strong>g needs, problems, and opportunities as well as specific<br />
aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> program such as pr<strong>of</strong>essional development, technical assistance, and resources. Evaluation is nei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
easy nor <strong>in</strong>expensive, but when it is an <strong>in</strong>tegral part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ongo<strong>in</strong>g <strong>ICT</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>in</strong>fusion process, it is well<br />
worth <strong>the</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t (Spector, Merrill, van Merrienboer, & Driscoll, 2007).<br />
It is clear that schools need a periodical evaluation mechanism to know where <strong>the</strong>y are. This mechanism also<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicates how to advance (more rapidly) towards <strong>the</strong> correct direction (roadmap) without los<strong>in</strong>g time, ef<strong>for</strong>ts or<br />
resources. Evaluation is necessary, but un<strong>for</strong>tunately <strong>the</strong>re are no standardised approaches. The choice <strong>of</strong> an<br />
evaluation method would depend on what aspect <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> and education we want to evaluate; consequently, <strong>the</strong>re is a<br />
wide range <strong>of</strong> assessment tools <strong>in</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> and education. An example <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se proposals is that from Rodriguez,<br />
Nussbaum, López and Sepúlveda (2010). These authors present a monitor<strong>in</strong>g and evaluation scheme <strong>for</strong> a specific<br />
<strong>ICT</strong> <strong>for</strong> an education program that supports teach<strong>in</strong>g and learn<strong>in</strong>g us<strong>in</strong>g mobile, computer-supported collaborative<br />
learn<strong>in</strong>g. Us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation provided by <strong>the</strong> program, <strong>the</strong> authors analyse <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>novations adopted<br />
by teachers on student achievement.<br />
The development <strong>of</strong> capability maturity models has been a strong trend <strong>in</strong> various technological and organisational<br />
areas. These models are prov<strong>in</strong>g to be useful because <strong>the</strong>y allow <strong>in</strong>dividuals and organisations to self-assess <strong>the</strong><br />
maturity <strong>of</strong> various aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir processes aga<strong>in</strong>st benchmarks. The best-known models are those belong<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong><br />
Capability <strong>Maturity</strong> <strong>Model</strong> Integration family developed by Humphrey at Carnegie Mellon University (CMMI,<br />
2006). These models are typically constructed with five levels, where each maturity level provides a new foundation<br />
<strong>of</strong> practices on which subsequent levels are built. Although <strong>the</strong>y were developed <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> s<strong>of</strong>tware products and<br />
services, <strong>the</strong>ir capability maturity level structure and <strong>the</strong> mechanisms <strong>for</strong> determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g those levels have been<br />
replicated by many o<strong>the</strong>r models <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r areas (Valdes, Solar, Astudillo, Iribarren, Concha, & Visconti, 2011). Some<br />
applications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> maturity model concept <strong>in</strong> e-learn<strong>in</strong>g are detailed <strong>in</strong> Harris (2004), Neuhauser (2004), and<br />
Marshall and Mitchell (2006). All <strong>the</strong>se proposals were developed as an E-learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Maturity</strong> <strong>Model</strong> to provide a<br />
means by which tertiary <strong>in</strong>stitutions (universities and polytechnics) can assess and compare <strong>the</strong>ir capability to<br />
develop, deploy and support e-learn<strong>in</strong>g (focused on learners ra<strong>the</strong>r than teachers and <strong>in</strong>stitutions). An example <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>se applications <strong>in</strong> school education is shown <strong>in</strong> Zhihua and Zhaojun (2009). They present a maturity model<br />
framework applied dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> Test Projects <strong>in</strong> Shanghai rural schools, provid<strong>in</strong>g appropriate structures to deliver<br />
effective educational experiences through <strong>ICT</strong> use. The framework <strong>in</strong>cludes six models: “Technology,”<br />
“Curriculum,” “Leadership/Management,” “Work<strong>for</strong>ce,” “Inter/<strong>in</strong>tra-<strong>in</strong>stitutional l<strong>in</strong>kage” and “External l<strong>in</strong>kage.”<br />
Each model consists <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> dimensions, 63 dimensions <strong>in</strong> total <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> six models. Each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> dimensions<br />
with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se models may be treated on a six-po<strong>in</strong>t Likert scale with positive scor<strong>in</strong>g (Likert, 1932); a school that<br />
satisfies all <strong>the</strong> attributes with<strong>in</strong> a given level <strong>of</strong> a dimension is assigned an appropriate score. The authors suggest<br />
that <strong>the</strong> models could be used as an action guidel<strong>in</strong>e <strong>for</strong> school managers, one that would prevent deviation from <strong>the</strong><br />
scheduled targets. The maturity model <strong>of</strong> Zhihua and Zhaojun (2009) is not based on <strong>in</strong>ternational standards.<br />
A maturity model should be developed based on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternationally recognised standards <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> use <strong>in</strong> education<br />
(Bon<strong>in</strong>a & Frick, 2007). It should be adjusted to <strong>the</strong> given school’s local conditions and measure <strong>the</strong> degree <strong>of</strong><br />
compliance with <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternationally recognised standards (Olsson, 2006). It allows one to diagnose <strong>the</strong> situation, and<br />
from <strong>the</strong>re generates a roadmap that guarantees a virtuous cycle <strong>of</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>uous improvement. The roadmap helps to<br />
optimise <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestments and allows <strong>the</strong> school to reach higher levels <strong>of</strong> maturity.<br />
The proposed maturity model suggests a way to measure <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> standards <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> school. This model, based <strong>in</strong><br />
CMMI (2006), is a process improvement approach that provides organisations with <strong>the</strong> essential elements <strong>of</strong><br />
effective processes. The model will be called "<strong>Maturity</strong> <strong>Model</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>School</strong> <strong>Education</strong>" (<strong>ICT</strong>E-MM). The<br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g sources have been considered as <strong>in</strong>puts <strong>in</strong> design<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> proposed model:<br />
<strong>Model</strong>s that provide <strong>the</strong> standard structure <strong>of</strong> a CMMI (2006).<br />
ISTE's National <strong>Education</strong>al Technology Standards (NETS), <strong>the</strong> NETS <strong>for</strong> Teachers (NETS-T, 2008), <strong>the</strong> NETS<br />
<strong>for</strong> students (NETS-S, 2007), and <strong>the</strong> NETS <strong>for</strong> Adm<strong>in</strong>istrators (NETS-A, 2002).<br />
<strong>ICT</strong> Competency Standards <strong>for</strong> Teachers (CST) UNESCO (2008).<br />
207
Technology Standards <strong>for</strong> <strong>School</strong> Adm<strong>in</strong>istrators (TSSA, 2001).<br />
The <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM model was validated with 19 stakeholders through different data collection <strong>in</strong>struments, a<br />
complementary self-assessment web tool was pilot-tested with six schools, and a f<strong>in</strong>e-tuned version was generated<br />
that <strong>in</strong>corporates <strong>the</strong> participants’ feedback and an <strong>ICT</strong>, implementation roadmap <strong>for</strong> each evaluated school.<br />
The proposed <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM model allows one to evaluate a school aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> best <strong>in</strong>ternational practices <strong>of</strong> educational<br />
<strong>ICT</strong> use, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>for</strong>mulation <strong>of</strong> organisational strategies, management <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>, operative management, and<br />
capabilities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school and its human resources (teachers, students and adm<strong>in</strong>istrators). The next section<br />
establishes <strong>the</strong> problem statement and <strong>the</strong> general structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model. The section “Logic <strong>of</strong> Proposed <strong>Model</strong>:<br />
Leverage Doma<strong>in</strong>s and Key Doma<strong>in</strong> Areas” presents <strong>the</strong> details <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model’s components as well as describes a<br />
rationale <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> model. We <strong>the</strong>n expla<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> validation process <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model and a pilot study <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> web tool. In <strong>the</strong><br />
last section, we conclude by discuss<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> advantages <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model.<br />
Problem statement<br />
The research done by Zhihua and Zhaojun (2009) suggests that schools that are more e-mature improved <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance levels significantly and more quickly than those that are not. Saiti and Prokopiadou (2009) observe that<br />
<strong>the</strong> usage <strong>of</strong> new technologies <strong>in</strong> school adm<strong>in</strong>istration is vital to upgrade adm<strong>in</strong>istrative processes. Similarly,<br />
Marshall and Mitchell (2006) conclude that <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> application <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> e-learn<strong>in</strong>g maturity model have been<br />
found valuable <strong>for</strong> strategic plann<strong>in</strong>g activities <strong>in</strong> universities. In general, <strong>the</strong> e-maturity model <strong>of</strong> Zhihua and<br />
Zhaojun (2009), as well as Underwood et al. (2010) proposal, tries to answer <strong>the</strong> question: “Does maturity model<br />
have a positive impact on learner outcomes?. The purpose <strong>of</strong> our proposal is specifically to answer <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
questions: “Does <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM support pr<strong>in</strong>cipals to make appropriate decisions on <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestment? Does <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM<br />
support pr<strong>in</strong>cipals to identify how to develop future actions?<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Waissbluth (2010), Chilean pr<strong>in</strong>cipals have non-pr<strong>of</strong>essional faculties to lead, and a consensus has not<br />
developed around basic aspects, as much adm<strong>in</strong>istrative as pedagogical, <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> management and leadership <strong>of</strong><br />
organisations. In <strong>the</strong> Chilean context, Hepp, H<strong>in</strong>ostroza, Laval and Rehbe<strong>in</strong> (2004) note that “<strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong>to<br />
<strong>the</strong> schools, without a proper staff development plan and without a pedagogical perspective, is a low-return<br />
<strong>in</strong>vestment.” Where resources are limited, this lesson really must be learnt quickly (Wagner, Day, James, Kozma,<br />
Miller, & Unw<strong>in</strong>, 2005).<br />
Public schools with limited resources have no budget to hire an <strong>in</strong>-house expert exclusively <strong>for</strong> technical assistance.<br />
Several studies (Eteokleous, 2008; Saiti & Prokopiadou, 2009) <strong>in</strong>dicate that ensur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> quality and permanency <strong>of</strong><br />
technical assistance constitutes one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> important factors <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> efficient <strong>in</strong>troduction and exploitation <strong>of</strong> new<br />
technological capabilities.<br />
All <strong>the</strong>se evidences suggest that pr<strong>in</strong>cipals need support to make decisions about <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestments. In this paper we<br />
propose a maturity model <strong>in</strong> order to provide pr<strong>in</strong>cipals with virtual technical assistance (roadmaps) to make<br />
appropriate decisions on whe<strong>the</strong>r to expand or modify a particular policy or <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestment and to identify how to<br />
develop future actions.<br />
Research context<br />
The study <strong>in</strong>vestigated computer use <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools <strong>of</strong> Santiago, Chile. The population <strong>of</strong> Santiago is about 6 million.<br />
Nationally, <strong>the</strong>re are 10,605 schools distributed among four categories accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong>ir f<strong>in</strong>ancial sources: 6,250<br />
public schools (59%), 3,217 subsidised schools (30%), 1,068 private schools (10%) and 70 schools <strong>of</strong> entrepreneurial<br />
corporations (0,1%). There are 2,576 schools, equivalent to 24,29% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> national total, <strong>of</strong> which 611 are public,<br />
1,615 are subsidised, 317 are private and 33 are entrepreneurial corporations. As <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> students, <strong>the</strong> total<br />
enrolled at <strong>the</strong> regional level <strong>in</strong> 2007 was 1,405,200 (M<strong>in</strong>educ, 2009).<br />
208
Figure 1. Hierarchical structure <strong>of</strong> (5) doma<strong>in</strong>s, 25 KDA and CV<br />
209
Proposed <strong>Maturity</strong> <strong>Model</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>School</strong> <strong>Education</strong> (<strong>ICT</strong>E-MM)<br />
Follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> ISTE's National <strong>Education</strong>al Technology Standards (NETS-A, 2002; NETS-S, 2007; NETS-T, 2008)<br />
and TSSA (2001), we def<strong>in</strong>ed five Leverage Doma<strong>in</strong>s: <strong>Education</strong>al Management, Infrastructure, Adm<strong>in</strong>istrators,<br />
Teachers and Students (Figure 1). The Leverage Doma<strong>in</strong>s generate a hierarchical structure <strong>of</strong> levels. The second<br />
level is named Key Doma<strong>in</strong> Areas (KDA). These areas should be measurable and controllable and are related to a<br />
third hierarchical level called “Critical Variables” (CV). Each KDA can be measured by whe<strong>the</strong>r it meets its goals,<br />
which are determ<strong>in</strong>ed by <strong>the</strong> CV that determ<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> given KDA’s capacity.<br />
The “In<strong>for</strong>mation Criteria.” To satisfy <strong>the</strong> school requirements, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation must satisfy certa<strong>in</strong> criteria which<br />
constitute <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E requirements <strong>for</strong> this <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation. These criteria <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation provided by a given KDA<br />
are:<br />
Effectiveness: <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation must be relevant and pert<strong>in</strong>ent as well as be<strong>in</strong>g delivered timely, correctly, and<br />
consistently.<br />
Efficiency: <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation must be generated by <strong>the</strong> most productive and economical use <strong>of</strong> resources.<br />
Confidentiality: <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation must be protected from unauthorized disclosure.<br />
Integrity: <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation must be accurate and complete.<br />
Availability: <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation must be available when required by <strong>the</strong> stakeholders, and its associated resources<br />
and capabilities must be safeguarded.<br />
Compliance: <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation must comply with those laws, regulations and contractual arrangements to which<br />
<strong>the</strong> school is subjected, i.e., externally imposed educational criteria as well as <strong>in</strong>ternal policies.<br />
Manageability: <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation must be easy to deal with and usable by management to operate <strong>the</strong> school.<br />
The “IT Resources.” The Leverage Doma<strong>in</strong>s require “IT Resources” to generate, store and deliver <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation<br />
required to reach <strong>the</strong> school objectives. IT resources are:<br />
Applications: <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation systems and manual procedures used to process data and generate <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
Data: on every <strong>for</strong>mat required by <strong>the</strong> school and processed by <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation systems.<br />
Infrastructure: technology (e.g., hardware, operat<strong>in</strong>g systems, database management systems, network<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
multimedia, etc.) that enables <strong>the</strong> process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> applications.<br />
Facilities: <strong>the</strong> environment that houses and supports <strong>the</strong> IT <strong>in</strong>frastructure.<br />
Figure 1. Structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model show<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> three dimensions <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>terrelated elements<br />
210
Logic <strong>of</strong> proposed model: Leverage doma<strong>in</strong>s and key doma<strong>in</strong> areas<br />
Leverage Doma<strong>in</strong>s are <strong>the</strong> model’s core elements because <strong>the</strong>y are used to establish <strong>the</strong> capability levels, which are<br />
<strong>in</strong> turn compared with <strong>the</strong> current status <strong>of</strong> a given school. Five leverage doma<strong>in</strong>s and 25 KDA (Figure. 1) were<br />
def<strong>in</strong>ed by study<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>ternational standards along with <strong>in</strong>put and feedback provided by <strong>in</strong>structional technology<br />
experts and educators, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g classroom teachers, adm<strong>in</strong>istrators, teacher educators, and curriculum specialists<br />
(Tomei, 2005). We detail two doma<strong>in</strong>s, Management and Infrastructure, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> description <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir critical<br />
variables. Due to limited space, <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r three doma<strong>in</strong>s, Adm<strong>in</strong>istrators, Teachers, and Students, are described <strong>in</strong> a<br />
general context (see Teachers and Students’ variables <strong>in</strong> Figure 1).<br />
Management<br />
This doma<strong>in</strong> is based on Technology Standards <strong>for</strong> <strong>School</strong> Adm<strong>in</strong>istrators (TSSA, 2001). It provides criteria to<br />
evaluate <strong>the</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school to articulate an <strong>ICT</strong> consistent vision. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong> school should have an<br />
<strong>ICT</strong> strategy aligned with <strong>the</strong> school’s overall strategy, and <strong>the</strong>re should be an explicit commitment to <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>. The<br />
management doma<strong>in</strong>’s KDAs are as follows:<br />
(MAN-1) <strong>School</strong> Management. This doma<strong>in</strong> allows <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> verification and qualification <strong>of</strong> plans <strong>in</strong> accordance<br />
with school adm<strong>in</strong>istration, specifically <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> measurement and monitor<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g six CVs: action plan<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> use <strong>in</strong> adm<strong>in</strong>istration; technology plan <strong>in</strong> adm<strong>in</strong>istration; monitor<strong>in</strong>g and Evaluation plan; verification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
personal use <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong> adm<strong>in</strong>istrative positions; generation <strong>of</strong> report cards, registration, qualifications (i.e., SIMCE<br />
and PSU, nation-wide school evaluations <strong>in</strong> Chile); and follow-ups <strong>of</strong> student/teacher cases (record <strong>of</strong> educational<br />
cases <strong>for</strong> students and teachers).<br />
(MAN-2) Vision, Strategies and Policies. This doma<strong>in</strong> allows <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> all <strong>ICT</strong> resources accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
<strong>the</strong> school’s vision, strategy and priorities. At <strong>the</strong> same time, it aligns <strong>the</strong> plan with national educational policies. It<br />
specifically allows <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> measurement and monitor<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g CVs: alignment strategies; commitment <strong>of</strong><br />
senior management; communication with <strong>the</strong> school community; resource allocation (policy <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternet<br />
resources; and policy <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> acquisition <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>puts and technological resources meet<strong>in</strong>g school needs).<br />
(MAN-3) Organisation and <strong>ICT</strong> Management. This doma<strong>in</strong> outl<strong>in</strong>es activities help<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> school to organise and<br />
manage <strong>ICT</strong>. It is evaluated through <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g CVs: plann<strong>in</strong>g guidance IT <strong>in</strong>frastructure; IT <strong>in</strong>frastructure<br />
plann<strong>in</strong>g; def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> organisational structure; and IT process roadmap.<br />
Infrastructure<br />
This doma<strong>in</strong> is based on <strong>the</strong> maturity model described <strong>in</strong> Valdés et al. (2011). It provides guidance on how <strong>the</strong><br />
school can develop its multimedia resources to provide <strong>the</strong> foundation <strong>for</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> implementation. This doma<strong>in</strong> conta<strong>in</strong>s<br />
<strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g KDAs:<br />
(INF-1) S<strong>of</strong>tware. This measure allows <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>frastructure-oriented application; it is def<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school’s educational objectives and its <strong>in</strong>tegration with o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>ternal and external systems.<br />
It is evaluated through <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g CVs: operat<strong>in</strong>g system; educational s<strong>of</strong>tware; and Adm<strong>in</strong>istrative S<strong>of</strong>tware.<br />
(INF-2) Networks. This doma<strong>in</strong> measures <strong>the</strong> network architecture that def<strong>in</strong>es <strong>the</strong> communications <strong>in</strong>frastructure<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> transmission <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation. Its CVs are <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g: <strong>in</strong>ternet; wi-fi; and <strong>in</strong>tranet.<br />
(INF-3) Hardware. This measure allows <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> an <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong>frastructure that def<strong>in</strong>es <strong>the</strong> technologies<br />
and standards <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> technical components that enable <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiatives. The variables are as follows: access to <strong>the</strong><br />
computer room; quality <strong>of</strong> technological equipment <strong>for</strong> educational use; access to equipment deployment <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation<br />
multimedia; computers available <strong>for</strong> education; and access equipment <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation capture.<br />
(INF-4) Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance Plan. This doma<strong>in</strong> allows <strong>for</strong> measurement plann<strong>in</strong>g that ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s <strong>the</strong> operability <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> school. Its CVs are as follows: ma<strong>in</strong>tenance <strong>of</strong> equipment; operational ma<strong>in</strong>tenance supplies; and presence <strong>of</strong> a<br />
ma<strong>in</strong>tenance plan.<br />
211
(INF-5) Security. This measure allows <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> a security <strong>in</strong>frastructure that def<strong>in</strong>es <strong>the</strong> technologies<br />
and safety standards to ensure that <strong>in</strong>ternal and external transactions are secure. It is measured with <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
CVs: condition safety; <strong>in</strong>surance contracts; health conditions; personnel <strong>for</strong> security work; and backup <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
Adm<strong>in</strong>istrators<br />
These standards are <strong>in</strong>dicators <strong>of</strong> effective leadership <strong>for</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong> schools based on NETS-A (2002):<br />
(ADM-1) Leadership and Vision. <strong>Education</strong>al leaders <strong>in</strong>spire a shared vision <strong>for</strong> comprehensive <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong><br />
and foster an environment and culture conducive to <strong>the</strong> realisation <strong>of</strong> that vision.<br />
(ADM-2) Learn<strong>in</strong>g and Teach<strong>in</strong>g. <strong>Education</strong>al leaders ensure that curricular design, <strong>in</strong>structional strategies, and<br />
learn<strong>in</strong>g environments <strong>in</strong>tegrate appropriate <strong>ICT</strong> to maximise learn<strong>in</strong>g and teach<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
(ADM-3) Productivity and Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Practice. <strong>Education</strong>al leaders apply <strong>ICT</strong> to enhance <strong>the</strong>ir pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
practice and to <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>the</strong>ir own productivity and that <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
(ADM-4) Support, Management, and Operations. <strong>Education</strong>al leaders ensure <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> to support<br />
productive systems <strong>for</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g and adm<strong>in</strong>istration.<br />
(ADM-5) Assessment and Evaluation. <strong>Education</strong>al leaders use <strong>ICT</strong> to plan and implement comprehensive systems<br />
<strong>of</strong> effective assessment and evaluation.<br />
(ADM-6) Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues. <strong>Education</strong>al leaders understand <strong>the</strong> social, legal, and ethical issues<br />
related to <strong>ICT</strong> and model responsible decision-mak<strong>in</strong>g related to <strong>the</strong>se issues.<br />
Teachers<br />
This doma<strong>in</strong> is based on <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternational standard NETS-T (2008). Teachers design, implement, and assess learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
experiences to engage students, improve learn<strong>in</strong>g, enrich pr<strong>of</strong>essional practice and provide positive models <strong>for</strong><br />
students, colleagues, and <strong>the</strong> community. All teachers should meet <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g standards and per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicators. This doma<strong>in</strong>’s KDAs are as follows:<br />
(TEA-1) Student Learn<strong>in</strong>g and Creativity. Teachers use <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject matter, teach<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
learn<strong>in</strong>g practices, and <strong>ICT</strong> to facilitate experiences that advance student learn<strong>in</strong>g, creativity, and <strong>in</strong>novation <strong>in</strong> both<br />
face-to-face and virtual environments.<br />
(TEA-2) Digital-Age Learn<strong>in</strong>g Experiences and Assessments. Teachers design, develop, and evaluate au<strong>the</strong>ntic<br />
learn<strong>in</strong>g experiences and assessments, <strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g contemporary tools and resources to maximise content learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong> context and to develop knowledge, skills, and personal attitudes.<br />
(TEA-3) Digital-Age Work and Learn<strong>in</strong>g. Teachers exhibit knowledge, skills, and work processes representative<br />
<strong>of</strong> an <strong>in</strong>novative pr<strong>of</strong>essional <strong>in</strong> a global and digital society.<br />
(TEA-4) Digital Citizenship and Responsibility. Teachers understand local and global societal issues and<br />
responsibilities <strong>in</strong> an evolv<strong>in</strong>g digital culture and exhibit legal and ethical behaviour <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir pr<strong>of</strong>essional practices.<br />
(TEA-5) Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Growth and Leadership. Teachers cont<strong>in</strong>uously improve <strong>the</strong>ir pr<strong>of</strong>essional practice, model<br />
lifelong learn<strong>in</strong>g, and exhibit leadership <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir school and pr<strong>of</strong>essional community by promot<strong>in</strong>g and demonstrat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> effective use <strong>of</strong> digital tools and resources.<br />
Students<br />
With<strong>in</strong> a solid educational framework, <strong>ICT</strong> can help students to live, learn and work successfully <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly<br />
complex society that is rich <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation and knowledge. Students and teachers should use digital technology<br />
effectively. This doma<strong>in</strong>’s KDAs are based on <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>ternational standard NETS-S (2007):<br />
212
(STU-1) Creativity and Innovation. Students demonstrate creative th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g, acquire knowledge, and develop<br />
<strong>in</strong>novative products and processes us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>ICT</strong>.<br />
(STU-2) Communication and Collaboration. Students use digital media to communicate and work collaboratively,<br />
at times long-distance, and to support <strong>in</strong>dividual learn<strong>in</strong>g and contribute to <strong>the</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
(STU-3) Research and In<strong>for</strong>mation Fluency. Students apply digital tools to ga<strong>the</strong>r, evaluate, and use <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
(STU-4) Critical Th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g, Problem Solv<strong>in</strong>g, and Decision Mak<strong>in</strong>g. Students use critical th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g skills to plan<br />
and conduct research, manage projects, solve problems, and make <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>med decisions us<strong>in</strong>g appropriate digital tools<br />
and resources.<br />
(STU-5) Digital Citizenship. Students understand human, cultural, and societal issues related to <strong>ICT</strong> and practice<br />
legal and ethical behaviour.<br />
(STU-6) Technology Operations and Concepts. Students demonstrate a sound understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> technology<br />
concepts, systems, and operations.<br />
Capability model and maturity determ<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
The capability is a measurement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state <strong>of</strong> each KDA that contributes to support <strong>the</strong> school’s development. The<br />
capability <strong>of</strong> a KDA is determ<strong>in</strong>ed by us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Capability Level (CL) <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> its Critical Variables (CV); <strong>in</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
words, <strong>the</strong> capability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se variables to satisfy certa<strong>in</strong> requirements is evaluated. The capabilities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> critical<br />
variables are averaged to give a f<strong>in</strong>al KDA CL.<br />
To accommodate <strong>ICT</strong>E strategies with different variables relevance, weights (W) are used <strong>for</strong> each variable group.<br />
Thus, <strong>the</strong> CL <strong>of</strong> a KDA is <strong>the</strong> weighted average <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CLs <strong>of</strong> its variables CVi (Eq. 1).<br />
CLKDA = Average[CAP(CV1)*W1, CAP(CV2) *W2,… ,CAP(CVn) *Wn] (Eq. 1)<br />
The weights Wi used <strong>in</strong> this first model application are all equal, but <strong>the</strong> model allows to adjust <strong>the</strong>ir values accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to <strong>the</strong> needs.<br />
<strong>Maturity</strong> is a property <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school as a whole, and <strong>the</strong> maturity level (ML) is obta<strong>in</strong>ed from <strong>the</strong> KDA capacity<br />
levels that <strong>the</strong> school has (CLKDA). There are several options to determ<strong>in</strong>e an organization maturity, namely:<br />
1. M<strong>in</strong>imum CL among all KDAs<br />
2. Average CL <strong>of</strong> all KDAs<br />
3. Predeterm<strong>in</strong>ed KDA configuration, us<strong>in</strong>g a set <strong>of</strong> values <strong>for</strong> all KDAs <strong>in</strong> model.<br />
4. Configuration <strong>of</strong> high-priority KDAs, us<strong>in</strong>g a set <strong>of</strong> m<strong>in</strong>imum values <strong>for</strong> all KDAs <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> model.<br />
The last criterion (Configuration <strong>of</strong> high-priority KDAs) was adopted <strong>in</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM. The school ML corresponds to a<br />
predeterm<strong>in</strong>ed configuration <strong>of</strong> KDAs <strong>in</strong> predef<strong>in</strong>ed CLs (Eq. 2). See Table 1.<br />
ML1 = Conf1(CLKDA1,… , CLKDAk) (Eq. 2)<br />
ML5 = Conf5(CLKDA1,… , CLKDAm)<br />
Table 1. Example <strong>of</strong> organizational ML with a set <strong>of</strong> high-priority KDAs<br />
Doma<strong>in</strong> KDA 1 2<br />
ML<br />
3 4 5<br />
Management <strong>School</strong> Management 2 3 4 5<br />
Vision, Strategies & Policies 2 3<br />
Organization & <strong>ICT</strong> Management 2 3 4 5<br />
Infrastructure S<strong>of</strong>tware 2 3 3<br />
Network 2 3<br />
Hardware 3 3 3<br />
Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance Plan 2 2 3 4<br />
Security 3 3 3<br />
Adm<strong>in</strong>istrators Leadership & Vision 3 3 3<br />
213
Learn<strong>in</strong>g & Teach<strong>in</strong>g 3 3 3<br />
Productivity & Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Practice 2 3 4 5<br />
Support Management & Operations 2 3 4 5<br />
Assessment & Evaluation 2 3 4<br />
Social, Legal & Ethical Issues 3 3 3<br />
Teachers Student Learn<strong>in</strong>g & Creativity 2 3 4<br />
Digital-Age Learn<strong>in</strong>g Experiences & Assessments 3 3 3<br />
Digital-Age Work & Learn<strong>in</strong>g 3 4 5<br />
Digital Citizenship & Responsibility 3 3 3<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Growth & Leadership 2 3 4 5<br />
Students Creativity & Innovation 2 3 4<br />
Communication & Collaboration 2 3 4 5<br />
Research & In<strong>for</strong>mation Fluency 2 3 4 5<br />
Critical Th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g, Problem Solv<strong>in</strong>g & Decision Mak<strong>in</strong>g 2 3<br />
Digital Citizenship 3 3<br />
Technology Operations & Concepts 2 3 4<br />
This mechanism was selected <strong>for</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM <strong>for</strong> its flexibility to allow graduat<strong>in</strong>g progress accord<strong>in</strong>g to specific<br />
<strong>ICT</strong>E strategies, s<strong>in</strong>ce it only requires to fix a m<strong>in</strong>imum set <strong>of</strong> KDAs that are important <strong>for</strong> a given ML; development<br />
criteria and rates <strong>for</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r KDAs are left to <strong>the</strong> school. The actual criteria to use can be extracted from doma<strong>in</strong><br />
specialists or school leaderships. Once <strong>the</strong> current ML is assessed, <strong>the</strong> model allows one to identify <strong>the</strong> states<br />
required to advance to a higher level and to propose a “roadmap” to improve <strong>the</strong> school.<br />
The model considers five levels <strong>for</strong> a staged evolvement <strong>of</strong> KDA capability. Each KDA <strong>in</strong>cludes variables with<br />
capability levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own; a weighted average <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> variables’ capability levels determ<strong>in</strong>es <strong>the</strong> KDA capability<br />
level. A set <strong>of</strong> common patterns was identified to determ<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> discrete capability levels. For <strong>in</strong>stance, level 1 means<br />
that capability does not exist, although <strong>the</strong> school may have recognised <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>for</strong> such capability; <strong>in</strong> level 2,<br />
<strong>the</strong> capability exists, but it is nei<strong>the</strong>r structured nor <strong>for</strong>malised; <strong>in</strong> level 3, <strong>the</strong> capability exists and it is well<br />
documented and structured; <strong>in</strong> level 4, <strong>the</strong> capability is structured, and its metrics and automatic tools have been<br />
def<strong>in</strong>ed and standardised to improve its effectiveness and efficiency; f<strong>in</strong>ally, level 5 implies all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> capabilities<br />
above plus <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> best practices and <strong>in</strong>ternational standards <strong>in</strong> its achievement.<br />
Description <strong>of</strong> KDA capability levels<br />
As a sample <strong>of</strong> how KDA capability levels are def<strong>in</strong>ed, <strong>the</strong> capability model <strong>of</strong> one KDA is described <strong>in</strong> Table 2<br />
(<strong>School</strong> Management). As def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> “Management” section, “<strong>School</strong> Management” allows <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> verification<br />
and qualification <strong>of</strong> plans <strong>in</strong> accordance with school adm<strong>in</strong>istration.<br />
Table 2. Capability Levels <strong>of</strong> KDA “<strong>School</strong> Management”<br />
ML<br />
Critical Variable Level 1<br />
Level 2<br />
Level 3<br />
Level 4<br />
“Initial” “Develop<strong>in</strong>g” “Def<strong>in</strong>ed” “Managed”<br />
Action plan <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> There is no There is an <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mal There is a <strong>for</strong>mal There is a <strong>for</strong>mal<br />
use <strong>in</strong><br />
plan<br />
plan<br />
plan<br />
and standardised<br />
adm<strong>in</strong>istration<br />
plan<br />
Technology plan <strong>in</strong> There is no There is an <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mal There is a <strong>for</strong>mal There is a<br />
adm<strong>in</strong>istration plan<br />
plan<br />
plan<br />
standardised plan<br />
Monitor<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
evaluation plan<br />
Verification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
personal use <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
adm<strong>in</strong>istrative<br />
positions<br />
There is no<br />
plan<br />
There is no<br />
verification<br />
The plan is <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mal There is a <strong>for</strong>mal<br />
plan<br />
There is an <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mal<br />
verification<br />
There is a <strong>for</strong>mal<br />
procedure<br />
There are some<br />
automatic tools<br />
There is a<br />
standardised<br />
verification<br />
process<br />
Level 5<br />
“Optimised”<br />
There is a plan, and<br />
it is annually<br />
reviewed<br />
There is a plan based<br />
on <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> best<br />
practices<br />
There is a plan based<br />
on <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> best<br />
practices<br />
There is a procedure<br />
based on <strong>the</strong> best<br />
practices<br />
214
Generation <strong>of</strong><br />
report cards,<br />
registration,<br />
qualifications<br />
Follow-up <strong>of</strong><br />
student/ teacher<br />
cases<br />
There are no<br />
reports<br />
automatically<br />
generated<br />
There are no<br />
follow-ups <strong>of</strong><br />
cases<br />
There are no <strong>for</strong>mal<br />
procedures<br />
There are <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mal<br />
procedures to assist<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> follow-up <strong>of</strong><br />
cases<br />
There are <strong>for</strong>mal<br />
procedures<br />
There are <strong>for</strong>mal<br />
procedures to<br />
follow-up<br />
There is a<br />
standardised way<br />
to generate reports<br />
All <strong>the</strong> follow-ups<br />
are done us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
standardised<br />
procedure<br />
All reports are us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>ICT</strong> and best<br />
practices<br />
All <strong>the</strong> follow-ups<br />
are done us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
best practices<br />
The KDA “Vision, Strategies and Policies” must satisfy <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E objective <strong>of</strong> manag<strong>in</strong>g and conduct<strong>in</strong>g all “IT<br />
resources” accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> school strategy and its priorities. Its relevant “In<strong>for</strong>mation Criteria” are Effectiveness<br />
and Availability, and <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> “IT Resources” required are Applications and Data.<br />
Its level <strong>of</strong> capability is determ<strong>in</strong>ed by six critical variables, but we show details <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g four variables: (1)<br />
Strategy alignment with <strong>the</strong> national educational directions. (2) Pr<strong>in</strong>cipal commitment with <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong><br />
school <strong>in</strong>itiatives. (3) Periodic communication to all <strong>in</strong>volved people with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> school. (4) Resource assignment<br />
commitment with <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organizational school strategy.<br />
The CLs are def<strong>in</strong>ed below. With<strong>in</strong> each level four assertions are presented, one <strong>for</strong> each variable related to <strong>the</strong><br />
KDA.<br />
Level 1 “Initial”: (1) There is evidence that <strong>the</strong> school has recognized that <strong>the</strong> strategy alignment is important<br />
and needs to be addressed; however, <strong>the</strong>re are nei<strong>the</strong>r actions nor approaches that tend to be applied. (2) There<br />
is no awareness and need <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>cipal to get <strong>in</strong>volved early with <strong>the</strong> school <strong>in</strong>itiatives. (3) There are no<br />
<strong>for</strong>mal actions to communicate <strong>the</strong> school <strong>in</strong>itiatives to <strong>the</strong> people <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> school. (4) There is no evidence <strong>of</strong><br />
resources specifically allocated <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> and education implementation.<br />
Level 3 “Def<strong>in</strong>ed”: (1) The <strong>ICT</strong>E Vision is well def<strong>in</strong>ed and it is <strong>in</strong>tegrated to <strong>the</strong> school strategy. There is a<br />
policy about <strong>ICT</strong> and educational strategy plann<strong>in</strong>g and it is well documented. (2) Pr<strong>in</strong>cipal and teachers are<br />
committed to and get <strong>in</strong>volved early <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E <strong>in</strong>itiatives. (3) The <strong>ICT</strong>E vision, policies and strategies have<br />
been communicated to and are well understood by all personnel <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> school. (4) Enough monetary resources<br />
to support <strong>ICT</strong>E <strong>in</strong>itiatives have been assigned. Its allocation is <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> school’s annual budget.<br />
Level 5 “Optimised”: (1) The vision is periodically reviewed accord<strong>in</strong>g to stakeholders’ needs and new<br />
technologies. The strategy and policies are periodically updated accord<strong>in</strong>g to feedback from stakeholders,<br />
teachers, and educational policies. The strategy plann<strong>in</strong>g process is cont<strong>in</strong>uously compared with <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>ternational standards. (2) Pr<strong>in</strong>cipals have an explicit role assigned <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> IT strategy plann<strong>in</strong>g process. (3)<br />
Personnel, stakeholders, and teachers are considered when <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E vision is developed. (4) Resources<br />
assigned to <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E <strong>in</strong>itiatives are periodically adjusted accord<strong>in</strong>g to a cost/benefit analysis and to<br />
stakeholders satisfaction.<br />
Validation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E—MM model<br />
The evaluation methodology associated to <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM model establishes activities, schedules, <strong>in</strong>stitutions,<br />
workflows, work products, roles and responsibilities, to provide effective assessments to schools us<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E-<br />
MM model (Sabatt<strong>in</strong>, 2009). The evaluation methodology is supported by a web tool, which supports <strong>the</strong> ga<strong>the</strong>r<strong>in</strong>g<br />
and process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation generated <strong>in</strong> each evaluation based on <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM model.<br />
Table 3 shows <strong>the</strong> participants and data collection <strong>in</strong>struments used dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> validation process. In order to check<br />
validity we use more than one data source to obta<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation about key aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model: The proposed model<br />
has been presented to <strong>in</strong>structional technology experts (2), teachers (6), adm<strong>in</strong>istrators (5), and pr<strong>in</strong>cipals (6). These<br />
recipients represented schools <strong>of</strong> different maturity levels (accord<strong>in</strong>g to annual <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestment), sizes (number <strong>of</strong><br />
students) and types (Pub: public; Sub: subsidised; Pri: private). A survey was conducted to determ<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> relevance<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CV <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM model, and a questionnaire was adm<strong>in</strong>istered to determ<strong>in</strong>e whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> model<br />
was a valid and useful tool <strong>for</strong> guid<strong>in</strong>g pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>in</strong> mov<strong>in</strong>g towards best management practices. The questionnaire<br />
215
was sent to 19 stakeholders as shown <strong>in</strong> Table 3, and all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m (100%) answer it <strong>in</strong> less than 5 days. So, accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to Margaret Sanger Center International (2009), <strong>the</strong> results are representative <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group <strong>of</strong> stakeholders to whom<br />
<strong>the</strong> questionnaire was mailed. The results show that 80% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CVs were considered <strong>of</strong> high or very high relevance.<br />
Most remarkable is <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> “Teachers” doma<strong>in</strong>, which yielded a relevance perception <strong>of</strong> 92%. Due <strong>the</strong> current<br />
model weights <strong>of</strong> critical variables are equal, all participants (100%) agreed that future versions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model should<br />
ref<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong>se weights.<br />
Table 3. Participants <strong>in</strong> validation process<br />
Technology experts Teachers Adm<strong>in</strong>istrators Pr<strong>in</strong>cipals<br />
Pub Sub Pri Pub Sub Pri Pub Sub Pri Pub Sub Pri Total<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> participants 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 19<br />
Data collection tools<br />
Questionnaires <br />
Interviews <br />
Dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terviews, we assured <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>cipals that what <strong>the</strong>y were go<strong>in</strong>g to say was <strong>in</strong> confidence and that <strong>the</strong> identity<br />
<strong>of</strong> speakers would not be revealed. As participants were guaranteed anonymity, we can ensure <strong>the</strong>y were honest <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir responses (research validity). S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>re are only three <strong>in</strong>terviews, all three were conducted by one experienced<br />
and tra<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong>terviewer, avoid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>validity <strong>in</strong> comparisons <strong>of</strong> data across different <strong>in</strong>terviewees. The <strong>in</strong>terviewer<br />
received tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g about <strong>the</strong> project and his role, and he received an <strong>in</strong>terview protocol to conduct <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terview. The<br />
tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>cludes evaluation objectives, review <strong>of</strong> data collection techniques, and <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>structions and <strong>the</strong> application protocol.<br />
The pr<strong>in</strong>cipals (88%) stated that <strong>the</strong>y agreed with <strong>the</strong> criteria <strong>for</strong> mov<strong>in</strong>g from one maturity level to <strong>the</strong> next. Five <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> six pr<strong>in</strong>cipals found that a tool like this could be very helpful. The rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g one, a pr<strong>in</strong>cipal <strong>of</strong> a private school,<br />
did not need a tool like this because <strong>the</strong> school had hired an <strong>in</strong>-house expert <strong>for</strong> technical assistance.<br />
Pilot study <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> web-support tool<br />
A pilot study conducted <strong>in</strong> a set <strong>of</strong> schools was per<strong>for</strong>med dur<strong>in</strong>g September 2009 with <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g objectives:<br />
validate <strong>the</strong> model and its associated web-support tool; test <strong>the</strong> applicability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model to schools with different<br />
characteristics; and obta<strong>in</strong> feedback from schools.<br />
A sample <strong>of</strong> six heterogeneous schools was selected <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> type, organisational size, and degree <strong>of</strong> technological<br />
advancement. All <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m are based <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Metropolitan area <strong>of</strong> Santiago, Chile. The KDA set was divided up and<br />
assigned to three different management field roles: Adm<strong>in</strong>istrator (director <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school, not always a teacher, but<br />
sometimes with a Ph.D. <strong>in</strong> education), IT Management (head <strong>of</strong> IT unit, normally a teacher), and Teacher. There<strong>for</strong>e,<br />
at least three teachers were required to participate <strong>in</strong> each school.<br />
A two-hour workshop was conducted to expla<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> web tool, a call center was available to answer questions dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
ten days and questions were answered by email as well.<br />
The <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM model was validated and commented on by participants <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> pilot study. This pilot study was<br />
supported by a web tool that supported <strong>the</strong> ga<strong>the</strong>r<strong>in</strong>g and process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation generated <strong>in</strong> each evaluation.<br />
The web tool was developed <strong>in</strong> PHP, us<strong>in</strong>g PhpMyAdm<strong>in</strong> and MySql to run <strong>in</strong> Joomla. We created six accounts to<br />
access <strong>the</strong> web tool, and we sent usernames and passwords to each participant. The web tool is available <strong>for</strong> any<br />
school and can be periodically used to monitor improvement <strong>of</strong> capabilities and maturity levels at <strong>the</strong> website<br />
http://tice-mm.<strong>in</strong>f.santiago.usm.cl (<strong>in</strong> Spanish).<br />
An assessment is per<strong>for</strong>med on a school by answer<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> web tool’s questions. The result is an evaluation<br />
(capabilities <strong>of</strong> each KDA and school maturity) plus a proposed capability maturity improvement roadmap. The pilot<br />
test was helpful to f<strong>in</strong>d out how long data collection takes: participants took ten days to answer all <strong>the</strong> questions <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> web tool. They validated <strong>the</strong> model’s structure, applicability, and capability and maturity calculation scheme.<br />
216
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> feedback we received enabled us to make improvements to <strong>the</strong> structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model. As a result,<br />
we moved two CVs from one doma<strong>in</strong> to ano<strong>the</strong>r one.<br />
Conclusions<br />
The ma<strong>in</strong> benefits identified <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM model application are:<br />
It is a reference framework to identify <strong>the</strong> areas that support an <strong>ICT</strong>E strategy, based on <strong>in</strong>ternationally recognized<br />
standards <strong>for</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> management and education.<br />
The proposed <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM model provides a basis <strong>for</strong> self-assessment and improvement plann<strong>in</strong>g. In terms <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>oretical implications, it is not just a diagnostic tool but has also been found to be useful <strong>for</strong> guid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
pr<strong>in</strong>cipals <strong>in</strong> mov<strong>in</strong>g towards best practices <strong>in</strong> management and <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestment.<br />
The Leverage Doma<strong>in</strong>s, along with <strong>the</strong>ir KDA and variables that determ<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> capability maturity, are <strong>in</strong>volved<br />
<strong>in</strong> a dynamic cycle, <strong>the</strong> school requirements act<strong>in</strong>g as <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> trigger<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>put. This cycle allows <strong>for</strong> each school<br />
to achieve cont<strong>in</strong>uous improvement <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> use <strong>in</strong> education, mak<strong>in</strong>g it easier <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m to transit towards higher<br />
maturity levels through planed roadmaps. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most important practical implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model is that <strong>the</strong><br />
application <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM provides data to <strong>for</strong>mulate technological projects and to base budgetary requests<br />
tailored to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual school. This may help <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>cipals to base <strong>the</strong>ir decision mak<strong>in</strong>g on facts.<br />
It has a methodology to determ<strong>in</strong>e an improvement roadmap; besides <strong>the</strong> 5 leverage doma<strong>in</strong>s, 25 KDA and 103<br />
CVs, <strong>the</strong> model <strong>in</strong>corporates organizational capabilities and maturity. Each KDA critical variable has m<strong>in</strong>imum<br />
required values <strong>for</strong> higher MLs, mark<strong>in</strong>g improvement roadmaps <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> school.<br />
The developed model was built and tailored to <strong>the</strong> characteristics <strong>of</strong> public schools <strong>in</strong> a develop<strong>in</strong>g country. This<br />
target school has a low budget and no <strong>in</strong>-house expert <strong>for</strong> technical assistance. Consequently, <strong>the</strong> <strong>ICT</strong>E-MM<br />
model is operationalised with a web tool <strong>for</strong> self-assessment <strong>of</strong> critical variables that acknowledge <strong>the</strong> capabilities<br />
<strong>of</strong> each school to carry out <strong>ICT</strong>E <strong>in</strong>itiatives and guide pr<strong>in</strong>cipals <strong>in</strong> technical decisions.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, this model dist<strong>in</strong>guishes between capacity, a characteristic <strong>of</strong> KDA, and maturity, as a property <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> school<br />
as a whole. The level <strong>of</strong> maturity allows one to def<strong>in</strong>e a "roadmap" to improve <strong>the</strong> school’s ability to address <strong>the</strong><br />
challenges <strong>of</strong> education <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> country.<br />
Acknowledgments<br />
This work was partially funded by DGIP-UTFSM, Project No. 241142 and <strong>the</strong> Electronic Government Center <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
In<strong>for</strong>matic Department - UTFSM.<br />
References<br />
Bon<strong>in</strong>a, C., & Frick, M. (2007). <strong>ICT</strong>s and education: A survey on available <strong>in</strong>dicators and current evaluation methods. Mexico<br />
City, Spanish: Programa de Investigaciòn en Telecomunicaciones, Telecom CIDE, Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia<br />
Económica.<br />
CMMI (2006). S<strong>of</strong>tware eng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stitute: CMMI <strong>for</strong> development v1.2. USA. Retrieved from<br />
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/06tr008.pdf<br />
Condie, R., & Munro, B. (2007). The impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong> schools - a landscape review (Report to Becta). DfES The National<br />
Curriculum onl<strong>in</strong>e. Retrieved June 14, 2011, from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1627/1/becta_2007_landscapeimpactreview_report.pdf<br />
Eteokleous, N. (2008). Evaluat<strong>in</strong>g computer technology <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>in</strong> a centralized school system. Computer & <strong>Education</strong>, 51(2),<br />
669-686.<br />
Harris, K. (2004). <strong>Use</strong> a maturity model to make <strong>the</strong> most <strong>of</strong> e-learn<strong>in</strong>g. (Gartner Research Note DF-22-3036). Retrieved from<br />
http://www.gartner.com/id=428821<br />
Hepp, P., H<strong>in</strong>ostroza, E., Laval, E., & Rehbe<strong>in</strong>, L. (2004). Technology <strong>in</strong> schools: <strong>Education</strong>, <strong>ICT</strong> and <strong>the</strong> knowledge society.<br />
Institute <strong>of</strong> In<strong>for</strong>mática Educativa, Universidad de La Frontera–Banco Mundial, Chile. Retrieved Jun 14, 2011, from<br />
http://www.worldbank.org/education/pdf/<strong>ICT</strong>_report_oct04a.pdf<br />
ITGI TM , The IT Governance Institute (2007). COBIT® 4.1. Retrieved June 14, 2011, from http://www.isaca.org/Knowledge-<br />
Center/cobit/Documents/COBIT4.pdf<br />
217
Kozma, R. B. (2008). Comparative analysis <strong>of</strong> policies <strong>for</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong> education. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International<br />
Handbook <strong>of</strong> In<strong>for</strong>mation Technology <strong>in</strong> Primary and Secondary <strong>Education</strong> (pp. 1083-1096). New York, NY: Spr<strong>in</strong>ger.<br />
Likert, R. (1932). A technique <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> measurement <strong>of</strong> attitudes. Archives <strong>of</strong> Psychology, 140, 1-55.<br />
Margaret Sanger Center International (2009). Steps to trans<strong>for</strong>m<strong>in</strong>g evaluation practice <strong>for</strong> social change. Retrieved September<br />
12, 2011, from http://www.stepstoolkit.org/<br />
Marshall, S, & Mitchell, G. (2006). <strong>Assess<strong>in</strong>g</strong> sector e-learn<strong>in</strong>g capability with an e-learn<strong>in</strong>g maturity model. In D. Whitelock and<br />
S. Wheeler (Ed.), Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Association <strong>for</strong> Learn<strong>in</strong>g Technologies Conference (pp. 203-214). Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh, UK: Heriot-<br />
Watt University.<br />
M<strong>in</strong>educ, M<strong>in</strong>istery <strong>of</strong> <strong>Education</strong> (2009). Compendio de <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>macion estadística educacional. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from<br />
http://www.m<strong>in</strong>educ.cl/biblio/<br />
NETS-A (2002). International society <strong>for</strong> technology <strong>in</strong> education: National education technology standards <strong>for</strong> Adm<strong>in</strong>istrator.<br />
Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-<strong>for</strong>-adm<strong>in</strong>istrators<br />
NETS-S (2007). International Society <strong>for</strong> Technology <strong>in</strong> education: National education technology standards <strong>for</strong> student.<br />
Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-<strong>for</strong>-students<br />
NETS-T (2008). International society <strong>for</strong> technology <strong>in</strong> education: National education technology standards <strong>for</strong> teachers.<br />
Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-<strong>for</strong>-teachers.pdf<br />
Neuhauser, C (2004). A maturity model: Does it provide a path <strong>for</strong> onl<strong>in</strong>e course design? The Journal <strong>of</strong> Interactive Onl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
Learn<strong>in</strong>g, 3(1), 1-17.<br />
Nido (2011). International school nido de aguilas. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.nido.cl/<strong>in</strong>dex.php?option=<br />
com_content&view=article&id=255&Itemid=299&lang=es<br />
Olsson, L. (2006). Implement<strong>in</strong>g use <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong> teacher education. In D. Kumar & J. Turner (Eds.), <strong>Education</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> 21 st Century-<br />
Impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> and Digital Resources (pp. 387-391). Boston, MA: Spr<strong>in</strong>ger.<br />
Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong> education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment.<br />
Computers & <strong>Education</strong> 37(2), 163-178.<br />
Rodríguez, P., Nussbaum, M., López, X., & Sepúlveda, M. (2010). A monitor<strong>in</strong>g and evaluation scheme <strong>for</strong> an <strong>ICT</strong>-supported<br />
education program <strong>in</strong> schools. <strong>Education</strong>al Technology & Society, 13(2), 166–179.<br />
Sabatt<strong>in</strong>, J (2009). Un modelo de madurez para los establecimientos educacionales [A maturity model <strong>for</strong> educational <strong>in</strong>stitutions]<br />
(Unpublished master’s <strong>the</strong>sis). University <strong>of</strong> Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile, Spanish.<br />
Saiti, A., & Prokopiadou, G. (2009). Impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation and communication technologies on school adm<strong>in</strong>istration: Research<br />
on <strong>the</strong> Greek schools <strong>of</strong> secondary education. Lecture Notes <strong>in</strong> Computer Science, 5693, 305-316.<br />
Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D., van Merrienboer, J., & Driscoll, M. P. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook <strong>of</strong> research on educational<br />
communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Francis & Taylor Group.<br />
Sun, J., Heath, M., Byrom, E., Phlegar, J., & Dimock, K. V. (2010). Plann<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to practice resources <strong>for</strong> plann<strong>in</strong>g, implement<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
and <strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>structional technology. Retrieved June 25, 2011, from http://www.serve.org/FileLibraryDetails.aspx?id=134<br />
Tomei, L. (2005). Taxonomy <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> technology doma<strong>in</strong>: A classification <strong>of</strong> educational objectives <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> technology doma<strong>in</strong>.<br />
Hershey, PA: In<strong>for</strong>mation Science Publish<strong>in</strong>g<br />
TSSA (2001). Technology standards <strong>for</strong> school adm<strong>in</strong>istrators. Retrieved June 25, 2011, from http://www.ncrtec.org/pd/tssa/<br />
Underwood, J., Baguley, T., Banyard, P., Dillon, G., Farr<strong>in</strong>gton-Fl<strong>in</strong>t, L., Hayes, M., …Selwood, I. (2010). Understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
impact <strong>of</strong> technology: Learner and school level factors 2010. Retrieved from<br />
http://www.academia.edu/1578084/Understand<strong>in</strong>g_<strong>the</strong>_Impact_<strong>of</strong>_Technology_Learner_and_<strong>School</strong>_level_factors<br />
UNESCO (2008). UNESCO standards <strong>for</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> competencies <strong>for</strong> teachers. Towards <strong>ICT</strong> skills <strong>for</strong> teachers. Retrieved from<br />
http://cst.unesco-ci.org/sites/projects/cst/default.aspx<br />
Valdés, G., Solar, M., Astudillo, H., Iribarren, M., Concha, G. & Visconti, M. (2011). Conception, development and<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> an e-government maturity model <strong>in</strong> public agencies. Government In<strong>for</strong>mation Quarterly. 28(2), 176-187.<br />
Wagner, D. A., Day, B., James, T., Kozma, R. B., Miller, J., & Unw<strong>in</strong>, T. (2005). Monitor<strong>in</strong>g and evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>ICT</strong> <strong>in</strong> education<br />
projects: A handbook <strong>for</strong> develop<strong>in</strong>g countries. Wash<strong>in</strong>gton, DC: <strong>in</strong>foDev.<br />
Waissbluth, M. (2010). Playtime is over: <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>equality <strong>in</strong> education. Santiago de Chile, Chile: Debate. Zamani B. E. (2010).<br />
Successful implementation factors <strong>for</strong> us<strong>in</strong>g computers <strong>in</strong> Iranian schools dur<strong>in</strong>g one decade (1995-2005). Computers and<br />
<strong>Education</strong>, 54(1), 59-68.<br />
Zhihua, L., & Zhaojun, W. (2009). The application <strong>of</strong> maturity model <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools’ <strong>ICT</strong> project. In J. Feng (Ed.), Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
2009 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and S<strong>of</strong>tware Eng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g (pp. 1-4). doi:<br />
10.1109/CISE.2009.5366438.<br />
218