1. Fiona Griswold
LIS 506
Dr. Kate McDowell
December 8, 2009
Facilitating Change Project Narrative:
A Mobile Computer Lab for DH Elementary School
Background
Since I enrolled as a Master’s student at the Graduate School of Library of Information
Science (GSLIS) in Summer 2008, I have followed and at times engaged in what seems the
endless debate over the future of librarianship. In particular, I have spent quite a lot of time
considering the role of technology and digital libraries versus the role of print materials. One
reason for my ongoing interest is my hope to have, at the end of my time at GSLIS, the right
combination of knowledge and abilities to be a competitive candidate for a position as a Library
Media Specialist in an elementary school. However, my knowledge of the organization of some
school libraries and contact with current school librarians has left me without any clear
understanding of the need for the “traditional” library skills such as storytelling, cataloging and
collection development versus the “emerging” skills such as being able to instruct using Web 2.0
technologies. With such a broad range of job descriptions for the school librarian, the best I can
conclude is that I should try to know it all!
Beginning in January, I will be engaged in a practicum at DH Elementary School to
fulfill the early field experience requirement for my K-12 Library Information Specialist
certification in Illinois. When I was interviewing with the current LMS, I was surprised to learn
that there is no computer lab in the school. True, there are one or more computers in each of the
classrooms and three machines in the library for student use, but nowhere in the building is there
a space with sufficient terminals that the librarian or a teacher could conduct a lesson for an
entire class in, for example, Internet safety or online searching methods. I had assumed that, by
this point, all schools in such a district must have computer labs, even if the machines in them
weren’t the most up to date, particularly as I knew that some of the district’s elementary schools
did have labs. At GH Elementary, for example, there is a computer lab. However, there are what
I would consider “problems” at this school as well in that the GH Librarian has no responsibility
for the computer lab and seldom uses it. I began to wonder how and why the facilities at one
school in a district could be so very different than those at another. These disparities seemed
particularly glaring in this district, which had a consent decree for many years after a lawsuit was
filed to make sure that all students in the district had access to the same educational
opportunities. I found this variance among schools to be intriguing and decided to do more
research into the reason why there was not computer lab and to see what might be done to rectify
this situation.
DH appears to be the sort of elementary school that would particularly benefit from
having a computer lab big enough that there would be one work station per child for even the
largest class--currently 24 children. The student population is very diverse in all respects.
According to the 2009 Report Card for this school, of 391 enrolled students, roughly 39% are
Black and 4% are Hispanic. Just over half of the students meet the requirements to be classified
“low income” (ISBE, 2009, p.1). In 2009, DH did not meet the conditions for Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) as defined by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Two cohorts, Black
students and economically disadvantaged students, failed to meet the minimum target percentage
of students meeting or exceeding standards in reading as indicated by the Illinois Standards

2. Griswold / 2
Achievement Tests (ISATs). However, DH also is home to one of the school district’s self-
contained gifted programs for grades 2 through 5. A computer lab would benefit all DH’s
students, but would particularly be appropriate for those students at both ends of the academic
spectrum. It would provide additional sources of challenge and expansion of learning to students
in the gifted program while providing those students struggling with reading skills with
alternative means of instruction that might better suit some students’ learning styles.
Potential Allies/Supports
I believe that the majority of the stakeholders at DH would support the development of a
computer lab, mobile or otherwise, as long as the cost for implementation of the lab didn’t
adversely affect other programs. Two groups, in particular, are likely to be strongly in favor of
such a facility: DH students and their parents. I have not yet met a student who would object to at
least occasional use of a computer, even if access was provided only for activities related to class
lessons or assignments. Plus, for students in the gifted program and/or from families of a higher
socio-economic status, computer use at school is likely to be an extension of computer use at
home. For students from low-income families, however, the only opportunity to use a computer
might be in the school computer lab as they are much less likely to have a computer, in particular
one that has Internet access, in their home. It is widely recognized that the ability to understand
and use computer and other information and communication technologies (ICTs) is likely to be a
requirement for success in ongoing education and future employment. To address these needs, a
number of sets of standards have been developed in the attempt to ensure that all U.S. students
receive similar access to and instruction in the use of technology. The first of these are the
National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S) revised (or “refreshed”) by
the International Society for Technology in Education in 2007. These six standards are intended
for all student in K-12 and address areas such as “creativity and innovation, research and
information fluency and technology operations and concepts.” The second set of standards is that
issued by the American Association of School Librarians (AASL): Standards for the 21st
Century Learner (2007). While these broadly address students’ information literacy needs, they
put special emphasis on technological knowledge, stating “Technology skills are crucial to future
employment needs.” Further, the AASL standards state that “Equitable access is a key
component for learning…. All children deserve access… to information technology in an
environment that is safe and conducive to learning.” While the majority of DH parents may not
be familiar with these standards, specifically, they likely all have some personal experience that
would lead them to conclude that technology is key to education and future employment.
A second group of possible supporters would be staff and administrators, both at the
school and district levels. It is clear from a number of documents that I found on the District’s
Web site that school and district staff understand that many District schools, including DH, are
not where they should be in providing student and teacher access to educational technology. The
Technology Integration Plan (2009) points out a number of areas in which the district is falling
behind, including statistics that one-third of the elementary schools do not have a computer lab
and only 20% of elementary teachers are integrating technology into lessons (p. 24). Professional
development in the area of technology use is also lacking: less than 20% of teaching staff
reported that they have attended a technology workshop of some kind during the last 5 years (p.
26). The Great Schools, Together (2008), available from the district’s website, also points to the
need to improve access to technology in schools such as DH. The plan contains mid-range goals

3. Griswold / 3
such as “introducing computer technology and research at earlier grade levels and integrating it into
daily activities and lessons, K-12” (p. 8) and “ensuring all facilities have equitable access to and
incorporation of technology as appropriate to support student achievement” (p. 12). However, their
timeline for making these changes (in particular, for ensuring equality between all facilities) is a
disheartening 10 to 15 years (p. 19). This long projection is related to the fact that, in the majority of
the schools lacking computer labs, there is no space to create one, so the district is linking the
creation of a lab to the availability of funds for school renovation or reconstruction. I don’t think that
the students and staff at DH can afford to wait 10 years while funds for construction are accumulated,
making the mobile computer lab solution I’m proposing the ideal solution in the interim.
Potential Obstacles/Opponents
While I anticipate that a good number of staff and administrators at both the school and
district levels would be proponents of the plan to create a mobile computer lab, there are also likely
to be those who may not support, if not actually oppose such a plan. Some individuals in the
technology department might be against the plan if they feel that their “turf” is being invaded by
someone from outside their group. The technology group would also need to be on board to provide
support to maintain the lab, both in terms of machine maintenance and connectivity as the lab would
require a wireless Internet connection to function. Administrators will likely have concerns about
funding issues for the initial cost of equipment and software purchase as well as maintenance
expenditures for personnel and for equipment. To address these concerns, it will be important to have
cost data, which I’m currently estimating at $22,000 to $28,000 for 25 laptops, projector, and cart, as
well as some options for cutting cost and identified sources of grants that could help finance the
expense involved. Finally, teachers may have some reservations as to what the creation of a computer
lab would mean for their professional development and teaching responsibilities. The District’s TIP
indicated that less the majority of instructional staff had not attended any technology workshops
during the last 5 years. This could be for a number of reasons--few workshops offered, inconvenient
scheduling, offered workshops not meeting needs or interests, or even a general lack of interest on
the part of staff. If the latter reason is valid for even some of the teachers at DH, then it is very
possible that they would feel that the computer lab would be forcing them to engage in learning and
teaching with which they are not comfortable. The best way, I think, to try and diffuse some
teachers’ concerns would be to point to the evidence of the benefits of computer instruction in the
elementary grades, particularly for students who are “at risk” and for those who have been classified,
“gifted”. Articles that have shown the potential for benefits of laptop use in the elementary classroom
(Kemker, Barron & Harmes, 2007) and reading gains of 1st and 2nd graders achieved through
technology interventions (Knezek & Christiansen, 2007) will help teachers to understand some of the
benefits of using technology to teach their students. It will, of course, be critical to address these
potential obstacles or opponents before moving forward with any plans to create a lab. Consensus
and support for such a facility from the majority of stakeholders will be necessary if the project is
going to succeed.
Plan of Action
My plan to implement this project and successfully create a mobile computer lab for DH
Elementary will consist of four stages. Stage I, or Research, will consist of gathering all the
necessary data and information to support my proposal. During this stage, I will collect relevant
research studies that support the use of computer-based instruction in the elementary school
setting and show the benefits (such as improved scores on standardized tests) of such instruction.
I will also locate the relevant standards at the state and national level that relate to the
incorporation of technology into the curriculum. Finally, I will find examples of other

4. Griswold / 4
elementary schools, preferably in Illinois, that have created mobile labs and will consult with
librarians, technology support staff, and administrators at those schools in an effort to learn what
obstacles they faced and what lessons they have learned. All of this information will be used to
support the proposal and project plan that is created in Stage II of the Action Plan: Formal
Planning and Consensus Building.
During Stage II, I will spend time talking with all stakeholders about my plan to solicit
concerns and input about the proposal. In the case of instructional staff and administrators at DH
and technology group members at all levels, I think the consensus building will be best achieved
through informal discussions with small groups. However, to solicit input from parents will
likely require scheduling some a more formal meeting for me to outline my plans and parents to
ask questions and make suggestions. I will use the information gathered from these conversations
to try and circumvent obstacles in the formal plan that will be put forth to district-level
administration and the school board. The formal proposal will contain all of the information
gathered previously as well as cost information for one or more lab configurations; identification
of grant funding sources to which I could apply for money to support some or all of the cost of
the equipment purchase; a proposed timeline for implementation of the plan, including issuing a
request for bids and specs for the equipment, purchase and installation target dates, training
outlines and schedules for instructional staff first, then students; maintenance schedules for the
equipment; outlines of additional technology workshops for staff; and procedures and dates for
evaluation of the success of the project.
Assuming the project is approved, the Stage III of the Action Plan will consist of issuing
specs and obtaining bids for the required equipment; applying for grants to cover the cost of
purchasing the equipment; and finally purchasing, setting up and conducting initial training of
staff and students in the use and care of the mobile lab. I am not certain, at this time, how long
this stage may last as I anticipate that moving forward from the bids to the actual purchase and
receipt of the equipment will be dependent on securing a large part, if not all, of the necessary
funds through grants. However, once the equipment is purchased and the received, I will work to
ensure that the time required to put the lab into service and provide necessary training in the use
of the equipment happens as quickly as possible, though this schedule will be dependent on the
cooperation and interest of the DH instructional staff.
Stage IV, the final part of the Action Plan will be Follow-Up and Evaluation. This stage
will be the longest one as it should continue indefinitely--at least through the useful life-span of
the lab--and will consist of both short-term and long-term evaluation of the success of the project
as well as ongoing maintenance of the equipment and offering additional workshops to staff and
students to ensure the most productive use of the lab in meeting the standards set forth in NETS
for students and teachers and in Standards for the 21st Century Learner, as well as any district-
specific technology curriculum that might be implemented at a later date.

5. Griswold / 5
Goals
During the planning for the creating of a Mobile Computer Lab at DH Elementary that I
have done thus far, a number of short-term and long-term goals for the project have emerged. I
expect that these are only preliminary goals and that more will emerge as the project moves
forward. The immediate short-term goal for the project would be to win approval and funding to
make the equipment purchase and to put the lab into service as quickly as possible. Ideally, this
would occur before the end of the 2009-10 school year, but if funding proves difficult to obtain,
then I would set a more realistic target date for lab availability of the start of the 2010-11 school
year (August 2010). Other short-term goals for the project would be to have all potential users of
the lab trained in care and use of the laptops and peripheral equipment and to have the lab in
regular, scheduled use by the majority of DH’s instructional staff.
The long-term goals for the project would be tied to student achievement and teacher
instructional applications of technology. For students, my goals would be the following:
 An increase in measurable knowledge of and comfort with technology, appropriate to
their grade level
 An overall increase in student academic achievement as measured by the standardized
test scores that would, hopefully, correlate to the increased use of technology in
classroom instruction.
 Increased student demand for access to computers and other ICTs (such as digital
cameras, camcorders, and scanners) and the software to support these technologies.
For teachers, my long-term goals would be:
 A sizeable increase in the number of lessons that incorporate technology appropriately
being taught at all grade levels.
 An increase in the number of teachers participating in and seeking training opportunities
related to education technology.
Eventually, I would hope that the demand for the lab was sufficient to justify the acquisition of a
second mobile lab if the school were not yet in a position to construct a permanent facility.
Evaluation of Project Success
Ongoing evaluation of a project to determine its success and provide research-based data
on outcomes is essential to justifying implementation of and funding for a project and to being
able to propose new project and apply for further funding. Some of the measures of success of
the mobile computer lab are fairly easy to obtain. For example, based on the schedule of lab use,
it would be possible to show the percentage of time the lab is in use during a school year (or any
other time increment) and to approximate how many people in the school have made use of the
lab in a given time period. It would also be fairly easy to collect qualitative data that would
demonstrate the success of the lab, e.g., examples of lesson plans that incorporated the lab in
instruction or samples of student work that had been produced after using the labs capabilities.
Some other measures of success of the project, however, would require more
sophisticated means of data collection. For example, it would be difficult to show that the
creation of the lab had any affect on students’ technical knowledge without a suitable instrument
for measuring these variables and a starting point to which the results could be compared (such

6. Griswold / 6
as a pre-test using the same instrument). Also, proving a direct relationship between the creation
and use of the lab and an improvement in students achievement would require the creation of a
fairly sophisticated research protocol that would control for other factors. Still, achievement test
scores could be tracked after the lab was brought online and compared to those from before the
lab existed to see if any positive (or negative) trends could be identified. This would not prove a
causal relationship, but would be interesting nonetheless. If and when the district were to identify
measures of technology proficiency and readiness, as they have indicated are needed in the
Technology Integration Plan, then these tools could be used to examine the effects that might be
attributable to the development of the computer lab.

7. Griswold / 7
References
American Association of School Librarians. (2007). Standards for the 21st Century Learner.
Retrieved December 8, 2009, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/guidelinesandstandards/learningstandards/AASL_
LearningStandards.pdf.
Champaign Unit 4 School District. (2008). Great Schools, Together: Unit 4 Long Range
Strategic Plan. Retrieved December 2, 2009 from
http://www.champaignschools.org/strategicPlan2009.pdf.
Champaign Unit 4 School District. (2009). Technology Integration Plan. Retrieved December 8,
2009, from http://www.champaignschools.org//Tech/tip032609.pdf.
Illinois State Board of Education. (2009). Dr Howard Elem School Illinois School Report Card.
Retrieved December 5, 2009, from
http://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getReport.aspx?year=2009&code=0901000
402010_e.pdf.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). NETS for Students. Retrieved
December 8, 2009, from
http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standards/NETS_f
or_Students_2007_Standards.pdf.
Kemker, K., Barron, A., & Harmes, J. (2007). Laptop computers in the elementary classroom:
Authentic instruction with at-risk students. Educational Media International, 44(4), 305-
321.
Knezek, G. & Christensen, R. (2008). Effect of technology-based programs on first- and second-
grade reading achievement. Computers in the Schools, 24(3), 23-41.