This Appendix provides the lists of key enablers (first level entries) and descriptors and comments (second level entries) that were developed in the breakout groups of the January 20, 2003, workshop. After elaborating their candidates for key enablers, participants reviewed the lists of all four groups and voted for their top two choices for key enablers. The numbers in parentheses provide the number of votes received by each key enabler.

• Demonstrable added value for teachers’ work practices—integration (11)

  • Lesson preparation, assessment, credentialing, personalization, class management

  • Must be ready to hand

• Clearly defined goals, strategies, management (5)

  • Leadership capacity, integration of technology and curriculum, control, innovation management—need top-down/bottom-up interplay

  • At what level should leadership be?

• Quality of service (2)

  • Physical and intellectual accessibility, support, reliability

  • What is right level for locating support?

• Clearly defined content/use, resource discovery

  • People are buying the hardware!

  • How can content be found?

  • “It’s the software, stupid!”

• Colleges/universities need to be aligned with new challenges (9)

  • Content courses with embedded new technologies

  • Integrated curriculum for preservice education that connects letters, art, and sciences

  • Close gap between education programs and real-world needs of teachers

• Curriculum, pedagogy, and technical support must be organically linked (4)

  • The content/concept/pedagogy tied dynamically to technology in teacher’s mind

• Encourage design/development process that closes gap between teacher/student and developer (2)

• Work flow efficiency must be built into educational technology— design and acquisition (2)

• Creation and adoption of common system for sharing, evaluating, and distributing teacher-created materials

• Build case (with business and educator involvement) for risk taking with public money (6)

  • Need evidence/examples/case studies

• Assessments need to change (2)

  • Crack cycle of textbooks-to-curriculum-to-standardized tests

• Tipping points (see business case, above):

  • Make education attractive to industry (1)

  • Educators need to believe in vision, i.e., embrace technology, content need, partnership with industry

  • Cost-benefit convincing story

• Change mindset in education and business (1)

  • Need data, case studies

• Need leadership—all levels

• Research-based body of evidence on what works (6)

  • Prove that technology enhances achievement

• Systems approach (5)

  • People and community and technology

  • Establishing education model

• Leadership and professional development, plus preservice improvements (3)

• Public acceptance of 21st century skills basis (3)

• Define goals and metrics (12)

• Redesign and make effective a cycle between research, training, practice, and assessment

• Create a functioning marketplace for translating research into goods and services (3)

• Build public and policy awareness around need for the vision and roles (2)

• Carry out LENS¹ expeditions (8)

• Develop set of “middleware” tools

• Innovation portfolio² (1)

• Develop schools as learning organizations

• Capitalize on learner innovation

• Promoting/clarifying “the vision”

• Research funding for:

  • Potential of new technologies to better assess process and learning

  • Ongoing formative assessment of learning for students and teachers

  • Large-scale and long-term questions

• Moving beyond paper-and-pencil assessment (1)

• Create cognitive science/IT tech parks similar to those of university/ private-sector partnerships (6)

  • Teacher involvement

• Graduate student involvement

• University/company intellectual property sharing

• Develop a metametrics of what works, build broad stakeholder consensus on metrics and hold accountable to those metrics (1)

• Targeted test beds: proof of concept to support first transformation (12)

• Generate compelling examples (1)

• Funding (1)

• Use known success models from other communities of research

• Build constituencies

• Include reward structure like health/sciences (1)

• Practical partnerships (1)

• Stable over time in contrast to relearning over time: hardware, software, content

• Measure added value

• Explore tax structure (1)

• R&D on formative assessments (4)

• Professional development and R&D on how students learn and assessments

  • Give incentives to learn

• Long-term implementation research

• Restructure school time to maximize learning

• Greater understanding of how to innovate/institutional support of innovation; incentives for teachers to be innovative