By Chris Moersch
LoTi Turns Up the HEAT!
When Lo Ti was first intro- duced in 1994 as the Levels of Technology Implementation
framework, the intent was to create a
tool to help district leadership quantify
how teachers were using technology in
the classroom. After serving the past 15
years as a research framework, self-re-porting technology integration survey,
and school improvement model, Lo Ti
has changed focus.
The original Lo Ti framework provided an empirically validated model
for school systems to gauge the effectiveness of technology implementation. However, with the emergence of
new standards from the Partnership
for 21st Century Skills and ISTE’s
NETS•T, it was clear the framework
needed to be refreshed. The Levels of
Technology Implementation framework thus became the Levels of Teaching Innovation framework. It includes
the same stages contained in the original framework, but the newer model
emphasizes powerful learning and
teaching as well as the use of digital
tools and resources in the classroom.
Each level or stage of the new Lo Ti
framework addresses unique attributes of the pedagogical continuum
as teachers gravitate from:
ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/MANNISEN
• A teacher-centered approach to a
learner-centered approach
• Lower levels of student cognition,
such as knowledge and comprehension, to higher levels, such as synthesis, evaluation, problem-solving,
and issues resolution
• Classroom routines of research-based
best practices, such as providing
recognition and giving feedback,
to complex classroom routines,
such as generating hypotheses and
prompting student questions
• Compliant use of digital tools and
resources to dynamic, self-directed
uses of Web 2.0 tools
The original Lo Ti framework was
the by-product of two separate initia-
tives: David Dwyer’s research with
Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow
(ACOT) and the Concerns-Based
Adoption Model (CBAM). ACOT’s
research provided the theoretical in-
spiration for the model, and CBAM
outlined the changing behaviors and
concerns that educators experience as
they integrate innovations into their
classrooms.
The other two frameworks comprising the Lo Ti model—current instructional practices (CIP) and personal
computer use (PCU)—have also been
upgraded based on the NETS•T.
The CIP framework measures classroom teachers’ instructional practices
relating to a subject matter versus a
learner-based instructional approach
in the classroom. As one moves to
a higher CIP intensity level, less
emphasis is on didactic instruction,
sequential and uniform learning
activities, and traditional forms of assessment. In its place, teachers begin
to embrace instructional strategies
aligned with student-directed learning, varied assessment strategies,
authentic problem-solving opportunities, differentiated instruction, and
complex classroom routines, such as
generating and testing hypotheses, implementing cooperative learning, and
identifying similarities and differences.
The PCU framework measures classroom teachers’ fluency level in using
digital tools and resources for student
learning. As educators move up the
PCU intensity level, they become more
skilled at using emerging digital tools,
such as multimedia, productivity, desk-top publishing, and Web-based applications, and their advocacy and commitment levels also increase. Teachers
at the highest PCU intensity levels assume leadership roles toward a level of
advocacy for effective technology use
in their classrooms, school buildings,
and the larger global community.
New Lo Ti Digital-Age Survey
Along with the revised Lo Ti framework comes the new Lo Ti Digital-Age
Survey, which provides classroom
teachers with a valid and reliable
snapshot of their Lo Ti and their CIP
and CPU levels as well as a personalized professional development priority profile aligned to the NETS•T.
Because the Lo Ti framework is closely
aligned with several national and international initiatives, including Daggett’s Rigor and Relevance, Marzano’s
Research-Based Best Practices, and
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge, the survey results provide the participant an
equivalent score (for example, Lo Ti 4
= Rigor Relevance Quadrant D) and
