The original LoTi Framework was first conceptualized, in part, based on the works and inspiration of the Concerns-based Adoption Model (CBAM) Model (Hord, Rutherford et al., 1987) and the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow research (Dwyer, 1994). I owe a great debt of gratitude to these early pioneers in the fields of change research and technology implementation.
The continued evolution of the LoTi Framework over the past 15 years has also benefitted from the input of current educational practitioners working in school systems throughout the United States. This post acknowledges their valuable insight and contribution to the transformation of LoTi as Levels of Technology Implementation to Levels of Teaching Innovation.
My close confidants, Dr. Carol James, Co-Director, Center for Innovative Education, at Kean University in Union, New Jersey and her husband, Lester Ray, an Apple Development Executive with Apple Computer, Inc. have provided countless hours of great conversation and critique of the LoTi Framework since its initial launch in 1994.
Dan Cherry, formally consultant to the New Hampshire Department of Education and currently an accomplished writer, trainer extraordinaire, and classroom teacher in New Hampshire was the original architect of the infamous “LoTi” Sniff Test. This sniff test instrument has enabled thousands of state, district, and building level educators better understand the nuances of the LoTi Levels (e.g., Exploration, Infusion, Integration).
My next acknowledgement is not to an individual, but to a special cadre of New Jersey school administrators who helped evolve the concept of H.E.A.T. (Higher order thinking, Engaged learning, Authentic connections, Technology use). Using a “lava lamp” as their metaphor, they successfully articulated how student learning experiences (represented by the lava lamp bubbles) can rise to a higher level inside the lamp based on the amount of H.E.A.T. applied to the lesson.
Finally, special kudos goes out to a friend and colleague, Liz Storey, Executive Director of the Green River Regional Educational Cooperative at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green. It was Liz who helped clarify the connection between LoTi and H.E.A.T. using an Input/Output Model. According to this model, the LoTi levels represent the Input (i.e., the various levels at which teachers plan and execute their lessons); H.E.A.T., on the other hand, represents the Output (i.e,. the degree of impact that the learning has on the students). This Input/Output Model provides a much need conceptual framework to understand the impact of digital-age learning on student outcomes in the classroom.
I owe a special debt of gratitude to these individuals and others who have made important contributions to the progress of the LoTi movement and its use as a research instrument, school improvement model, and diagnostic tool in schools worldwide.
David C. Dwyer. "Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow: What We've Learned," Educational Leadership, April 1994, pp. 4-10.
Taking Charge of Change by Shirley M. Hord, William L. Rutherford, Leslie Huling-Austin, and Gene E. Hall, 1987. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development