LoTi vs. TICS
A grad student emailed me about the TICS. Specifically, the issue was how it compares to the Levels of Technology Implementation (LoTi) survey. Here are some of the things I came up with:
1. LoTi is a commercial survey, which has its advantages, but it is also not as open to scrutiny – or adaptation – as the TICS.
2. The TICS is aligned to the NETS-T while LoTi has its own framework.
3. Going by LoTi’s site, it’s clear that it is not in conformance with the latest AERA, APA, NCME Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (which very few instruments are).
4. The LoTi concerns implementation of technology while the TICS measures self-efficacy regarding technology integration. Self-efficacy is mentioned twice on the LoTi website, once in an article that doesn’t mention LoTi (Eastin & Rose, 2000), and in another article (Meorsch, 1995) that hypothesizes self-efficacy’s relationship with LoTi (but no data is gathered).
Given these differences, it may be that the TICS is better suited for teacher education environments where…
1) the free and adaptable nature of the TICS is desirable,
2) the alignment to NCATE-accepted national standards is needed,
3) the academic rigor of the AERA, APA, NCME standards would be understood, and
4) the predictive nature of self-efficacy is advantageous.
The LoTi may be better suited for in-practice contexts where…
1) the LoTi’s cost is a small issue and its corporate backing is seen as legitimatizing,
2) accreditation isn’t an issue, so alignment to the NETS-T is less important,
3) conformance to research standards is not an concern, and
4) the concern is about actual practice, not potential practice.