One obstacle that clouds instructional technology efforts is an overly broad definition of what constitutes instructional technology. Taking a step back from the matter, one might be surprised to learn that instructional technology might actually be better considered within three separate, but overlapping subgroups or domains. Classifying our efforts into these three domains can bring into focus the strengths and weaknesses of our implementation.
Consider these areas in the context of a Venn Diagram. In the first circle are the Administrative items, the second, Teacher/Instructional elements, and in the third, Student skills.
Administrative
The first grouping of tools are those items that serve a primarily administrative purpose. These often center around systems and processes that make the classroom, building, and/or district operate more effectively and may also reach into school-home communications. Typically these items involve the teacher directly, but have little or no direct impact on the student’s experience. Student may not even be aware that these items are in use.
Examples:
- Electronic or online gradebook software
- Teacher webpage / newsletter tools
- Individualized Education Plan authoring software
- Teacher-used Email
- Electronic testing software
- Classroom response systems (i.e., “Clickers”)
Relative Commitment:
Since these aspects are generally core to day-to-day operations of the organization, professional development in this area generally covers 100% of applicable staff and expectation for implementation is high, if not mandatory.
Teacher / Instructional
A second grouping of skills and tools are those geared toward use by the teacher to enhance or automate instructional processes. The core objective behind the use of these elements is almost always content-area driven, rather than targeting student technology competencies. Students may directly use or simply observe the use of these tools in their learning processes.
Examples:
- Videostreaming
- Interactive Whiteboards
- Skill-and-drill exercise software
- Electronic testing software
- Classroom response systems (i.e., “Clickers”)
Relative Commitment:
Considerable funding is invested in the use of Teacher / Instructional tools and, as such, there is generally a high emphasis on training for most, if not all, applicable staff. However, because these tools are less vital to organizational systems and processes, the expectation for use is somewhat reduced and less likely to be assessed in some manner.
Student Skills
The third grouping of skills are those that are targeted first and foremost toward developing student technology competencies. In this domain, students would be observed using the technology or technology skills directly with the intent of meeting specific technology-related objectives. Although the core objectives for the lesson might also include a content-area skill, a technology outcome will always be a part of any student learning that fits into this domain.
When the skill (e.g., using a mouse) has been mastered fully enough that it is now a part of the requisite skills for a 
content-area activity, it should no longer be thought of as a technology objective for that lesson.
Examples:
- Keyboarding
- Online communications
- Basic computer literacy
- Online safety
- Video production
- Presentation skills
- Information literacy
- Online learning
Relative Commitment:
In spite of the emphasis placed on technology skills, this area tends to be the least emphasized in terms of both professional development and assessment. Professional development toward preparedness for teaching student skills is almost always voluntary and at the discretion of the teacher. In some school settings, these skills are addressed in 9 or 18-week classes every 3-4 years, but a full-curricular view of these topics is generally lacking.
Overlap and Sliders
A Venn Diagram is a good representation of the interplay between these domains given that the concepts aren’t always limited to placement within one particular domain. Concepts such as information literacy will almost always be a blend between the Information Literacy goals within student skills and content-area understanding. In fact, many students skills are difficult to teach without the context of content.
The placement of other skills will drift over time as student mastery and instructional objectives change. In Kindergarten, for example, the use of skill-and-drill types of learning games may serve the dual purpose of reinforcing content-area learning while providing opportunities for the students to develop a familiarity of basic computer operations such as mouse and keyboard usage. Over time, basic operations are mastered and, though content-area practice is part of the objective, mastering basic operations would no longer be considered part of the lesson objectives.
It is analysis of the lesson objectives – what it is that is being taught – that will best establish which domain an item will fall within, and depending on the lesson, the item may shift from one lesson to the next.
What’s needed
Self-evaluation may, in many cases, lead to the realization that student skills – the skills our students will own and take with them into the work beyond school – might just be the area on which we place the least emphasis. With this understanding we can take a balanced look at our technology efforts and refine the directions in which we need to move forward, making sure we’re making the best use of instructional technologies in all three domains.
The hardest part of what follows is what to do with the classroom time that is now wide open. Read on, then talk back in the comments.
Doug Johnson at Blue Skunk Blog shares his 
While the accuracy of the reading level in terms of appropriateness for your particular reader will vary, this is one more tool in the arsenal for helping to wade through the sea of results toward the information you or your students are seeking.
A few weeks ago, I posted