TABLE OF CONTENTS
WHY SHOULD WE HAVE COMPUTERS IN OUR SCHOOLS?
WHAT DO WE WANT COMPUTERS TO DO IN OUR SCHOOLS?
II. THE CHALLENGES TO A BROAD-BASED INTRODUCTION OF COMPUTERS IN THE CLASSROOM
WE MUST DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT WE MEAN BY TECHNOLOGY
CAN COMPUTERS IMPROVE ACADEMIC RESULTS
RECONCILIATION OF THE TWO APPROACHES
COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC - A STORY OF HYPE AND UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
ACCESS TO MUSEUMS, LIBRARIES AND PRACTICING SCIENTISTS
THE NATURE OF THE COMPUTING INDUSTRY AND MARKET PLACE
HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE STABILITY
THE LEARNING CURVE AND EXISTING TEACHER SKILL LEVELS
WHAT SUPPORT LEVELS ARE APPROPRIATE?
TEACHING COMPUTERS RATHER THAN USING COMPUTERS TO TEACH.
INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT AND TEACHER PRODUCTIVITY.
COST ISSUES MUST BE REALISTICALLY ADDRESSED.
THE GARTNER GROUP COST ESTIMATES
The serious challenges to the introduction of substantive classroom computing need more attention than has been given by the Anchorage School District Technology Plan and by the plans of most other districts as well. Challenges include addressing which teaching techniques are most likely to be effective, lack of good model implementations in most other districts, a dearth of suitable software, critical staff support issues, cost and other matters. The process is complex. The purpose of this paper is to explore those challenges and present specific suggestions for addressing them.
~The cost of bringing computers into our classrooms will be significant. In line with what appears to be the national consensus, our Anchorage School District proposes to ultimately provide computers at a ratio of one machine for every five students plus one for each teacher. This report estimates the total cost of the effort to range from $83 million to $200 million for out of pocket expenditures over a five year period. The total resource commitment, including teacher time consumed, could be twice that amount. The recent addition of 2,500 computers to our District classrooms represents a resource commitment of perhaps $30 to $80 million over the next five years if properly used and supported. All cost estimates are a multiple of the amount requested in the defeated 1996 Technology Bond issue. Hardware is a small part of the cost; support and other continuing components are significant. Our District needs to be very direct about the cost components needed to fund a good implementation of classroom computing and devise a long range plan to fund these costs.
~The purpose of having computers in schools is not to teach students how to use them; the value of having and effectively using computers in our classrooms is that they can enhance academic results. It is wrong to assume that, if computers are not in the schools, then kids won't be able to get jobs in an increasingly computerized world. Learning to use a computer takes no more than a month or so....not 12 years. If our schools are graduating students that are incapable of quickly learning to operate a computer on their own, then they have truly failed. The true benefit of computers is that they can enable our students to realize the same quantum increase in productivity that has been experienced by the working world as a whole. They can reduce the grunt work from the tasks of learning, which - like the outside world - are researching, writing, organization, analysis and presentation of ideas. By enabling these tasks to be done easily and in more depth, computers can enhance learning.
~Although we are beginning to see a few studies of large scale implementations which are purportedly successful, the capacity of classroom computing to improve academic results depends on how effectively they are used. The fact that effectiveness studies show somewhat mixed results is a clear warning that we must plan carefully, implement slowly, assess and evaluate thoroughly, clarify the best models and uses, and support our staff. The crux of success lies in the ability of teachers to capitalize on the educational opportunities offered by this new tool. It will take teachers a number of years to move sufficiently up the learning curve to be able to effectively utilize computers in their classes; therefore the public should not expect measurable results to appear rapidly. It will take five to ten years to see material impact. The District must, however, be able at some point to demonstrate to the public that there are clear and measurable results over time, or support will evaporate.
~School technology is a "work in process" across the nation. There are not many examples of exemplary classroom computing implementations, which suggest that the task of so doing is significant. Examination of both plans and various reports suggests that the educational community as a whole is still grappling with the fundamental issues of classroom computing - how to execute the implementation, how to support it, and how to use it. Plans tend to do a poor job of goal setting, providing for adequate support, explaining how computers will actually be used, and key frameworks and lesson planning guidance remain undone. Clearly, with few good models from which to chose, the Anchorage School District is "on its own".
~Although our Anchorage School District, like others, is under immense pressure to bring computers into the classroom as quickly as possible, the process is not one which can or should be hurried. The speed with which classroom computing can be implemented is chiefly a function of funding, software availability, and the speed with which teachers move up the learning curve necessary to be able to apply the tool. Given these challenges a gradual, stepped implementation seems the most appropriate course.
~Most papers and school district plans speak of terms of "technology" in the schools. Because this term is so broad, it causes planners of lose focus and segue away from computers to such accessories and esoteric uses as hypermedia, video cameras, tape recorders, VCRs, and other devices. This lack of focus contributes to fuzzy goals and places far too great a burden on the teachers and others who must learn how to apply such a broad range of tools. The vision must be kept simple: confined to computers and their basic peripherals. Effective use of these tools alone represents a substantive challenge.
~School computers should be used to build and reinforce basic skills, facilitating analysis and presentation of work, providing simulated hands-on experience and enhancing teacher productivity.
~The educational community seems to be conflicted over whether drill and practice or project-based ("constructivist") teaching techniques should be the focus of computer assisted teaching. There is support in the literature and in at least one large scale implementation for the assertion that drill and practice can improve basic skills. Research on project based or constructivist techniques is less conclusive. It is my opinion that these two approaches are not mutually exclusive and both should be used where appropriate.
~Other than spreadsheet, word processing and similar software, there is a general lack of quality software to support educational needs, particularly that suitable for project-based or "constructivist" techniques.
~The political hype over educational computing has vastly exaggerated the benefits. Terms such as "global village", "information explosion", "information highway", "vast storehouse of information" and suggestions of access to the collections of the world's major libraries and museums have combined in the public discussion to create unrealistic expectations and exacerbated the pressure to hurry the implementation. School computing plans often repeat and attempt to build on these myths. Our district must be extremely cautious, in its public relations, to be realistic and to refute any such expectations as may gain currency. Educators had best be careful with these myths lest they be held accountable for failure to deliver.
~On a national basis, teachers as a group seem ill-prepared to use computers in the classrooms. While it is easy to learn the basics of computing, learning how to teach with them in the classroom is an entirely different matter. Finding and integrating software into classroom work can be difficult unless the teacher has a fairly comprehensive knowledge of what is available and how it works. It is estimated that it will take the typical teacher three to six years to fully incorporate computers into their teaching activities, and the learning curve never completely levels off. There is no reason to suppose that our own Anchorage teachers are any different than the national experience.
~Intensive staff support and development is critical if classroom computing is to be utilized and successful. We need training, technical and pedagogical support both prior to startup and on a continuous basis thereafter. Most support must be available full time at each school site. This report estimates that there needs to be one full time support person at school sites for every 50 computers; if a high level of dedicated support is not provided, the requisite help will either come from the time of other teachers ( often called peer or "underground" support) or computers will simply not be used. To the extent that peer support replaces dedicated staffing, it could have the effect of removing one or two teachers from every elementary school as peers omit their regular duties to help others. It does not appear that the Anchorage School District has adequately provided for the level of on site support that is needed.
~Teacher training should begin one year before they get computers in the classroom. At that time each should receive a laptop with spreadsheet, word processing and other basic software so that they have an opportunity to begin learning on their own. During that year they should prepare a classroom computing plan composed of representative lesson plans showing where computer power will be used. At the end of that year they should be expected to demonstrate basic skills at using computers and justify their plan in order to receive a basic level certification. Teachers should not receive classroom computers until basic certification is earned.
~Most plans speak of computer literacy and seem to emphasize teaching students how to use technology rather than using computers to teach while at the same time denying this intent. Basic computer skills can be learned quickly, and furthermore, the pace of technological change assures that skills learned today will be obsolete tomorrow. The purpose of having computers in our schools is to improve academic results.
~The District should initiate a research and development effort aimed at expanding on the opportunities offered by a computer network. In addition to curricular research, it should look for new, more efficient means of delivering instruction such as support for at home students.(1)Classroom computing offers an opportunity to improve the administrative productivity of teachers, relieving or assisting them with paperwork burdens such as attendance, student record keeping, lesson planning and materials preparation. Administrative functions should be on line and network supported. Students should have mag stripe or bar coded ID cards for example. Every effort must be made to achieve these improvements, thus offsetting some of the extra time that teachers will need to dedicate to using computers to teach.
~Characteristics of the computer industry itself compound teaching challenges and increase the cost of classroom computing and support. These challenges include the pace of technological change, ubiquitous software bugs and hardware instability, and emphasis on marketing of upgrades that compound the learning curve but bring little compensating value added. The cost of installing upgrades over the life of a given hardware setup have been estimated to exceed the cost of the hardware itself. Systems that are unstable and crash frequently are a disincentive for teacher use.
~We appear to have the capacity to fund classroom computing without tapping the taxpayer for monies over and above the Municipal tax cap. Considering that the District has been able to redirect about $10 million in each of the past several years, it should have sufficient options going forward to fund a gradual and viable implementation of classroom computing.
Our District plan has no specific goals for classroom computing other than repeating the general goals for the District as a whole. The following goals are recommended:
We should use computers to:
Improve Reading Skills
Improve Writing Skills
Improve Mathematics Skill.
Use basic skills to gain a broad understanding of the physical, social and creative world in which we live.
We will:
Provide Teacher Training
Build a Model Program
Make a substantive reduction of the difference between minority standardized test scores and those for the District as a whole.
Identify and implement strategies to relieve the teacher paperwork burden.
Initiate a research and development program aimed at expanding the educational productivity of classroom computing, finding most efficient methods of support, developing more cost effective methods of instruction delivery including electronic, and non classroom models, and developing of new educational techniques.
Specific recommendations for strategies to implement these goals are outlined beginning on page 76
Our Anchorage School District, like most other districts in the US, is faced with the need to bring computers into the classroom, and use them effectively. It is under immense political pressure to accomplish this task, yet the challenges in doing so are significant, interrelated and not amenable to hasty solution. Another 2,500 computers have just been added to District schools; the up front cost is the tip of the iceberg. The long term commitment of resources implicit in this acquisition is something like $30 to 80 million if implementation is to be effective.
The challenges are:
We must define exactly what we mean by technology in schools.
Questions about effectiveness of computers in the classroom need to be addressed.
Extensive political hype surrounding the issue of classroom computing has created an atmosphere of unrealistic expectations.
We lack good models to follow for planning and curriculum integration.
Good software is scarce, especially that needed to support project-based instruction.
The nature of the computing industry and market place
The level of staff development and ongoing staff support is crucial.
Instructional management and teacher productivity need to be addressed.
And finally at the end (because it is affected by most of the other challenges):
We must address cost issues realistically.
A good plan needs to be woven around these challenges - addressing and resolving them in an accountable manner.
This report may be perceived as being critical of educators and of our District; that is not its intent. Rather, its purpose is to apply critical thought to the task at hand. When one considers the immense pressure to bring computers into our schools and to get connected to the "information highway", the lack of good models and formulas for success, it is no wonder that our team is struggling.
The purpose of this report is to explore these challenges and make planning
recommendations which address them. Many of these issues have been discussed
from a national perspective in studies and papers, These are surveyed in
this report from the perspective of their impact on our own local planning.
Recommendations and an outline of a potential plan for addressing theses
issues are presented. It is a long paper; therefore those wishing to skip
the extended discussion of challenges and issues will find the recommendations
beginning on page 76.
Our community voted down a computer bond issue of $35 million in 1996. The author, (who was "accused" of leading the opposition) based his criticism on the lack of planning as evidenced chiefly by the inadequacy of staff development funding in the proposal. But the reasons and concerns ran deeper than that.
~One of the participant's in our school district's community planning effort for that bond told me recently that he had been disturbed at the plan's failure to articulate a clear vision of what would happen with computers in the classroom.
~Political leaders wanted simply to be assured that the equipment would be used. Fellow commissioner Robert Green, Mayor Rick Mystrom and I had been on a tour of several schools that spring, looking at those that needed major renovation. There were computers in almost every classroom. Not one was being used.
~One politico told me that he was concerned that students learn to think, and feared that computers could be detrimental.
~The out-of-pocket cost seemed immense; in fact it was understated. The more likely figure could range from $20 to $40 million per year if an adequate staff and technical support network were to be in place.
~The pace of technology was such that any computers purchased would be obsolete in a few years. Furthermore, and although computer capacities have increased many fold in just a few years, new software gobbles up that capacity increase and simply will not run on older machines. The public rightly saw not only a huge cost but a continuing cost.
The pressures to bring computers into our classrooms (and quickly, please) are immense and come from President Clinton, Vice President Gore and others down the chain. Because politics is involved the hype has been unconscionable. For instance, the President and Vice President have been pressing for several years for every classroom in the country to be wired to the information highway by the year 2000. (2) This hype and the attendant mythology about technology have created a set of unrealistic expectations which are, in themselves a challenge to bringing computers in the classroom.
It is the author's concern that the Technology Plan of our District, like those of other districts, either minimizes or does not adequately address and compensate for these challenges. In fairness to the district, review of other plans provides little guidance. Goals are fuzzy, unfocused and as a result one sees no clear ideas on how to reach those goals.
One school district plan lists as a desired student outcome that
"lifelong learners will be fluent in processing and managing information through the skillful use of technology" (3)
as if manipulation of information was the same as or of equal importance to understanding that information.
"There is...evidence in ... some studies that learning technology is less effective when the learning objectives are unclear and the focus of technology use is unclear." (4)
As evidence of fuzzy thinking, consider the overuse of the term "technology" itself. Emphasis on the word "technology" leads many plans to talk not only of computers and directly related peripherals such as printers, but to devolve into discussions about connecting computers to video cameras, VCR's, MIDI's and the like. The issue at hand, is not technologyin the schools, it is computers. Technology has always been in the schools - from film strip and movie projectors to fountain pens to ball point pens to mechanical pencils, calculators, and sticky notes. The term technology is much too broad. Goals that speak about getting technology in the schools are already met.
This paper will focus not on technology, but on computers and their
directly related peripherals as they may be used in our schools. Our District's
planning would be more focused if it spoke in similar terms.
The implicit push to hurry is a problem. As this paper will argue, the process of bringing computers into the classrooms on an educationally effective basis is not one which can be hurried. To do otherwise invites disaster. Given the cost involved, the public will not likely excuse failure. In reality there is little to lose by taking one's time; almost every other district is struggling with the same challenges, and no one is likely to get ahead of the pack.
Rule #1
The speed with which classroom computing can be implemented is chiefly a function of funding, software availability and most importantly the speed with which teachers move up the learning curve necessary to be able to apply the tool.
We have time to do a workman-like job of implementing computer power in our classrooms.Given the numerous challenges and red flags in the literature, the political pressure to hurry is astonishing.
Computing technology has been here for a long time. The fundamental point of technology is to make tasks easier; if in fact computing technology makes work more difficult because learning to use the tools themselves is daunting, then that technology will not survive. Workplace economics will assure that. Technology is all around us, and we seem to have adjusted and survived quite well.
The point of sale terminals at MacDonalds are an example of the technology with which we live daily. If you want a Big Mac, all the clerk has to do is press the Big Mac button. Computer power has made the job of ringing up a sale very simple and easy. Almost anybody can do it. Ditto the grocery store scanner. If these devices were anything but easy to operate, would they be there?
WHY SHOULD WE HAVE COMPUTERS IN OUR SCHOOLS?
We should have computers in our schools. Why? Look at how and why the working world uses them. They are used because word processors and spreadsheets improve our productivity. They make it significantly easier to write, organize ideas, present data and analyze. They enable these jobs to be done much more effectively and efficiently. They remove much of the hassle factor.
One need only scan the help wanted ads in the newspaper to see how often computers are used. Similar demands await our college bound students. My youngest son reported after his college freshman year that, depending on the class:
~Professors post notes, syllabi, assignments and other class information on their web sites.
~Professors post problem worksheets on the Internet, they expect students to access, complete and submit their work via the web.
~Students are expected to use the Internet as an information resource. Requirements for validation include cross-checking for similar data from other sources.
~In some cases professors expected students to participate in on-line discussion groups, although students felt that this did not work well because of lack of eye contact and responsiveness.
The hard fact is that this paper could not have been written in its present form without a computer and the Internet. Word processing and spreadsheet capacity provided the necessary tools, and valuable resources were found on the Internet, particularly from the government, credible research sources such as the Educational Testing Service and others. This is the way the world is working now, and it is more efficient that it was in the days of typewriters.
This does not imply that the acquisition of computer skills should be a goal; these skills are relatively easy to learn(5). Our students ought to have these computing tools simply because the tasks of learning can be facilitated as colleges are clearly finding. It is wrong to assume that computers must be in the schools, or kids won't be able to get jobs in an increasingly computerized world; learning to use a computer takes no more than a month or so. Computers will enable our students to realize the same quantum increase in productivity that has been experienced by the working world as a whole. They can remove much of the grunt work from the tasks of learning, which - like the outside world are also writing, organization, analysis and presentation of ideas. By enabling these tasks to be done easily and in more depth, computers will enhance learning.
Whether these benefits justify the cost is a matter for the community
to decide.
WHAT DO WE WANT COMPUTERS TO DO IN OUR SCHOOLS?
Mirroring the working world to some extent, I think that computers should do the following things in our schools:
~They should be used to build and reinforce basic skills wherever possible.
~Provide students with data gathering tools such as on-line encyclopedias and the Internet, thus facilitating the collection of information as a preliminary step for the learning process.
~Enhance student productivity by facilitating the tasks of data analysis and presentation through use of word processing, spreadsheet and other software tools as appropriate.
~Provide hands-on experience with training tools such as simulations and demonstration software where appropriate and available.
~Enhance teacher productivity, facilitating the administrative and other paperwork tasks of the job with grade book and other office suite software as appropriate. The functions of student record keeping, attendance and other functions should be on-line, integrated with related systems and network supported. Students should see the same level of technology application to administrative tasks in the classroom that they will see and be expected to use in the workplace.
The challenges to computers in our schools are daunting. The initial and ongoing costs will be a significant part of our education budget. These concerns have been minimized or ignored by those political leaders who have been pressuring districts to use them. Public discussion in our community has centered around only a few of the related issues and has largely ignored many more subtle, yet equally critical issues.
Before making any recommendations, I feel it is appropriate to explore these challenges more thoroughly.
II. THE CHALLENGES TO A BROAD-BASED INTRODUCTION OF COMPUTERS IN THE CLASSROOM
WE MUST DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT WE MEAN BY TECHNOLOGY.
- Old Russian Proverb
As the introduction stated, in its broadest sense technology is already in the classroom and has always been there. When schools talk about technology, most of us think computers and their peripherals. Yet many district plans wander on about VCR,s, MIDI,s, hypermedia, video cameras, etc. This agenda is much too broad and indicates a failure to focus. Without focus, goal setting and execution become much more difficult, and little will be accomplished.
Listen to this desired student outcome from one plan:
[Students will] have exposure to other technology and its various uses, for example film, video, tape recorders (including four track), record players, overhead projectors, still image cameras, typewriters, calculators, CD players, PA systems, hearing aids and glasses."(6)
And another plan says that:
"Students will use a variety of technology (computers, projection devices, camcorders, video editing equipment, scanners, calculators, copiers, laser disks, video and audio equipment, cameras)."(7)
This list of gadgetry is unwieldy. Teachers face enough of a task learning to teach with computers without facing the challenges of a long list of other electronic tools. There is a big difference between knowing how to use a tool and being able to teach with it. The US Office of Technology Assessment (report, Teachers and Technology, stated that:
"Teachers who want to use technology also may find that educating themselves enough to be able to use a particular piece of hardware or software can require considerable extra time and effort. "(8)
The California Technology Assistance Project says:
"Don't attempt to implement two or three things at once. A plan that says we will implement laser disc, video camcorder and computer multimedia in year one is NOT realistic."(9)
One of the "jazzy" software tools often referred to in plans (including that from our own Anchorage School District) is "hypermedia". This term refers to computer documents which are organized like branches of a tree (web pages are frequently organized this way) as opposed to linear documents like books. In reading such a document, the user clicks on various cross references embedded on the page at hand and skips around. The computer links the reader to the selected pages.
Hypermedia reports cannot be read efficiently without a computer; in addition, and unlike a book, one gets the feeling that something has been missed, that not all the relevant pages have been covered. As Using Technology says:
"... hypermedia may be less useful for the person accessing information.... Students will not learn much from hypermedia if they...lose track of where they are within the hypermedia, and do not understand the links created by another hypermedia author...proponents of hypermedia argue that its non-linear format, allowing students access to vast amounts of information with complex links to other information, promotes "rich" learning. Although intriguing, these claims are still speculative."(10)
Unfortunately most of us are linear thinkers. Here is a tool that is confusing and does not communicate. For now it should be left out of planning.
If plans are to be executed they must have clear focus. We must be careful not to overwhelm teachers with gizmos. For most, the task of teaching with computers themselves is daunting. Training and support is going to be very expensive just for computers and basic accessories, as discussed later in this report. Why compound the problem? Clearly our training and planning challenges will be more complex if we include too much.
Keep the vision simple: computers being used in the classrooms. This thought should not preclude use of any element, including video, which the teacher wishes to use and feels is of educational value. It is only to suggest that we not build our plans on such broad brush concepts.
CAN COMPUTERS IMPROVE ACADEMIC RESULTS?
"No one knows if, or when, the debate over technology's effectiveness would force policymakers to scale back funding. But make no mistake, society eventually draws up a balance sheet on its major investments, as it has with spending on defense, health care, and welfare. And school technology is no exception." (11)
Questions about the effectiveness of computers in the classroom abound and are valid. The results of most studies are generally positive, but even advocates note that it is difficult to isolate the effects of other factors and attribute gains purely to computing.
"Assessments of the impact of technology are really assessments of instruction enabled by technology, and the outcomes are highly dependent on the quality of the instructional design."(12)
There are studies which suggest that computers are not effective and that there may be a downside as well.
~One school cited as an effective implementation by the RAND organization and touted by the Clinton Administration is Christopher Columbus Middle School in New Jersey. In fact, test scores at that school turned up before the computers arrived, not after. The reasons were basic: new books, longer class periods, after school programs, etc.(13)
~A study commissioned by the San Jose Mercury-News found "no strong link between technology - or the use of technology in teaching - and superior achievement." The only exception found was in schools serving low income students."(14)
~Computers may stifle creativity, rather than reinforce it. Their ability to support "thinking out of the box" can be software constrained. The Atlantic Monthly referred to "one small, but carefully controlled study [ which] went so far as to claim that Reader Rabbit, a reading program now used in more than 100,000 schools, caused students to suffer a 50% drop in creativity." After use for seven months, students "were no longer able to answer open-ended questions and showed a markedly diminished ability to brainstorm with fluency and originality".(15)
~Computers can be sterile. They only engage two senses - sight and sound - yet children learn with all. One physics teacher said that in order to develop the skills needed to build in the real world, a student "needs to have done it first with Tinkertoys or clay, or carved it out of balsa wood."(16)
~There is a temptation to plagarize from Web sources, or to build written material with "cut and paste" tools without the thought and craftsmanship necessary to link ideas.
It is apparent that there is a real risk that an ill conceived and executed computer implementation can produce diminished or poor results.
The effectiveness of computers relates to the manner in which they are used, and more particularly the overall quality of teaching with them, as common sense would suggest. If computers do add value, it is because they enable more effective instruction on the part of skilled teachers. The crux of success lies in the ability of teachers to capitalize on the educational opportunities offered by this new tool. As this report discusses later on, it will take teachers a number of years to move sufficiently up the learning curve to be able to effectively utilize computers in their classes; therefore the public should not expect measurable results to appear rapidly. It will take five to ten years to see a meaningful impact.
There is some disagreement about what computer teaching techniques are most useful. As one writer noted:
"Research on the impact of technology on learning is in its infancy though we are beginning to see some solid work emerge."(17)
There seem to be two general and conflicting "schools of thought" and techniques:
~Drill and practice
~"Constructivist" or project-based approaches where, in essence, students collect, analyze and report on real world data, thereby "constructing" their own learning. Simulations also fall in this category.(18)
One is scorned by educators as "drill and kill" while the other is mistrusted by the public, as indicated by such terms as "fuzzy math" and "inventive spelling".
There is no room for such "all or none" thinking in an effective implementation of classroom computing. Both approaches have a place in the plan.
STUDIES ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CLASSROOM COMPUTING - THE WEST VIRGINIA EXPERIENCE WITH DRILL AND PRACTICE
One study of particular interest is that conducted by the Milken Exchange on Education Technology of the West Virginia Basic Skills/Computer Education (BS/CE) program. The interesting thing about the West Virginia experience is that it is an actual, broad scale implementation rather than an experimental model or a single classroom experience.
It is evident that the state used older technology that was more focused on "drill and practice" approaches. The Internet was not available. Little use was made of "project-based learning" and "other constructivist curricular approaches that are the leading edge of learning technology today."(19)
This extensive program was initiated in 1990-91 and continued since that time with three components:
~software focusing on that state's basic skills goals in reading, language arts and mathematics.
~enough computers in the schools so that students had ready access,
~professional development for teachers.(20)
The state had a focused plan and they stuck to it. The program was implemented in the earliest grades and moved upwards(21) over the years thereby constraining costs to bite-sized increments.
The report notes significant gains in the areas of focus and opined that
~the program was cost effective compared to other alternatives such as reduction of class size,
~students who had computers in their classrooms did better than those who were taught in labs,
~the neediest children appeared to have been helped most, particularly in the areas of language, reading and vocabulary, and;
~there were no gender differences in gains.(22)
The focus on basic skills, including only two recommended software sources (IBM and Jostens) was a key factor in the results. It should also be noted that the state was making other improvements in its education effort at the same time, although the report says that:
"One interpretation...is that the state's improvement trajectory was sustained and enhanced by BS/CE students.... In terms of per capita income, West Virginia is in 40th place; in achievement, it is in 17th place".(23)
The state had been in 33rd place academically at the outset of the project.(24) Similar improvement in standardized scores was noted.(25)
The West Virginia program cost was about $7 million per year. It is not totally clear on how these costs were allocated, other than noting that 30% was spent on training and that this amount was ten times the national average. (26) Most critically it appears that the analysis either missed or ignored the ongoing post-implementation costs of staff support, noting that training was "coupled with continuous support during the early implementation" (my italics).(27) It would appear that the state funding was chiefly oriented to implementation, and not ongoing support; perhaps that has been left for local districts to fund either directly or by reassignment of existing staff. This most important element is discussed further beginning in page 51 of my report.
Another weakness of the study is that it was not controlled; the State of West Virginia chose a statewide implementation which meant that there were no non-computer groups with which to compare. There were some variations (labs versus classrooms, for example), making possible the measurement procedures used in the study. For this and other reasons the authors conclude that "instructional technology is a powerful assist to children's achievement".(28)
As noted earlier, "constructivist" or project-based teaching is essentially that students collect, analyze and report on real world data, thereby "constructing" their own learning. Simulations also fall in this category. For example, students might write a report describing their city to people in another locale. To prepare this report, they would have to assemble, analyze and present geographic, demographic and economic facts about their city, as well as working on composition skills. Computers would obviously provide the means to do so with spreadsheet and word processing tools.
These tasks are visualized by the education community as "authentic", in that they are simulations of things that are done in the working world as a whole. To some extent they are self-directed, with the teacher as a coach, and they are called "constructivist" because students are thought to construct their own learning. Note that several disciplines - math, writing, social studies - are involved. Computers may be used to simulate, enhance data collection and analysis or assist with various project components.
The reality of these constructivist projects is that they are little different than projects students have been doing for eons. (29)Other than being enhanced by computers, not a lot has changed. The project described above is little more than a group term paper assignment rooted in real world situations. As a similar example, I vividly remember a project in the fifth grade where our class made a sandbox model of the Jamestown, Virginia settlement, thus becoming familiar with not only history but getting a more intuitive feel for the conditions of living in that little community. (30)
One study conducted by Howard Wenglinsky for the Educational Testing Service looked at data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress for 1996 (NAEP) and found positive results for the constructivist approach:
~Eighth graders whose teachers used computers mostly for "simulations and applications"--generally associated with higher-order thinking--performed better on the NAEP than students whose teachers did not.
~Meanwhile, 8th graders whose teachers used computers primarily for "drill and practice"--generally associated with lower-order thinking--performed worse.
~Among 4th graders, students whose teachers used computers mainly for "math/learning games" scored higher than students whose teachers didn't. The research found no association, positive or negative, between 4th graders' scores and either simulations and applications or drill-and-practice.
~In both grades, students whose teachers had professional development in computers outperformed students whose teachers didn't. (31)
Interestingly, the report found a negative correlation between frequency of computer use and results.(32) It is certainly possible to overdo the drill, and create boredom; we also have to know when to stop.
This study is based on analysis of answers to rather broad (and perhaps subjective) questions on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. It investigated relationships between results and the extent to which computers were used for "simulations and applications" or "playing mathematical games" ( with the inference that these tasks are a proxy for the constructivist approach versus drill and practice. This report does not give a picture of what students were doing in the classroom that can be replicated; it should not be a surprise that others have found conflicting results.
RECONCILIATION OF THE TWO APPROACHES
The resolution of the apparent conflict between drill and constructivism approaches seems to be the context in which these techniques are used. The reason for drill and practice is to gain fluency. Ted Hasselbring of Vanderbilt University notes that there are three broad steps that are necessary to mastering basic skills-developing the skill initially, becoming fluent at it and being able to apply it across different activities and content areas. Drill and practice addresses the second step.(33)
It is hard to argue against drill and practice as a program component. It is just one piece of the learning process; it is important, but neither all that is needed nor a step that can be omitted. It is like time spent learning a language. One can carry on a rudimentary conversation with a foreigner by using a phrase book and taking a lot of time. One can read a book in a foreign language with some understanding of vocabulary, sentence structure, etc, looking up most words as one goes. Imagine trying to read that way! Only through practice can one gain the fluency needed to read, understand and digest without having to go through the mental step of translating.
On the other hand, it appears that, while the constructivist technique may enhance and perhaps powerfully reinforce basic skills, those skills must be fundamentally in place before advanced techniques are possible.
The pressure to use the constructivist approach seems to have arisen from the valid thought that what is important is not computers per se, but how they are used. From that thought came the idea that the ways of teaching must change. Since "constructivism" was perceived to be a change, popular among educators, and thought to be the new idea of the times, thinking segued down the path to that paradigm. As is outlined below, there is no assurance that this (or any other idea) is the one right path. One author noted that:
"Evidence has consistently shown that drill and practice computer activities can help children develop basic skills... But the picture is murkier for more sophisticated uses of technology in the classroom, especially for the host of applications and methods that support "constructivist" learning, in which students are encouraged to work in rich environments of information and experience, and build their own understandings about them."(34)
The March 1997 Report to the President on the use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States notes that
"the proposition that constructivist techniques, as currently understood, will in fact result in more favorable (in some sense) educational outcomes must still be regarded as largely (though not entirely) a collection of exciting and promising hypotheses that have yet to be rigorously confirmed through extensive, long term, large scale, carefully controlled experimentation involving representative student populations within actual schools."(35) "It is well to remember ...that the history of educational research and practice is replete with examples of compelling...hypotheses that seem to arise "naturally" from well founded theory, but which are ultimately refuted by either rigorous empirical testing or manifest practical failure. Knowledge of the nature of learning and thought is closely related to, but nonetheless distinct from, knowledge of the best ways to cause such learning to take place."(36)
Whole language may be a specific example.
The RAND report adds further:
"individual teachers normally design the projects and must ensure that these projects produce the skills that students need to acquire. Such projects are found in virtually all subject areas, including science, math, history and social studies, and language arts--often in interdisciplinary activities.
While we are strong supporters of project-based learning, we believe that too extensive a reliance on such pedagogy may pose a significant risk for the current school reform movement. Much of the current development of such projects takes place in exceptional schools at the leading edge of school reform. The teachers involved are often among the most qualified in their schools and school systems. When expanded to many more schools, particularly to those with teachers less motivated or less well-prepared, the educational benefits of this pedagogy may prove disappointing to policymakers and parents alike."(37)
From a planning perspective, there are three significant concerns about using the constructivist technique with computers:
~It imposes an additional burden on the teachers at a time when they may not have moved sufficiently up the learning curve.
~supporting software may not be available, and
~assessment tools may not be in place.
The supporting software issue is of particular concern, since it is vital. In many cases software specific to the lesson and task might be required, and as outlined in another section of this report (Page 42), there is a dearth of good curriculum specific software. Goldman, Cole and Syer note the difficulties of using well-tested software in an actual classroom environment, pointing out that students had fun but did not connect with the underlying content. The software had to be revised. (38)In addition, several authors refer to weaker assessment tools for such activities, so the all-important feedback loop may be missing.
There is no argument here for abandonment of the "constructivist" approach,
particularly with regard to use of computers for applications and simulations.
Rather it is simply one of setting priorities, using this approach on an
occasional basis when general curriculum requirements, materials, time
and other resources permit. Try it, just "don't bet the farm". There is
a place for both drill and practice and constructivist approaches provided
that there is adequate planning, training, curriculum and software support.
"Public Support for the substantial continuing investment the new tools require is unlikely to endure unless we can demonstrate that there are clear benefits."(39)
The overall question of effectiveness in the public mind may boil down to the impact on standardized test scores. For several reasons it may be difficult, as noted at the beginning of this section, to isolate the impact of computers from other concurrent factors which also have an impact. In any event, positive results for the District as a whole cannot reasonably be expected for perhaps five to ten years because of the scale of what is being attempted, the length of time it will take teachers to adapt to computers, and other factors.
It is apparent that the West Virginia program had an impact on test scores because the program focused on basic skills. An implementation that does not focus on such skills may not have a clearly discernable effect. Some of the more advanced skills that educators want to enhance with classroom computers, such as analysis, do not show up as clearly and directly in standardized tests as we would wish.
While discussion of assessment tools is outside the scope of this report, this component is critical to success of classroom computing. Not only is it important for communicating with the public, but also it is the feedback loop by which internal corrections can be made to a program as it proceeds. One of the challenges with the constructivist approach is that the assessment tools may be wanting. More development work is needed in this field.
Reading scores are of particular interest to me; it is difficult to
see how one could use a computer without being able to read well. I have
argued for several years that our reading test scores are too low, basing
that argument in part on the fact that our scores dropped precipitously
in the early 1990's and have not recovered since that time.(40)
In the author's view, reading needs significant improvement (and this is being addressed by the District) regardless of whether or not we have a major implementation of classroom computing. If computers help or enhance the result, so be it. The same may be said for other academic areas. We should not get tangled into isolating whether results are caused by computers or because of more effective instruction enabled by computers. We need to improve our academic results; computers are a tool. Let's leave it at that.
COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC - A STORY OF HYPE AND UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
Hype should not merit an extended discussion; normally it should require only a few paragraphs at most. Unfortunately for the effort to bring computing power into the schools, we are saddled with a company of "true believers" whose hype has been unfettered by the realities of technology, particularly as it can be applied in practice. The hype over classroom computing is so blatant, and in some cases so patently false and misleading, that it has created its own set of problems for our schools. Myths about computing have attained a degree of public currency, often appear in political discourse, and have found their way into many school district "technology" plans. If educators are to effectively plan for and implement classroom computing, the myths need to be understood and refuted wherever possible. Otherwise they risk being held accountable for that which cannot be delivered.
It would seem that no one will survive in the 21st century unless they are computer literate. Consider the following from a "Technology" plan:
"Recognizing that the world is rapidly becoming a global village...[it is necessary] to connect all learners to the world."(41)
Just what is a global village? And what does it mean to be wired to the world? We do not even have a common language.
Hype has become a challenge to planners because:
~It is easily refutable and plays into the hands of those who oppose classroom computing.
~It creates unrealistic expectations in the public mind, which if not met, will destroy credibility to any implementation program. The public will ultimately demand an accounting for the large sums invested in computing; it would be very unfortunate if educators were to be measured against the promises implicit in the nonsense now current.
~It destroys program focus by aiming in too many directions.
~It reinforces a dangerous urge to hurry.
~To the extent that myths and hype appear in plans, they create the public impression that the planners do not understand their subject.
Apparently some people believe that all we need to do is put a bunch of computers in the schools and everything else good will just happen. Here is an example from a newspaper column in the debate over our own 1996 bond issue:
"Sometimes you don't need a detailed map, just a "tall mast and a star to steer her by"...if you must have a plan, here's ours: get more computers into our classrooms and into the hands of children, now. And then stand back and watch them take off, just as surely as that giant Apollo spacecraft took off and landed men on the moon."(42)
We sent men to the moon without a plan? In contrast the Report to the President says:
"The introduction of technology will not in itself improve the quality of American Education."(43)
And another author said:
"Many of the horror stories concerning...computers still in their boxes reflect the unfortunate situation where technologies were purchased for their own sake rather than as a means to an instructional goal."(44)
Based on comments made to me while I was making presentations opposing the bond issue, I am certain that the local hype turned off some of the voters because it was so obviously not credible.
Most of the hype has centered around the Internet. It is a very useful tool which belongs in our schools. However it is far from being some of the things suggested in the discussion of classroom computing. There is a vast difference between a useful tool and being the express lane to an educational miracle.
Let's look at what has been said.
ACCESS TO MUSEUMS, LIBRARIES AND PRACTICING SCIENTISTS
The hype:
A quote from Linda Roberts of the U.S. Department of Education:
"today's telecommunications technologies give these students the passport, the same access to high quality learning tools that are not normally available in their communities. Whether we are talking about scientists online or we're talking about museum materials and resources...it is the connection to a very rich array of resources that is of particular value..."(45)
Sounds wonderful, doesn't it. All of a sudden every child is going to have access to a treasure chest of information, without which his education will be lacking.
Even the Wall Street Journal appears to have fallen victim to technohype. It said recently that:
"The Internet has brought documents and images within the reach of people who might never have had access to the collections of major libraries."(46)
And another example:
"They can experience multi-site instruction through videotapes and satellite transmissions. They can have vast amounts of information and huge libraries at their fingertips." (47)
To the contrary:
The implication of this chatter is that the Internet will bring meaningful resources to communities that were not otherwise available; in fact a "virtual" museum is light years away from bringing the benefits of a real visit.
"They've put out myths such as, 'The great thing about the World Wide Web is it contains all the information stored in the world's great libraries.' But all that's available are catalogs, not to mention problems with copyrights."(48)
Even the President's report warns that
" it seems clear that the realization of [the Internet's] full potential for providing...students and teachers with access to text, images and audio material now held by libraries, museums and other institutions will await the digitization of a much larger fraction of the wealth of information now available in other forms. "(49)
And who will pay for all of this? The fact is that the availability of library materials is constrained by copyrights and the cost of digitizing public domain materials; in most cases there is little more on library websites than card catalogs. If you want to borrow a book, it must be arranged by an interlibrary loan, just as has been the case for many years.
The Library of Congress says on one of its web pages that "only a small portion" of its vast collection is on-line. The probability of finding what a particular student may need is clearly small.
Conversations with scientists? Are there really enough scientists who have the spare time to interface via the web with thousands of students? Perhaps on a rare basis, but not often and not widespread.
How about a "virtual" visit to a museums? Sounds great doesn't it? Yes, you CAN access many great museums, but when you get there, you do not often find significant content. I took a look at the British Museum's website. There is a lot of information about the museum, such as the times it is open and schedules of upcoming exhibits, but not much content. There is some brief commentary about some of the major collections and a few sample pictures, but not much more. The Smithsonian was not much different.
The Carnegie Museum of Natural History website contained nine online exhibits, which were essentially short illustrated picture stories.. This website also contained the ongoing field notes and illustrations from a group trip to Wyoming for a fossil search; while it is an interesting description of the process of searching for fossils, it was not much more than could be obtained from a copy of National Geographic. It is difficult to argue that the immediacy adds any real value.
For any given lesson plan which a teacher might wish to do, there is a low probability of finding a fit between the requirements of that plan and the available materials at museum web sites. (50)Furthermore, any lesson plan or strand that builds in websites for reference carries with it the risk that when the teacher actually goes to use it, the site may be gone or changed. Sites are random, exist at the whim of the owner; and can appear or disappear overnight. It will be a challenge to integrate this material into the curriculum, except to turn students loose with instructions "see what you can find out about..."
There are perhaps a few exceptions: the Vatican website has many photos of its artwork collection on-line. The Williamsburg (VA) site seemed good on brief review. But net speed slows the looking process. The virtual tour or online "visit" is nothing more than an electronic picture book with some words, but far less than can be obtained by leafing through a good library book. And yet... if that book is not available...
The hype:
References to the information highway create the impression that the Internet is the express lane to knowledge and learning. This phrase may have manufactured a baseless fear of being left behind on the part of parents who cannot afford home computers for their children.
To the contrary:
The truth is that the information highway is a dirt road. It cannot get you to every destination and it is often a bumpy ride.
"Even advocates of using the Internet in the classroom agree that the enormous network, which President Clinton called in his second inaugural address 'a commonplace encyclopedia for millions of schoolchildren,' is actually an unwieldy, uneven, and often unreliable information source."(51)
"With some exceptions.. . the Internet offers information that is popular, trendy, fashionable, and cool. Search for something as central to our national experience as Thanksgiving and you are unlikely to find much more than recipes and tourist attractions."(52)
One of the weak points of the web is the search tools. A search counting the number of "hits" on famous names using the "HotBot" engine found that:
"While God came in first, Bill Gates outscored Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Buddha, and Socrates. Elvis Presley beat Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, and Nelson Mandela. The amount of attention devoted to a particular individual seems more a function of their celebrity than their importance to society, their contributions to knowledge, or their good works. The coverage of an idea, a topic, or an issue seems to be shaped more by fashion and fad than significance."(53)
For a busy teacher, trying to find material to fit a given lesson plan could consume a significant amount of time. Despite assurances from the online community that these will improve, there is nothing yet available that is as efficient as the old fashioned indexing of dictionaries and encyclopedias.
What is available on the web? Tons of commercial brochures and public
relations material, advocacy group papers and the like comprise much of
the Internet fabric. The valuable materials seem to come from governmental
agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, cabinet departments,
state governments, some universities, foundations and the like. Local governmental
material seems to border on the promotional. There is good material out
there, but its academic value is, in many cases, limited. Yes there is
some "stuff" to see on the web, but it is neither vast nor deep. A miracle
has not happened..
Possibly the biggest exaggeration of all is the so called "information explosion". It is nothing new; business has been talking about it for many years. One person noted many years ago that what business needed was better filters.
Consider the following:
True information content is not created by computers, but by people. What computers have enabled us to do is perhaps access that information more readily (provided we can find the right website) and manipulate it more easily.
More information does not necessarily mean a better decision. In recent research on the health care industry, I noted that of 16 companies on a Standard and Poor's list of companies in that field, eight had lost money last year. The company under analysis was barely profitable. A more comprehensive list of thirty companies showed that 2/3 of that group had lost money. Both samples really say the same thing - the analyzed company was marginally profitable compared to the group as a whole and the industry was having obvious difficulties. To reach further on the basis of the broader sample and state that the company in question had performed in the top third would be tenuous, because each company has differences (eg. region, number of facilities, market segment, unrelated business components, etc.) which make comparisons imperfect. It is rare that perfectly comparable data sets can be obtained. In fact, the data sampling techniques used in business quality control are a means of decision-making with less rather than more information.
~The human mind can only digest a constrained information set at any one time.
~Life as a whole consists of decision-making from imperfect information. At some point we have to stop analyzing and move on. We cannot sift forever.
~Flooding students with information may be inappropriate academic strategy. Teaching more appropriately selects and feeds students digestible sets of information which they can work with in order to understand underlying principles and methods. Floods are overwhelming, and the signal can get lost in the noise.
Yes there is a ton of information out there, only some of which can be used by an individual. But how much does a person need? Our public library is full of information, carefully culled and accumulated by competent staff. How many people go there to mine the treasure? And yet we survive and thrive. The same is true of the world and the Internet; the "library" is growing and filling with information, almost all of which we can get along without or will be able to obtain from other sources.
Hype is clearly sourced from those who want to sell the idea of school computers. The obvious reason for hype is that there is a lot of noise in the public arena, the cost is high, and those with an issue to push feel the need to speak loudly and dramatically in order to get attention. The problem with computers is that the subject is quite complicated and does not lend itself to such puffery.
Given the numerous challenges that are faced in bringing computers into the classroom in an educationally beneficial manner, plus the fact that there are so many unknowns, the degree of "hurry up" pressure exerted by political leaders and certain members of the public is simply wrong. The White House wants all classrooms to be wired to the web by the year 2000. It is particularly inexcusable that the Vice President continues to articulate and press these goals of this nature, given the numerous red flags, learning curves, problems with software availability and other concerns discussed in the Report to the President (54). It is equally surprising that the report itself endorsed the same goals; it seems that politics got the better of judgement.
Our District can do little to control the flood of what others say. Unfortunately it is faced with a very real risk of being held accountable for the vague promises implicit in the hype. The District will need to take care in its planning and public relations to be circumspect in its imagery. It should proceed with caution and due diligence, rather than rushing headlong to an unknown destination. Our local press could be similarly helpful. The District should:
Set reasonable expectations for results and the timetable for their accomplishment,
It should address and discuss costs and the degree of effort required as discussed later in this report.
When example classrooms are publicized, care should be taken to discuss the extent to which they are or are not typical, and the degree of difficulty in replicating what technology-skilled teachers can do into other classrooms where other teachers have no such skill set.
Otherwise, hype will ultimately be costly; when the day of reckoning comes it will be ugly. Public education is already under fierce pressure, and it makes no sense for proponents of computers to indulge in hype in the attempt to pry money away from the taxpayers.
School technology is a "work in progress" across the entire nation. There appear to be very few good implementations. According to RAND:
"While these few examples of schools providing technology-rich learning environments are, in our view, encouraging, they are scant... Means and Olson note...that the difficulty...experienced in finding schools with large numbers of classrooms incorporating technology-supported constructivist teaching and learning approaches is in itself a significant finding. The scarcity of these classrooms testifies to the magnitude of the change we are looking for and the challenges-- individual, organizational, and logistical--to making it happen."(55)
School News Online reported that the Clinton administration is " calling for long term studies to research the impact of technology on today's learners" to find out what works and what doesn't. " Much of the evidence of success...is anecdotal, not empirical." (56)
Likewise there seem to be very few examples of good plans. When the 1996 Bond Issue was floated, I looked at a number of "Technology" Plans from other school districts that had been posted on the web. Most were full of vacuous nonsense and soft goals about "lifelong learners".
The general pattern of district plans was to talk about:
~how technology is changing and increasing its role in our lives at a very rapid pace.
~how students need to be able to use technology to function in the 21st century.
~how students must be connected to the "information highway" or risk living without the tools necessary to thrive and learn, and therefore
~how technology should be used in all areas of school curriculum to teach our students.
~meaningless references to the "global village", "lifelong learners", "technology rich environments", and other similar cliches.
~infrastructure, its contents and timetable for installation; these sections generally seemed to be adequate but overemphasized, and
~the implied need to hurry.
Plans did a poor job of explaining how computers will actually be used. One got the impression that districts planed to figure this out as they proceeded,.
As of this report, there seem to be fewer plans posted on the web, and the general quality seems, in some instances to be somewhat improved. The nonsense about global villages and lifelong learners continues, but some of the plans do attempt to set goals, contain interesting ideas, and deal with such open issues as how to "integrate technology into the curriculum". Few, however, seem to address all the pieces.
One plan, touted as "exemplary" by the California Technology Assistance Project (CTAP) contains no academic goals and confines itself to infrastructure and support issues. It says:
"The explosion of information and the ability to communicate instantly with any place on the globe has changed perceptions."(57)
As if telegraph, radio and telephone accomplished nothing! The Internet uses telephone lines, and its response is hardly instantaneous even after initial connection is established with a desired website.
The same plan continues:
"The information explosion has rendered technology mandatory...Teachers can no longer teach students all they need to learn."(58)
And after those dire warnings, we get a plan to buy boxes with not a clue as to how they are going to be used!
Another plan states that:(59)
"Students' growth in technological literacy will parallel their growth in communication skills ensuring school and career success, and promoting lifelong learning...The integration of instructional technology throughout the curriculum will provide multiple opportunities for all learners to be in control of their own learning, creativity and discovery."
If these are goals, how will anyone know when they have been accomplished? Later the plan announces that
"The district curriculum committees need to investigate and disseminate the information necessary to provide teachers with new methodologies in order to successfullly integrate technology into the curriculum."(60)
And for staff support:
"The district administration needs to investigate how best to meet the need for curriculum support in technology at all grade levels."(61)
Clearly these are not plans; when the above planning agenda is done and codified, then the beginnings of a plan are in place.
Some plans list no goals at all, or at least not explicitly so. Our ASD plan contains the overall district goals, but no specific, high level goals for classroom computing per se.
What defines a good plan? Like a cookbook recipe, plans must be written so that they provide a clear guide for execution. One author suggests that:
"The school must identify measurable goals for the use of computers, determine what will be learned, provide training and time for teachers to understand how best to reach these established goals, and then provide the support to carry out the plan...If the goals - verifiable, demonstrative (sic) goals - with measurable indicators of achievement, [are clear] then it can be determined how the computers make a difference and make appropriate changes as the program is monitored."(62)
~It is challenging, yet attainable,
~There is a clear cut way to determine when and if the goal can be met, and/or
~There is a way to measure progress toward the goal.(63)
Evidently West Virginia did just that. Their goals, as listed on the state website(64) are most explicit:
Improve Reading Skills
Improve Writing Skills
Improve Mathematics Skills
Improve Computer Literacy Skills
Provide Teacher Training
Build a Model Program
Teachers and Technology says bluntly that::
"A well defined instructional vision should precede the technological one; teacher involvement in defining this vision is essential."(65)
An "in-between example" is the Claremont, CA Unified School District goal set. What is interesting about this plan is that each goal is subdivided into components and developed to include specific student activities at each grade level. For example, the second goal in this plan states:
"All students will have access to technology to support academic objectives as defined by School Board approved district curriculum goals." (66)
One specific component of the goal is:
"Expand basic skills".
Sample teaching activities include:
"Use a variety of programs to reinforce basic skills such as math and reading readiness (K-3)
and
"Skills in math strands of geometry and logic can be applied using The Math Factory in which the students are shopkeepers employing various math techniques to keep their shops operating.(4-6)"(67)
Plans almost invariably confuse access to and manipulation of information with knowledge and learning. Even the highly praised Bellingham (WA) plan says:
"It is essential for all learners, including educators, to process and manage information through the skillful use of technology."(68)
No it is NOT essential; it makes no sense to process information unless it is used for some purpose - analyzed, synthesized, compared, understood, and/or applied to some useful task. From those processes, we learn.
Fortunately, Bellingham does not stop there. Elsewhere in the document, goals are translated into specific steps. After a number of grade-specific goals talking about using technology to "access and retrieve information", they say that "Students will use information to support learning in all content areas". Even so, this plan talks far too much about learning how to use the boxes, and too little about what academic results are to be achieved. (69)
Just about every plan, paper and article talks about the importance of curriculum integration, but it is a struggle to get a clear definition, much less a clear idea of what steps should be taken to achieve the optimal level.
Teachers and Technology says:
"Teachers still struggle with curriculum integration, which is central if technology is to become a truly effective educational resource."
Yet I have been unable to find any plan or paper that paints a clear picture of curriculum integration and/or tells how to know when an adequate level of integration is reached.
One plan states quite bluntly that
"there are no models of curriculum integration. There are no best practices"(70)
Another addressed the integration issue by including the following goal:
"Develop a comprehensive plan to integrate technology into the curriculum."(71)
Another plan refers to an earlier goal:
"to provide the resources necessary to begin the development of a comprehensive instructional plan for the integration of technology resources into all disciplines."(72)
As of the current plan, the status of that integration activity is that it is:
"Begun and still in progress. We have put together a scope and sequence based on our instructional experiences and have developed some related curriculum (sic)."(73)
Even Computers and Classrooms is of little help:
"the process involves the development of a classroom level Technology Integration Plan (TIP) whereby the teacher individually or as a part of a team develops a detailed plan for the integration and use of technology within the context of classroom curriculum and instruction... "In general, the TIP process identifies needs and desired outcomes for students and teachers and describes a plan that supports district and local school improvement priorities. The TIP also identifies materials and staff development resources needed and an evaluation plan to determine ongoing changes needed to adjust the plan. The completed TIP provides a carefully developed set of individual staff development needs for teachers.... The TIP can be viewed as a separate mini-project."(74)
In other words, this most important component has not been addressed yet.
To a certain degree, elaboration and development of some components of a classroom computing plan can be left open as a part of the process. However, key components should not be developed on the fly. Those that cannot be postponed are those that drive other components. The curriculum integration issue seems to be one of those core components. The work of curriculum integration should be complete before those classrooms get computers, at least to the point that both guidelines have been developed and the individual teachers have completed their classroom computing plans.
"Technology" plans seem to leave the problem of fleshing out the concept and execution of curriculum integration to teachers, who as a group are ill-prepared to do so (see the Staff Development section of this report on page 51 ). Teachers and Technology says:
"Finding and integrating software...can be difficult without a fairly comprehensive knowledge of available software."
This statement implies that, not only is basic computer training required, but also a high fluency level of computer literacy. Teachers have to be a long way up the learning curve before they can effectively cope with the curriculum integration issue.
Perhaps the concept of curriculum integration is much too broad. One must admit that there is a possibility of overreaction to an ill-defined but cool-sounding concept articulated years ago by an unknown party. Simple measurement of student time spent on computers may effectively be a valid measurement of the degree of curriculum integration, particularly if we can categorize that time in some manner.
I visualize curriculum integration as possibly being quite simple:
Computer resources are used at every opportunity and in every lesson unit where there is a logical fit and where they can provide meaningful enhancement.
Computer tools used will include demonstrations, simulations, drill and practice, writing, organization, analysis and general preparation of written reports, presentations, research with web or CD ROM resources and similar projects wherever practical and wherever software support exists.
All course outlines will specify instances where computer resources can and should be used together with listings of available supporting software and sample lesson plans.
Our District should consider developing an instructional design model to guide teachers so that every lesson and unit has the same components, if the current AppleWebsite Learning Quests are not sufficient. Some of the components are assessment/evaluation, benchmarks and standards as well as technology integration strategies. This model can serve as a guide to teachers as they prepare their own classroom computing plan. As standards are written by teachers, post them on the District website.(75)
After reading through various plans, and in some cases synopses provided by advocacy groups, it is evident that the educational community is still grappling with the fundamental questions of what to accomplish with computer technology and how best to do it.
Clearly we are on our own, and since there seem to be few good models, criticism of our Anchorage School District (and others) needs to be muffled. It appears that the entire educational industry is feeling its way through the task of implementing computers.
If there are good model districts out there, we need to be making some field trips to assess them. A trip to West Virginia certainly seems in order. Given that the cost of classroom computing is in the tens of millions annually, such on-site examination seems to be only the most basic of due diligence.
Specific recommendations for content and organization of our ASD plan begin on page 87.
There appears to be a substantive lack of quality educational software, particularly that which could potentially support constructivist techniques. Office productivity software such as spreadsheets and data bases are the chief exception.
The President's report discussed this problem at some length:
"There is widespread agreement that one of the principal factors now limiting the extensive and effective use of technology within American schools is the relative dearth of high quality computer software... the commercial availability of software and information resources designed to support student-centered, constructivist approaches to education is even more limited, and there is little evidence to date of large-scale, well-funded efforts by either traditional educational software vendors, multimedia developers, or textbook publishers to develop such content." (76)
A number of reasons are given for lack of specific software, including a lack of modern equipment in schools, and the fact that the market is very fragmented.
Not only does software have to match the curriculum, but it has to match the knowledge and experience of the student group. It is more than just curriculum specific, it is likely to be unit and lesson plan specific. Clearly basic skills must be in place first. Consider as an example of curriculum specific software:
"The immensely popular Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? and related programs in the series require students to track a fugitive by looking for clues and gathering information not only from the software but from outside reference sources, to make predictions, and to confirm hypotheses. In addition to teaching geography, by requiring students to explore, experiment, evaluate, and revise, these self-contained worlds facilitate student collaboration in the higher-order thinking skills of deduction, inference, synthesis, and evaluation."(77)
But the same author refers to
" the abysmal failure of the Carmen Sandiego program with a class of inner-city students who were not fluent in English and knew little about geography, American culture, or how to use reference materials. Lacking the needed background, they could not engage in the kind of problem solving the game was designed to evoke. Only when the teacher developed an instructional program around the software, having students work in small groups rather than individually and [taught the] skills and knowledge needed to play the game, were students able to profit from it."(78)
If software is not well-matched to the lesson and to the audience, it will not be effective. The teacher's task of selecting software is multi-dimensional. If the project is multidisciplinary, the matching challenge becomes even more complex.
It is apparent that a vast number of specific software needs (and opportunities) must exist. Not all of them can be met by general productivity programs, given the sheer number of teachers and the multitude of various units which they might or might not teach in order to meet their academic goals. To get a feel for the extent of the software needed if computers are to be fully integrated across all areas of the curriculum, consider the following thought problem:
Assume that in every grade there are five teaching opportunities per week where some demonstration, simulation or other specific computer task might be applied. Assuming 40 school weeks per year, this means as a guess that there might be 2600 potentially unique software needs in a given year.
In contrast:
The Claremont Unified School District plan lists seven general productivity software packages it will support, plus 87 titles of more specific content. They have not scratched the surface.
"We repeatedly heard that despite the voluminous listings of educational software titles, there was a shortage of software that teachers and others viewed as needed in schools. (79)
According to Computers and Classrooms(80), the California Instructional Technology Clearinghouse (CITC) was the only source of information and analysis of courseware based on educational standards. CITC has evaluated most commercially developed courseware. Of software evaluated in 1995 for Math, Science, English/Language Arts or History/Social Studies, 637 titles were accepted, but only 121 were rated as exemplary. CITC rejected about 58% of titles submitted. When the software not meeting the first "cut" is considered, it appears that only a small part of the available software is truly valuable. The report notes that more software is needed.
This situation is not likely to change, at least in the near future. Lack of software places severe constraints on the general goal of broad curriculum integration and limits the extent to which constructivism and other "advanced" educational techniques can be applied.
The lack of available software also means that we can afford to take our time in any implementation; again, there is no need to hurry.
THE NATURE OF THE COMPUTING INDUSTRY AND MARKET PLACE
The computing industry is characterized by:
~A torrid pace of technological change
~Software that is unstable and arguably shoddy.
~Both of these factors create problems for classroom computing and add to its cost.
The pace of hardware change is not news to anyone.
What may seem surprising to some is that the effective speed
of accomplishing many tasks has really not changed much at all. In part
this is because developers seem to work at the edge of the envelope as
far as cost/ benefit and consumer tolerance will accept. Rather than spending
labor time to optimize software performance in terms of speed and capacity
requirements, it is cheaper to just to solve such challenges by taking
advantage of hardware speed and capacity improvements. As a result, new
software eats up memory, disk space and processor speed. Software seems
to be designed right at the edge of customer tolerance for error and delays.
Twenty years ago I was involved in a project to connect a local bank's VISA processing department to a computer system in Columbus, GA, which would provide record keeping services and on-line information. Modems and computers moved at a snail's pace then; the telephone line hookup ran every way but by dogsled. There was no fiber cable at that time. Yet the system response time was not noticeably different than the speed of Internet downloads today. It took less than a minute to download a screen. Crashes and cutoffs were rare.
Over the years, processor and network speeds have increased many fold, but the increase has been consumed by rising traffic volume and because people stuff more and bigger files across the wire.
HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE STABILITY
If there was ever an impediment to classroom use, unstable, shoddy and confusing software is it.
"Without...an assurance that each machine is up and running every day for every class minute, then schools might as well buy softballs. (81)
The Alice in Wonderland world of software is characterized by
~Bugs,
~A continuing diet of upgrades,
~Semantics changes,
~Menu scramble,
~Network crashes (perhaps not always a software problem).
~Internet logjams or slow responses.
Two horror stories from my own experience as I was writing this paper:
My wife wanted to scan about two dozen pictures and embed them in a letter to our families (much as students will do with illustrated reports prepared with scanning and word processing software). We had no trouble with embedding them all, but upon paging through the completed document and adding comments with the word processor, we found that some pictures began to move around. When we attempted to "drag" them back with the mouse (normally not a problem), other pictures would disappear, nowhere to be found in the document. Fortunately we had saved a backup. The second time around we tried to use cut and paste, rather than dragging. But when we selected a picture and clicked on "cut", the selected picture would remain while the picture above disappeared. Only by splitting the document into two sections were we able to overcome the problem. Professionals in the industry have told me that they, too, have had problems making embedded objects "stay put".
My word processing software, for some unknown reason, will reformat a document to some degree when it is printed. Page breaks will change, phrases and footnotes will move a bit, etc. The view on the screen will change as well. Efforts to "put it back" are frustrated as the machine undoes the fix.
Lotus (DOS) never crashed. Windows, and the software that runs on it, crashes so often that there are safety routines as a workaround. I encounter daily crashes with Windows 95, and more frequent crashes with 98. (82)
Plans often refer to physical access to computing facilities as a requirement for all students, speaking in demographic and economic terms. But there is an equally critical component of access - the computers must be functional. Teachers and Technology says:
"Access also requires keeping hardware and software in up-to-date working order."(83)
Computer and software failures will cause busy teachers and impatient youngsters to lose interest. What is a teacher to do when students encounter these problems?
"If a teacher has planned a science curriculum using technology and the system crashes, she doesn't have time to figure out what's wrong--particularly when she has 30 kids bouncing off the wall. The system only needs to crash a few times before the teacher isn't willing to spend any more time on it."(84)
But technology is moving so fast that bugs are being finessed. It is difficult to imagine the customers of any other industry tolerating the degree of problems that we all cope with in software. Would you have a car whose engine locked up at some random point every day or so? On the freeway? Not likely.
Technology problems do get acknowledged, but often are minimized. On June 21st, 1999 the Wall Street Journal reported that better search engines were on the way and described two approaches that were in the research phase. "They are working on it, the fix is coming." This line is so common in the computer industry that users have coined a term for it - "vaporware". The problems persist.
As one author noted, this is an industry that is far more focused on the next upgrade release than on fixing the bugs (85)The reason is quite simple: upgrades are where the money is made. The upgrade treadmill has continued for some time. A continuous diet of new (and quite possibly useless or unnecessary) features absorbs capacity to such an extent that the new term "bloatware" was coined to describe the problem. A few useful features get added. Some bugs get fixed, but even more take their place. If ever this industry needed to hear a message, it is "stop the new features, fix the bugs and give us stable software". Yet the industry seems to have the attitude that putting up with such nonsense is the price we pay for products at the cutting edge. We should be so grateful.
Unfortunately users cannot ignore upgrades for long. What really drives users to upgrades is the need to share files and interconnect with other users. Files created by upgrades usually cannot be read by older software versions. As others adopt new software releases or obtain them on new hardware, an environment is created whereby the rest of the world is gradually forced to upgrade to keep up. As a guess, this process is a bit slower than the rate of capacity change - perhaps every 36 months.
Upgrades come at a big cost to the user. The Gartner Group estimates that "over a five year period, [distributing and installing application updates] typically accounts for about 55% of a desktop system's total cost, whereas the initial purchase and support account for only 45%".(86)With each new upgrade comes a new learning curve for users to scale.(87) For example, some vendors play the "menu scramble" game. Features that were formerly located in one area on the menu tree get moved to another. Could you imagine trying to find your way around Anchorage if the Assembly suddenly interchanged some (but not all) of the street names? Suddenly you find that Spenard no longer crosses Minnesota, it crosses Tudor where Lake Otis used to be. Suppose you had to give directions to a newcomer? Welcome to your new software "upgrade".
Even the semantics change. Does anyone recall that folders used to be called directories? After everyone became adjusted to the older term, some bright soul decided the new one was less confusing, but those of us that were accustomed to the older term were left wondering if the change in name implied a functionality change that might haunt us in some way.
In March of 1999 the International Electrotechnical Commission decreed that, instead of kilobyte, megabyte, etc., the terminology will henceforth be kibibyte, mebibyte, etc because a kilobyte doesn't exactly contain 1000 bytes, it contains 1024.(88)
Who cares? A 2 x 4 doesn't measure 2 inches by 4, either, and we have yet to see the Federal Trade Commission get concerned. It wasn't too many years ago that we had to give up the intuitively obvious terms of cycle, kilocycle, megacycle etc. for hertz, kilohertz and megahertz because some similar group so decreed.
The problem with this manufactured nonsense is that it compounds the problem of ongoing staff support.
Whether or not this paradigm will change depends on the marketplace. The speed with which technology is changing and the speed with which the general community can absorb that change are two different things.
Do schools need to "ride this horse"? I think the West Virginia experience may have shown that it is possible to achieve significant results with older computer equipment; basic word processing has not changed for years. However the pace of technological change will force any district to keep up to a certain extent. As noted above, new software development tends to keep pace with hardware changes. After two or perhaps three hardware cycles, a district that does not keep its hardware up to date may find that its new software choices of any type are constrained by the old equipment. At the same time, support for the older hardware and software will have evaporated.(89) One viable solution is to make sure computer placement is governed by software needs; place the newest and most powerful machines in those places where pedagogical demands require sophisticated software. Feed the older machines down the "food chain" to support less demanding(but still effective) applications.
We are on a technological treadmill, and until that changes we must play in the game to some extent or sit in the stands. The best any district can do is to take care in their evaluation of software, limit software installations to pre approved software and monitor network performance on a proactive basis. These factors assure that training and staff support is needed not only at startup but continually.
Teachers as a group face a long and steep learning curve before they will be able to effectively and optimally incorporate computing technology in their classrooms. This steep curve is due to such factors as
~a general lack of computer experience,
~the difficulty of translating an understanding of basic computer useage into methods of using computers to teach,
~a need to have a broad understanding of available software tools in order to identify teaching opportunities and appropriate supporting software, and
~a requirement for a modest level of technical understanding if they are to perform basic troubleshooting.
Learning to use computers and software is different than learning to teach with the same tools. Everyone agrees that this challenge is critical; where we differ is on the level of support that is adequate. Adequate support is a major challenge, and in order to meet it teachers must have substantive and multi-dimensional help:
Two types of support are needed
Pedagogical support
Technical support.
At two different times:
Implementation support
Ongoing support
All of these components are crucial; what is disturbing is that plans (including the Anchorage School District Plan) place the most emphasis on implementation and basic skills training, while ongoing support gets less consideration. Neither one can be neglected, but the most extensive need is for ongoing support.
To understand the critical nature of staff support, consider the following quote from the RAND report, which notes:
" a long history of trying to reform education through the use of technologies
such as radio, motion pictures, and television." These reforms were generally
unsuccessful due to failure of "proper Implementation". In particular "teachers
were provided inadequate assistance in using the technology, and the technology
itself was often unreliable. As a consequence, the technology was not used
by teachers or became very marginal to the schools' instructional activities."(91)
THE LEARNING CURVE AND EXISTING TEACHER SKILL LEVELS
Teachers face a relatively steep learning curve as they progress toward the elusive goal of "full integration" of computers in the curriculum, and many have not begun the climb. The critical path to implementing computers in the classroom is not the speed of hardware and infrastructure acquisition and installation. It is the speed with which teachers move up that learning curve, get comfortable with computers and determine how best to use them. If teachers are not comfortable with computers and cannot see them as helpful, they will not use computers.
The in-depth understanding required to effectively teach with software is very different than just being able to use it. Some software lends itself to teaching models, others do not. Teachers need to be able to distinguish between the two. It is not always possible to turn students loose with a program and let them "run". Instead, the teacher might be nearby, directing the student to specific tasks in the program, asking provocative questions to tie into the course content, suggesting that students try various options, look for others, and assessing whether the students are understanding the content being taught.
An acquaintance who has been a computer consultant for 15 years noted that, of the people he had worked with, those with the lowest level of computer knowledge were doctors and teachers. (He excluded librarians). In no way did he mean that teachers were incapable. He simply meant that they were too immersed in the pressures of their jobs to fool with anything that did not solve their immediate needs, that consumed rather than freed up their time, that did not make them more productive. Librarians were the exception because computers are uniquely fitted to maintaining and accessing the databases of information that are at the core of library organization.
Teachers and Technology says much the same thing, with a bit less bite:
"Teachers, like others who use technology, fall along a bell curve in which there is a small percentage of innovators and visionaries eager to try new things, a larger number of those who follow the lead of others, and a small group who are skeptical of change."(92)
The innovative teachers that have successfully used computers in their classroom tend to be technically adept "superusers" to begin with, according to another source. They already know how to use the tool.
The three learning steps noted earlier in this report describe the learning curve that teachers face:
~First teachers must understand the concepts and the basics of how to use hardware and key softwere. Training addresses this step.
~Second, they must practice until they become fluent in the use of computers. Much of this step would be focused on fluency with core software such as word processing, Internet engines, and teacher productivity software.
~Once the previous two steps are complete, the teacher will have developed the understanding, feel and vision necessary to begin the classroom implementation process. At this point, much of the work involves developing a broader understanding of educational software in detail ( what is out there, how it works and what it can do), fitting choices into curriculum and tailoring the software options to individual student needs. Every choice has its own learning curve.
Another perspective on teacher skill levels is provided in a study by McKenzie and Company:(93)By their estimate only half the national teacher corps is ready to use technology at the most basic level, and only 25 percent at any significant level. Only 5 percent of teachers are estimated to be at the mastery level An estimated two years of practical experience is needed to reach the mastery level. It is difficult to believe that our Anchorage teachers are significantly different than the national experience.
| TECHNOLOGY SKILL STAGES FOR TEACHERS | |||
| Skill Stage | Description | Professional
development needed |
Percent of Current Teachers at this level |
| Entry | Teachers struggle to cope with technology and new learning environment, or have no experience at all. | ----- | 50% |
| Adoption | Teacher moves from initial struggle to successful use of technology at a basic level (e.g. can use drill and practice software) | 30 hours training | 25% |
| Adaptation | Teacher moves from basic use to discovery of potential in a variety of applications. Teacher has good operational knowledge of hardware and can perform basic troubleshooting. | 45 + hours training
3 months experience Just in time support |
20% |
| Appropriation | Teacher has mastery over the technology and can use it to accomplish a variety of instructional and classroom management goals. Teacher has strong knowledge of hardware, local area networks, and wide area networks. | 60 + hours training
2 years experience Just in time support |
5% |
| Invention | Teacher actively develops entirely new learning techniques that utilize technology as a flexible learning tool. | 80 + hours training
4 -5 years experience Just in time support |
0 |
| Source: Office of Technology Assessment: Teaching Matters as quoted by McKenzie & Company | |||
Just in time support refers to availability at a moment's notice; problems won't wait. This support level is further discussed on page 57. While I am uncomfortable with the technical competency needs implied in the table, this work shows not only the magnitude of the task ahead but also that the length of time necessary to reach proficiency is significant. There is no reason to suppose that the teachers in our district are any different than the national experience.
The President's Report says much the same thing:
" estimates formulated by various researchers suggest that it will take the typical teacher between three and six years to fully integrate information technologies into his or her teaching activities, and ongoing technological changes are likely to insure that the learning curve never levels off completely."(94)
Teachers and Technology hits this point several times:
"Learning to use the hardware and master software tools is not enough; learning how to teach with technology - harnessing tools for instructional ends - is a much more complex and lengthy task."(95)
"Technology tools take time to master. Hardware and software, no matter how "user friendly" are complicated and constantly changing. In any profession, time must be invested in learning how to use a particular piece of software to accomplish work related goals; furthermore keeping up with upgrades or new software requires ongoing investments of time."(96)
"Even experienced technology-using teachers can find themselves preoccupied with troubleshooting hardware and software problems, rather than assisting students in their learning activities."(97)
The basics are very easy to learn; many adults need no more than some hands-on, practice with a tutorial and time with an instruction book to do basic tasks. The real time consumer is development of fluency. You can learn to use a paintbrush in a hour; it takes years to learn how to paint a good picture. Teachers will have to spend significant time in this process, and that time will come at the cost of not doing some of the other tasks in the multitude that teachers are asked to do.
In spite of this steep learning curve, the support that teachers often get is different as Teachers and Technology suggests:
"There seems to be a focus on basic training in the mechanics of operating the machines, with little training about integrating technology into various subjects or learning to use it as a pedagogical tool." Teachers needed help "with two fundamental issues... what software was available to assist in accomplishing their educational objectives and how to organize the class to make efficient and effective use of students' time when there were a small number of computers in the classroom."(98)
And the RAND report:
"However, for... technology-enabled learning environments... many additional skills are required. In such environments, teachers would be expected to recurrently assess student progress, create learning opportunities appropriate to the student, access resources needed for projects, and relate diverse instructional activities to the school's educational goals. By the testimony of school reformers and the individuals who attended the RAND workshops, comparatively few teachers have been prepared to perform these functions. Successful implementation of technology-enabled schools depends upon the capability to help existing teachers, as well as new entrants to the profession, to develop the skills required to perform these functions effectively."(99)
Use of more complex teaching techniques such as the "constructivism" discussed earlier adds a dimension of complexity to the training and support equation: Another author says
"... constructivist methods themselves are new to many teachers. And when a teacher is struggling to do two things--learn to use the technology and learn to incorporate new practices into their repertoires--results don't appear quickly." (100)
WHAT SUPPORT LEVELS ARE APPROPRIATE?
Training at startup is not the same as ongoing staff support; both are critical. Neither one is a substitute for the other, and there appears to be very little indication that more of one means less of the other. Training as a guess might be 40 hours per teacher a year or more (at a cost of $11 million over five years) using the McKinsey numbers with an extra margin.
How do these factors translate into actual levels of required ongoing support? I estimate that approximately one on-site support person is needed for every 50 computers. The Learning Connection refers to a ratio of one person for every 60 computers in the business world, a ratio which is not meaningfully different.(101) In our District this support level would cost about $68 million(102) over five years, assuming 12,000 computers (including those for teachers); for the computers we have just bought, we should be committing about $14 million. (103) I view this site support staff as being roughly split between technical and pedagogical support assignments.
I have emphasized on site support as opposed to on call support or support which rotates from school to school. The support demand is just too great and constant to be satisfied in any other way.
Teachers and Technology says
"Teachers consistently report that having a person at the school site who can help them makes all the difference in the likelihood of their going forward with technology. The inevitable technical and logistical problems that arise with technology are one reason many teachers feel the need for on site assistance....Even experienced technology-using teachers can find themselves preoccupied with troubleshooting hardware and software problems, rather than assisting students in their learning activities."(104)
Offsite support is of less value:
"As do most individuals dealing with new technologies, teachers also need informal assistance - often with the kind of immediacy that does not lend itself to afterschool telephone calls."(105)
In an elementary school with (typically) 500 students and one computer for every 5 (as is our plan), the recommended support level translates into two FTE support positions. At least one of these persons would serve for tech support, while the other would provide pedagogical assistance. While it might be possible to reduce this to, say 1.5 positions by some means or another, I believe we are better off starting well-supported and backing off rather than risking disillusionment with inadequate resource commitment.
Anecdotal support for the suggested support level comes from my own recent experience. I am aware of two large networks where the staff support requirements approximate 1 FTE for every 50 computers. These people stay busy with such requests as:
" I saved that file but can't find it."
" It was printing yesterday, but today it won't."
"How do I copy this table from my spreadsheet to my report?"
"My computer keeps crashing when I click here."
"What does this error message mean? What am I doing wrong?"
Teachers and Technology says that in schools where there is a full time support person on-site, that person spends an average of 38 hours a week on computer coordination tasks, of which only about 10 percent is spent on teacher assistance. (106) According to Forbes magazine, the Gartner Group recommends one tech support person for every 100 computers. At one computer for every five students in a 500 student elementary school, this translates into one person per elementary school (107) (108) On-site technical support is clearly not a part time job, and other than the most basic needs, it seems unwise and inefficient for teachers to attempt diagnostics and fixes.
Pedagogical support is a separate job from technical support. I view the tech support person's job as being a nuts and bolts level of hardware and software support; making sure the school's network is functioning properly, dealing with the multitude of hardware problems that crop up, etc. In contrast, pedagogical site support involves working with teachers on techniques for using computers in the context of specific lesson plans, including identification of software or software capabilities that will support a particular lesson plan, identification of opportunities for use of computers, problem-solving assistance with the actual use of software, helping them write a classroom computing plan, helping manage those children who are not on the computer at those times when the teacher is occupied with the computers, and the like. (109)
Just as we need one tech support person for every 100 computers, we also need an equivalent number of on-site staff dedicated to pedagogical support. While this pedagogical support level may sound high, it translates into roughly two hours weekly of support time available for practicing teachers... hardly overkill. If a high level of support is not provided, then teachers are likely to obtain that support from their peers, diverting resources to the detriment of those students not the focus of attention. This will come at an academic cost that will offset any benefit from computer-aided instruction. The impact of using peer support versus independent onsite staffing for that function would be much the same as removing one teacher from every elementary school.
The RAND report elaborates:
"Both workshop participants and teachers in the NASDC schools strongly emphasized the limitations of traditional approaches to in-service activities that do not effectively meet the needs of teachers and school staff in a timely way when those needs arise. Some believe that technology, in the form of interactive media or a network of practitioner experts, can be effective in providing timely and relevant assistance. However, aside from the numerous on-line networks that enable practitioners to ask for and provide advice, we have found no extensive examples of such activities. While wide-band communications and multimedia materials may be able to provide timely support to teachers at some time in the future, perhaps more practical approaches involve development of the capabilities and ethos to allow teachers to support one another in a school."(110)
Our own district plan is particularly deficient in this regard; it proposes one site coordinator for every five schools - only 10% of what is needed.
It is evident that failure to provide adequate staff support will mean less time devoted to teaching, to the detriment of our students. Adequate support simply must be a component of our planning.
TEACHING COMPUTERS RATHER THAN USING COMPUTERS TO TEACH.
"Using Computers does not take from pre-K to 12th grade to learn. Automobiles also changed an era and schools now offer driving courses. But the classes last one semester and come in high school."(111)
We continually see comments about the need for our students to be "computer literate", as if such a skill is at the same level as reading. This unfortunate perception is a product of the hype over computer technology. While it is intuitively obvious that we want our children to be able to use computers, the reason for doing so is the benefit that they may provide. The goal is not to acquire skill at using a tool, the goal is to obtain the product of that tool. Our education system is in deep trouble if it is turning out graduates without the skills and motivation needed to sit down and learn to use a computer on their own.
Plans invariably deny that learning to use technology is a goal, yet they continue to encompass such thoughts as:
"Have students use paper keyboards to locate and learn commonly used keys including Home, Command key, page Up, Escape, Arrow keys, Control Key."
"Be aware of the basic underlying operations on the computer for example, CPU, Bit/byte, memory, storage, input/output, communications."(112)
The core competencies that kids need to use computers of the future are reading, logical thinking and ability to follow instructions. We need students who are undaunted by change and who can sit down with an instruction manual and do the job that needs to be done, even if those manuals remain challenging.
"If you put the Internet in the hands of somebody who can neither read, write, nor think ...., you aren't giving them much."(113)
The speed of technological change assures that the computers and software that our kids will use in the workplace ten and twenty years from now will be vastly different from those in use today.It follows from the above that learning how to use the current computer technology and its various appurtenances is not a core competency, because these skills will become rapidly obsolescent.
Core competencies are skills that are needed over a lifetime; skill in using today's computers will become rapidly obsolete.
Computers should be focused in those areas where it most enhances the learning of other core competencies.
Obviously teachers have to know how to use computers in order to teach with them, and our children need to know the same things. Although these skills do not belong in the master plan (at least not in any detail) there is no harm in including them in the framework for teacher certification at the most basic level and the rubric for assessing such achievement. If teachers need this list as a guide for what to teach their students, then they are in no way prepared to implement computing in their classroom.
Yes, our kids do have to be able to use computers, but that challenge is not difficult to solve. We have four potential and not mutually exclusive ways to accomplish this task:
~Use the computers themselves to teach computer skills. In many cases, computers and software come with built-in tutorials that show how to use them. Almost all software now comes with on-line help that is indexed and available with the <F1> key.
~Short classroom sessions con