PAGE 1 Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning September 1988 NTIS order #PB89-114276 PAGE 2 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On! New Took for Teaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-600551 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form can be found in the back of this report) PAGE 3 Foreword It has been less than a decade since the first cation scene. Schools have acquired computers personal computers appeared on the edurapidly since then, but most elements of the instructional process remain the same. This contrasts with other sectors of society, where technology has changed the way business is transacted, medical problems are analyzed, and products are produced. During this same decade, calls for improving the quality of education for all children have increased. To better understand the potential of new interactive technologies for improving learning, the House Committee on Education and Labor, and its Subcommittee on Select Education, asked the Office of Technology Assessment to do this study. Teachers, administrators, parents, software publishers, hardware manufacturers, researchers, policy makers at all levels of government, and students all play a role in turning on the power of new tools for teaching and learning. This report examines developments in the use of computer-based technologies, analyzes key trends in hardware and software development, evaluates the capability of technology to improve learning in many areas, and explores ways to substantiall y increase student access to technology. The role of the teacher, teachers needs for training, and the impact of Federal support for educational technolog y research and development are reviewed as well. Throughout this study, the Advisory Panel, workshop participants, and many others played key roles in defining major issues, providing information, and championing a broad range of perspectives. OTA thanks them for their substantial commitment of time and energy. Their participation does not necessarily represent an endorsement of the contents of the report, for which OTA bears sole responsibility. Ill PAGE 4 Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning Advisory Panel George Miller, Panel Chairman James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of Psychology Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey Grover Albers Social Studies Teacher Jamaica High School Jamaica, New York Barbara Bayha Teacher Stevens Creek Elementary School Cupertino, California Richard Boyd State Superintendent Mississippi State Department of Education Jackson, Mississippi Larry Cuban Associate Dean of Academic Affairs School of Education Stanford University Stanford, California James Dezell, Jr. Vice President and General Manager IBM Education Systems Atlanta, Georgia John Eulenberg Director and Associate Professor of Special Education Artificial Learning Laboratory Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Martha Fricke School Board Member Ashland, Nebraska Josu Gonzlez Director Resource Development Chicago Public Schools Chicago, Illinois Richard Green* Superintendent Minneapolis Public Schools Minneapolis, Minnesota Richard Gref Director Policy Development and Planning Corporation for Public Broadcasting Washington, DC Joyce Hakansson President Hakansson Associates Berkeley, California Dean Jamison Chief Population, Health, and Nutrition Division World Bank Washington, DC Francis Keppel Senior Lecturer Harvard Graduate School of Education Cambridge, Massachusetts Timothy Knight Entrepreneur, Author, Publisher, and Student Santa Clara, California Alan Lesgold Associate Director Learning Research and Development Center University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Carolyn Pollan State Representative Arkansas State Legislature Little Rock, Arkansas Norman Rice Seattle City Councilman Seattle, Washington Albert Shanker President American Federation of Teachers Washington, DC Sherry Turkle Associate Professor of Sociology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts Delbert Yocam Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Apple Computer, Inc. Cupertino, California *Currently Chancellor, New York City Public Schools. NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents. iv PAGE 5 Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning OTA Project Staff John Andelin, Science, Information, Assistant Director, OTA and Natural Resources Division Nancy Carson Science, Education, and Transportation Program Manager Linda G. Roberts, Project Director Michael J. Feuer, Senior Analyst Kathleen Fulton, Analyst James St. Lawrence, In--House Consultant Jeffrey Porro, Editor* Jessica Richter, Research Assistant Mia Zuckerkandel, Research Assistant Marsha Fenn, Administrative Assistant Christopher Clary, Administrative Secretary Madeline Gross, Secretary Leslie Ridenour, Administrative Secretary Michelle Haahr, Secretary *Contractor PAGE 6 Contractors Acadia Educational Enterprises John H. Strange, Susan A. Tucker, George E. Uhlig, Philip Feldman Henry J. Becker Center for Social Organization of Schools The Johns Hopkins University Joanne Capper Center for Research Into Practice Cognitive Systems, Inc. Roy D. Pea and Elliot Soloway Earl Dowdy University of Illinois, Urbana Educational Turnkey Systems, Inc. Charles Blaschke, Beverly Hunter, Andrew Zucker Allen T. Glenn and Carol A. Carrier University of Minnesota Harvard University, Educational Technology Center Martha Stone Wiske and Philip Zodhiates Henry Hertzfeld Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc. Ellen R. Bialo and Jay P. Sivin Market Data Retrieval, Inc. Picodyne Corp. Dean Brown, Ted M. Kahn, Marvin M. Zauderer W. Curtiss Priest Center for Information Technology and Society Quality Education Data, Inc. David Stern and Guy Cox University of California at Berkeley vi PAGE 7 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Spread of Technology in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . What the Technology Can Do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teachers and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How Teachers Use Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Training in Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Federal Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Future of R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2: INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGY IN TODAYS CLASSROOMS . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adoption of Computer and Video Technologies: A Decade of Growth . . . . . Effects of Widespread Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Access to Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beyond Computers and Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3: THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY ON LEARNING . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation Research: Scope and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . Computer-Assisted Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intelligent CAI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mathematics and Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Programming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Microcomputer-Based Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . Graphing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multimedia Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Database Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Word Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Language Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reading Comprehension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vocabulary and Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Writing, Reading, and Spelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electronic Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4: COST-EFFECTIVENESS: DOLLARS AND SENSE . . . . . . Introduction and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimating the Costs of Alternative Instructional Technologies . . . . . . . An Illustrative Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Cost to the Nation: Two Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . Cost-Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Political and Methodological Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . Basic Principles of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . Computer-Assisted Instruction: A Survey of Cost-Effectiveness Research . . . . . Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Policy Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5: THE TEACHERS ROLE . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How Teachers Use Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background: Teacher Attitudes. ..,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 6 11 16 16 17 22 25 25 26 31 31 31 32 33 37 41 41 42 44 45 48 51 51 52 53 54 56 58 59 60 60 61 61 63 65 69 69 70 70 71 74 74 76 76 78 81 87 87 87 89 89 PAGE 8 Page Uses in the Classroom . . . . . . . ..... ..... 91 How the Use of Computers Can Change Teaching Style . . . . . . . . 91 Effects on Classroom Management . . . . . . . . . ..,.... 96 Effects on Teacher Accountability: The Testing Question. . . . . . . . . 97 Teacher Training in Technology . . . . . . . . . . .. 98 Teacher Education Reform Efforts . . . . . . . . ........ .... 98 Preservice Technology Education . . . . . ............ ...... 99 A Brief History. . . . . . . . . ... ..... o.. 99 Current Efforts To Prepare Todays New Teachers T O Use Computers . . . . . 99 Inservice Technology Education . . . . ............ ...... .. 104 Unique Characteristics of Inservice Training in Technology . ............................104 Factors Contributing to Effective Inservice Computer Education Programs ..................105 State and Local Efforts . . . . ., ...... ...... ..... 107 Training From Other Sources . . . . . . . ..... .110 Policy Implications. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .... 4 Teacher Education: A Place to Begin . . . . . D O...,..... ... .115 Keeping Up With Technology: Inservice and Informal Training ...........................115 Federal Leadership . . . . . . . . ..... CHAPTER 6: SOFTWARE: QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND THE MARKETPLACE ..........121 Introduction . . . . . . . ........... ... ...... 121 Findings . . . . . . . . . ..... .- .. ..122 Quantity, Quality, and Scope . . . . . . . . . . ... 122 Market Characteristics . . . . . . . . . .. .. 122 Quantity and Scope of the Educational Software Supply . . . . . ..............123 Integrated Learning Systems: The High End of the Software Market .......................123 The Low-Priced Market: Stand-Alone Software . . . . . . . . . ....125 Scope of Instructional Software . . . . . . ......... .. .. 129 School Use of Noninstructional Software . . . . . . . . .. ... .. .132 Evaluation and Acquisition of Educational Software . . . . . . . . ......133 Effects of Local Public Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . ........ 133 Evaluation of Software Quality . . . . . . . ....,... ....134 The States and Software . . . . . . . . .... 141 Public Policy: Issues and Directions . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Capital Limitations . . . . . . .......... .. 143 Property Rights . . . . ............... ....... . 143 Information Barriers and Transaction Costs . . . . . . . . . . .. 143 Policy Responses . . . . . . .......... ... .. 144 Summary of Policy Directions . . . . . ........... ....... 147 CHAPTER 7: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: PAST SUPPORT, PROMISING DIRECTIONS . . . . . . ............. .. ..151 Introduction . . . . . .......... ......... . Findings . . . . . . . . . . ...... 151 Education and R&D: A National perspective . . . . .......-.... ..... 153 Federal Support for Educational Technology R&D . . . . . . . . ......154 The Department of Defense. . . . . ........... ...... . 154 The National Science Foundation . . . . . ............... .159 Office of Education/Department of Education . . . . . . . . .. 163 Other Agency Support for Educational Technology R&D ..............................168 Current Federal Priorities . . . . . . ......... .169 Promising Directions for Research . . . . .......... ...... 171 Intelligent Tutoring Systems . . . . . . ... .... 172 Intelligence Extenders . . . . . . . .... ... 175 Increasingly Complex Microworlds . . . . . . ...... . 176 Multimedia Learning Environments . . . . . .............. .. 176 New Measures of Assessing Learning . . . . . ........ 177 PAGE 9 Research on How Technology Affects Teaching and the Social Barriers to Implementation . . . . . . . . Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . Option 1: Take No Action . . . . . . . Option 2: Increase Resources in Existing Programs . . Option 3: Facilitate R&D Transfer and Applications . . Option 4: New Initiatives . . . . . . . . Option 5: Support International Cooperation . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of Schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 8: TECHNOLOGY AND THE FUTURE OF CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convergence of Information Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . Distance Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Audiographic Communications. . . . . . . . . . . . . Broadcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integration of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Advances in Memory and Data Storage Technologies . . . . . . . . CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . Analog, Digital, and Optical Storage Media . . . . . . . . . . Computer/Video Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . Advances in Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypermedia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrated Learning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . Videodisc Software, Compatibility, and Video Programming . . . . . . Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Epilog. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A: STATE ACTIVITIES IN EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY . . . APPENDIX B: CHARACTERISTICS CONSIDERED IN EVALUATING EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX C: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PRINCIPAL PROGRAMS PROVIDING FUNDS FOR TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION. . . . . . APPENDIX D: LIST OF ACRONYMS. . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX E: CONTRACTOR REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX F: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS AND REVIEWERS AND CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Box 1-A. 1-B. l-c l--D. 1-E. 3--A. 3-B. 4--A. 5A. 5-B. 5-C. 5-D. 5-E. 5-F. 5-G. Boxes Educational Technology: What Does It Cost?. . . . . . . . . . Page . 178 . 1-79 . 180 . 180 . 180 . 181 . 182 . 183 . 184 . 187 . 187 . 189 . 189 . 191 . 193 . 193 . 194 . 194 . 195 . 196 . 198 . 199 . 199 . 199 . 199 . 200 . 201 . 205 . 232 . 237 . 240 . 241 . 242 Page . 8 The Teacher As a Coach: Teaching Science With a Microcomputer-Based Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Writing by Hand/Writing With a Wordprocessor . . . . . . . . . 15 New Hampshires Computers for Teachers Program . . . . . . . . . 19 New York State Teacher Resource Centers and Electronic Networking . . . . 21 Solving Problems With the Algebra Tutor . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Microcomputer-Based Laboratories in Practice . . . . . . . . . . 55 Arkansas Project IMPAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Deciding Not To Use Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Using Computers in an Elementary Classroom . . . . . . . . . . 92 Using Computers With Special Education Students . . . . . . . . . 93 The Teacher as a Coach: Teaching Science With a Microcomputer-Based Laboratory . 94 First Encounters With Computers: Some Teacher Concerns . ......................106 Factors Contributing to Effective Inservice Computer Education Programs ...............106 IBM/National Computer Training Institute Cooperative Training Plan ..................111 ix PAGE 10 Box Page 5-H. Excerpts From a Computer Conference on the MIX Network: The National Student Book Search . . . . . . . . ..............114 6-A. Early Burned, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... 127 6-B. Major Force, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 6-C. Street Vendor Co., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .., .. 129 6-D. Information For Software Decisions: A Sampling . . ...............................135 6-E. Software Evaluation in New York City . . . . . . . . ..............136 6-F. Software Evaluation in California . . . . . . . . ....................137 ?-A. The Special Characteristics and Contributions of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) . . . . . . . . . ....................157 7-B. The Development of LOGO . . . . . . . . . ................160 7-C. NASAs Intelligent Computer-Aided Training: Spinoff for Schools ......................169 ?-D. Guided Discovery: Teaching From a Learner's Level of Understanding ..................172 8-A. Apple Classroom of Tomorrow . . . . . . . . . ................188 8-B. Earth Lab. . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................192 8-C. Analog v. Digital . . . . . . . . . ............................-.197 Figures Figure Page l-1. U.S. Public Schools With At Least One Computer by Grade Level 1981-87 . . . 6 l-2. Average Number of Computers Per 30 Students in U.S. Public Schools, 1983-87 . . 7 l-3. Distribution of Computers in U.S. Public Schools, 1988 . . . . . . . . 7 l-4. State Estimates of Major Sources of Funding for Technology Used by School Districts . 10 l-5. Readiness to Teach: Perceptions of Education School Faculty and Student Teachers . . 18 l-6. State Estimates of Sources offending for Inservice Technology Training . . . . 19 2-1. U.S. Public Schools With Computers, 1987-88 . . . . . . . . . . 32 2-2, Annual Rate of Adoption of Computers in U.S. Public Schools, 1981-87 . . . . 32 2-3. U.S. Public Schools With At Least One Computer, by Grade Level, 1981-87 . . . 33 2-4. VCRs and Computers in U.S. Public Schools, 1982-87 . . . . . . . . 33 2-5. School Size and Student Access to Computers, 1987-88 . . . . . . . . 35 2-6. Students Per Computer in U.S. Public Schools by School Enrollment, 1987-88 . . . 35 2-7. Variation in Average Student-Computer Ratio by State, 1987-88 . . . . . . 36 3-1. Teachers Perceptions of Effects of Using Computers in Classrooms . . . . . 41 3-2. Graphing Equations Using the Computer . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4-1. District Education Budget and Costs of Implementing a Computer-Based Integrated Learning System (ILS) in Prince Georges County, MD . . . . . . . . . . 73 4-2. Increasing Computer Inventories in U.S. Public Schools: Projected Impact on Total Annual Instructional Materials Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 5-l. Readiness to Teach: Perceptions of Education School Faculty and Student Teachers .......100 5-2. State Requirements and Recommendations for Preservice Technology Programs . .. ....102 5-3. State Requirements and Recommendations for Inservice Technology Programs . . .. ....109 6-1. Trends in Availability of Software for Major Subject Areas . . . ..................132 6-2. Recommended Software Titles Before and After 1985 . . . . ................140 6-3. Software Publishers Expectations of Factors Affecting Future Profitability. ................144 7-1. Obligations for R&D in the U.S. Department of Education as a Percentage of All Federal R&D Obligations, 1979-88 . . . . . . . .............................153 7-2.(a) U.S. Department of Education Obligations; (b) National Institute of Education Obligations, Fiscal Years 1973-86 . . . . . . . . . ................153 7-3. Timeline of Major Instructional Technology Projects in the Defense Agencies, 1955-87 .. ....156 7-4. National Science Foundation Budget, 1952-88 . . . . . . . ............162 7-5. National Science Foundation Obligations for Research and Development of Educational Technology in Elementary and Secondary Education . . . ........................162 8-1. States With Distance Learning Projects . . . . . . . . . ...........190 8-2. Evolution of Computer Storage Media . . . . . . . . . . . ....195 PAGE 11 Tables Table Page 1-1. Costs of Computer Use (Frank Porter Graham Elementary School, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1986-88) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 l-2. Distribution of Educational Software by Subject . . . . . . . . . 22 l-3. Distribution of Educational Software by Type . . . . . . . . . . 22 2-1. Distribution of Schools by Computer Inventory, 1987-88 . . . . . . . 34 2-2. Average Number of Students Per Computer in U.S. Public Schools, 1983-87 . . . 34 2-3. Ranges of Student Computer Density in U.S. Public Schools . . . . . . . 34 3-1. Mean Writing Scores by Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4-1. Costs of an Integrated Learning System for Elementary Schools in Prince Georges County, Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4-2. Approximate Cost of Major Expansion of Installed Base of Free-Standing Computers in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools . . . . . . . . . 74 4-3. Examples of Effectiveness Measures Used in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis . . . . 77 4-4. Cost-Effectiveness of Four Educational Interventions . . . . . . . . 77 4-5. Total Annual Costs Projected for Grades 3 and 5 Mathematics Instruction in Westberry Elementary School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 4-6. Total Mathematics Mean Scores for Grades 3 and 5: CAI and Traditional Instruction in Westberry Elementary School . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 4-7. Total Mathematics Grade Placement Gains, Costs Per Student, and Costs Per Month of Gain: Grades 3 and 5, Westberry Elementary School . . . . . . . . 81 5-1. General Teacher Competencies in Technology . . . . . . . . ........101 6-1. Distribution of Educational Software Programs by Subject .............................130 6-2. Distribution of Reading Software by Area . . . . . . . .............130 6-3. Distribution of Mathematics Software by Area . . . . . . . . .......130 6-4. Distribution of Educational Software by Subject Area and Grade Range . . ... ... ..131 6-5. Curriculum Requirements and Available Software: Middle and High Schools ............131 6-6. Distribution of Educational Software by Type . . . . . . . . . . 132 6-7. Distribution of Major Subject Software by Type . . .............................133 6-8. Educational Software Titles Reviewed and Recommended .............................,138 6-9. Educational Software Information Sources: Topology . . .....................,....139 6-10. Self-Starter Software Co. Income Statement, 1986 . . . . . . . ....144 7-1. Department of Defense Manpower and Training: Technology Research and Development Expenditures, 1976-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......159 7-2. Department of Defense Research and Development Funding, 1984-89 ...................169 7-3. NSF Funding for Educational Technology Research and Development 1987-89............170 7-4. Department of Education Funding for E-durational Technology Research, Development, and Demonstration, 1987-89 . . . . . . . . . . . ...........170 7-5. Promising Directions for Research: Selected Examples of Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Intelligence Extenders, Complex Microworlds, and Multimedia Learning Environments in K-12 Education . . . . . . . . . . ...........................173 8-1. On-line Conferences for Teachers and Students Available to Subscribers to MIX (McGraw-Hill Information Exchange), December 1987 . . . . .................193 8-2. Examples of Electronic Networking Projects in Education . .........................194 8-3. Advances untechnical Capabilities of Computers Used in Schools, 1977-87 .............196 xi PAGE 12 Related OTA Reports l Trends and Status of Computers in Schools: Use in Chapter 1 Programs and Use with Limited English Proficient Students. OTA Staff Paper, March 1987, 129 pages. NTIS order #PB 87-176723 l Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad School. OTA-SET-377, June 1988, 136 pages. GPO stock #052-003-01 110-7 Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering. OTA-TM-SET-41, to be published fall 1988. l Technology and the American Economic Transition: Choices for the Future. OTA-TET-283, May 1988, 512 pages. GPO stock #052 -003-01096-8 l Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information. OTA-CIT-302, April 1986, 300 pages. NTIS order #PB 87-100 301/AS l information Technology R&D: Critical Trends and Issues. OTA-CIT-268, February 1985, 352 pages. GPO stock #052 -003-00976-5 l Informational Technology and Its Impact on American Education. OTA-CIT-187, November 1982, 280 pages. GPO stock #052 -003-00888-2 NOTE: Reports are available through the U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Washington, DC 20401-9325, (202) 783-3238; and/or the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161-0001, (703) 487-4650. xii PAGE 13 Chapter 1SummaryPhoto credit: West High School, Columbus, Ohio PAGE 14 CONTENTS Boxes Figures Tables PAGE 15 Chapter 1 Summary INTRODUCTION At Poteet High School in Mesquite, Texas, ninth grade students are doing experiments with radioactive materials, handling explosives, and pouring sodium metal into a lake, and their teachers think its great! With their entire physical science curriculum hours of instruction, one semester of chemistry and one of physicson interactive videodisc, they are learning about and doing science in a simulated environment. The laser videodisc combines the drama of a television program with the capabilities of a computer: a touch of a computer screen brings to life a volcanic eruption or a solar flare. The fifth grade class at Sacred Heart Model School in Louisville, Kentucky, recently assembled a computer database of their pets: 25 dogs, 15 cats, 13 hamsters and gerbils, 5 horses, 4 hermit crabs, 1 guinea pig, 3 each of rabbits, turtles, and chickens, and 73 fish. Updates and comparisons are expected, as the class shares information with students who live in other cities, in suburban communities, and in rural areas. Their next project is to test the acidity of the citys tap water and compare their results with data from 199 other schools around the world via telecommunications. 2 A librarian in Jefferson County, Alabama, spent her spring vacation driving a group of junior high school students around the State, where they videotaped historical sites, agriculture and industries, tourist attractions, and the Governor at work in the capital. The students are creating their own curriculum materials for a course on Our Alabama Heritage." 3 In most other classrooms, teachers stand in front of a blackboard, chalk in hand, lecturing as teachers always have. Some students take notes on paper; others look out the window, as students always have. Are the Poteet High, Sacred Heart, or JefferMesquice Ne~s, Mesquite, TX, Oct. 28, 1987, p. 10A. The Courier Journal, Louisville, KY, Feb. 19, 1988, Carolyn Starnes, computer coordinator, Hillview Elementary School, Birmingham, AL, personal communication, Apr. 13, 1988. son County classrooms isolated cases, or are they realistic previews of how new information technologies will change all schools? Todays classrooms typically resemble their ancestors of 50 years ago more closely than operating rooms or business offices resemble their 1938 versions. But new technologies are making possible imaginative approaches to teaching traditional subjects and are motivating teachers and children to try new ways of information gathering and learning. New learning tools have diverse objectives and effects. This diversity is due, in part, to the flexibility of interactive technologies. 4 Computers hel p teach children to read, write, and do sums. Telecommunications lets students in remote areas, who might otherwise be denied access, take advanced classes in calculus, foreign language, and physics. Science students use computer-based measurement instruments, while their classmates use simulation programs to participate in politics and history. In some schools there is a computer in each classroom; in others, laboratories with 20 or 30 terminals accommodate groups for anywhere from 20 minutes to 2 hours per week. A few experimental programs provide a computer for each child in school and another one at home. Some schools have adopted integrated curriculum packages with automated, individualized student monitoring, testing, and reporting, while others have opted for a more eclectic approach that leaves greater autonomy for teachers planning and implementation. And many classes, of course, use no new technology. The infusion of computers and development of advanced interactive technologies coincide with ~The term interactive technologies in education refers to technologies that can respond appropriately and quickly to students or teachers. The interaction can either be between a person and a machine, as in the case of computers, or between people using new forms of communication, as in the case of distance learning. Todays interacti~e technologies encompass computer technologies, transmission technologies, television technologies, and optical technologies. Much of the discussion in this report focuses on computer-based technologies, because of their impact on schools and because most other key technologies are closely tied to the computer. 3 PAGE 16 4 troubling news about American schools and have been hailed by many as an important catalyst for reform. 5 Blue ribbon commissions have reported falling test scores and pointed to the growing divergence between our economys need for highly skilled labor and our schools capabilities to prepare productive adults. 6 A few visionaries argue that the new technologies alone can solve the difficult problems of Americas schools, while those at the other extreme remain unimpressed by claims that technology can improve learning. OTA finds that most educators are cautiously enthusiastic. School personnel and educational researchers believe that interactive technologies have already improved teaching and learning for some children, and they are optimistic about greater improvements that might result from continued development, experimentation, and widespread implementation. There is a general consensus that the appropriate assignment of new technologies within effectively organized schools could make a big difference in academic performance, motivation, and dedication to learning. The broad experimentation of the past decade has generated a knowledge base for schools and policy makers. The Nation is now poised to decide on the next level of commitment. At the request of the House Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S. Congress, OTA studied the potential of interactive learning tools for improving the quality of education, and analyzed the technological, economic, and institutional barriers to achieving the technologies future promise. 7 Some experts believe that the information technologies can radically change the performance and structure of the educational system. For further discussion see, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technology and the American Economic Transition: Choices for rhe Furure, OTA-TET-283 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1988), pp. 240-251. See National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, April 1983); Committee for Economic Development, Znvesting in Our ChiHren (Washington, DC: September 1985); National Task Force on Educational Technology, Transforming American Education: Reducing the Risk co the Nation, A Report to the Secretary of Education (Washington, DC: April 1986); and Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, A Nation Prepared (New York, NY: Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, May 1986). For this comprehensive analysls, OTA analyzed survey data on distribution and access to technology and studied patterns of use; reviewed research literature on evidence of effectiveness; conducted site visits to schools and research centers; interwewed publishers, vendors, researchers, policy makers, administrators, teachers, and students; developed case studies; surveyed State technology directors; and convened OTA finds that, although new interactive technologies cannot alone solve the problems of American education, they have already contributed to important improvements in learning. These tools can play an even greater role in advancing the substance and process of education, both by helping children acquire basic skills and by endowing them with more sophisticated skills so they can acquire and apply knowledge over their lifetimes. At the current rate of resource allocation, the Nation can expect a continued broad base of experimentation, steady but slow improvement in software, and spotty access to the technology by children. If the Nation wishes to accelerate realization of the potential of the technology, a greater investment will be necessary. Costs of such a shift would be borne by Federal, State, and local governments, and the private sector. Regardless of the rate of investment in interactive technology and support for it, policy makers should focus their attention on four closely related areas if the technology is to move toward realizing its potential. Each of these areas affects, and is affected by, the others: l l l l expanding the amount and capability of technology in schools to increase student access; providing training and support for teachers; encouraging innovation and improvement in educational software; and supporting research, development, demonstration, and evaluation, with emphasis on ties between research and the classroom. OTA concludes that the Federal Government must take an active role if interactive technology is to realize its potential for improving education. National needs for educated citizens and workers, combined with traditional Federal responsibility for equity, are the underpinnings for Federal action. Further, the centrally important aspect of research will be adequately supported only as a national undertaking at the Federal level. experts for OTA workshops on educational software development and economics, teachers and technology, research and development of educational technology, and cost-effectiveness issues. In the first phase of the project, OTA prepared a staff paper, Trends and Status of Computers in Schools: Use in Chapter 1 Programs and Use With Limited English Proficient Students, March 1987. PAGE 17 5 .Federal programs must be flexible and should notconstrain the use of technology. Schools experience with interactive technology, and recent research on how children learn when they use computers, make clear that there is no single best use of technology in schools to improve learning. Ideally, Federal programs would encourage continued experimentation and sharing of information from those experiences. Federal research efforts should include studies on the educational effectiveness of currentlyavailable technology to address traditional goals, as well as studies of innovation that push the boundaries of learning and cognition. Educational technologies can be powerful tools for change; not as ends in themselves, but as vehicles to extend teaching and learning processes. The task of developing appropriate software, installing sufficient hardware, training teachers for their new role in electronic classrooms, expanding basic research into the science of human learning and cognition, and ensuring equity of access for all learners cannot be accomplished by any one sector of government or industry. OTA finds that improved use of technology can be accomplished, in large part, through existingFederal programs. In building on current efforts,Congress could target funds within programs as wellas increase levels of funding, make administrative changes, and exert leadership at the national level. A more focused effort to substantially expand the use of technology in education and attain more fully integrated applications across the curriculum will probably require new strategies and perhaps new authority.Photo credit: Education WeekDemands on schooling have increased with the growing numbers of students who are educationally at risk. PAGE 18 6 THE SPREAD OF TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS The 1980s witnessed a tremendous expansion in school use of advanced technology of all types. For example, in 1980 very few schools had videocassette recorders (VCRs). Today roughly 90 percent do. VCRs and the availability of cable and satellite transmission have greatly increased flexibility of television use. Television and electronic telecommunications are also being used to deliver instruction to students in remote sites. Such distance learning projects are under way or being planned in 35 States. Recently enacted legislation (Star Schools) 8 will expand these efforts considerably. Between 1981 and 1987, the percentage of American schools with one or more computers intended for instruction grew from about 18 percent to 95 percent (see figure 1-1). There are now between 1.2 and 1.7 million computers in public schools alone. 9 This is an impressive record of growth and shows a widespread willingness on the part of school districts, schools, teachers, and parents to explore the possibilities of new learning technologies. In a period of less than 10 years, computer-based technologies have been introduced to students with quite different intellectual and behavioral needs, by teachers and administrators of varying backgrounds, experience and technical skill, working in schools with children of diverse demographic, racial, ethnic, and economic composition. Although computers are widely distributed and access to them by students has increased significantly, the vast majority of schools still do not have enough of them to make the computer a central element of instruction. (See figures 1-2 and 13.) The number of computers in U.S. public schools translates to approximately 1 computer for every 30 students. In practice, there is wide disparityone computer in a classroom, clusters of computers in 8AuthOrized under Title 11, L4athematk5 and Science of H-R. 5, the Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Act. %farket Data Retrieval, Inc. and Quality Education Data, Inc., the leading market research firms specializing in school technologies, estimate the 1988 total at about 1.2 million. TALMIS, on the other hand, a firm that collects data on the computer industry more broadly, reports a total current base of 2.03 million, of which about 375,000 are in private schools. Finally, T. Zf.JE. Journal, a prominent educational technology magazine, reports the highest figure, 2.1 million overall, with 1.7 million in the public schools, based on their recent survey. Variations among these estimates are due largely to differences in sampling methodology and timing of surveys. Figure 1-1 .U.S. Public Schools With At Least One 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Computer by Grade Level, 1981-87 / I t t 4 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 School year SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on data from Market Data Retrieval, Inc., 1988. the library or classrooms, full computer laboratories, and classrooms with no computers. Not all students use computers, and it is estimated that those who do so spend on average a little more than 1 hour per week on the computer, about 4 percent of their instructional time. The National Assessment of Educational Progress 10 report on computer competence found in its 1985-86 survey of 3rd, 7th, and 11th grade students that computers were seldom used in subject areas, but were used almost exclusively to teach about computers. Furthermore, in analyzing these and other current data available on computer use by different demographic characteristics, OTA found that students in relatively poor elementary or middle schools have significantly less potential access to computers than do their peers in relatively rich schools. Black @Michael E. Martinez and Nancy A. Mead, Computer Competence: The First National Assessment, Report No. 17-CC-01 (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, April 1988). PAGE 19 7 Figure 1.2.Average Number of Computers Per 30 Students in U.S. Public Schools, 1983-871.21 0.4 I19831934 1935 1986 1937Year K-12 combined schools. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on data from Market Data Retrieval, Inc., 1987.students have less access than do whites, particularly at the elementary school level. Limited Eng-lish proficient students have the lowest access of all.And low-achieving students are more likely to use computers for drill and practice than for problem solving or other activities.11An increase in the amount and capability of technology in schools will be required if the technology is to realize its potential. Expanding the use of technology in the school district, across the State, or throughout the country immediately raises the question of how much it will cost and how it will be financed (see box l-A). Experience over the last decade shows that costs and funding mechanisms vary. In general, Federal, State, district, Parent-Figure 1=3.Distribution of Computers in U.S. Public Schools, 1988 33. 34.310.7%14 .4%Elementary Schools With computers43.4%High Schools with Computers.9%4% more detail see, Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on data from Quality Education Data, Inc., 1988, PAGE 20 8 SOURCE: ~e Of WohWofIY A$$eawn ant, 19$s. L PAGE 21 9 The problem, obviously, is that without reference to the effects of expenditures on educational technologies, the dollar amount is almost meaningless. However, the definition and measurement of educational effects (or outcomes) is extremely complex. Business decisions, such as whether to install a new technology, can usually be assessed for their effect on profit, a quantifiable indicator of performance. But schools have multiple goals that cannot conveniently be lumped into a single quantitative indicator. The effects of instructional technology (and education in general) take a long time to register and are very difficult to measure. In addition, there is disagreement about the production function, or the relationship between specific educational inputs and outcomes. Classroom learning is a complex, dynamic and adaptive process: what a teacher does today may not work tomorrow, what works in New York may not work in Ohio. Difficulties in applying conventional productivity analysis to schools, which are familiar to a generation of education economists who have tried, necessitate a cautious approach to cost estimation of educational technology. In particular: 9 l Educational technology is a body of tools that can be applied to a wide variety of educational purposes. The question how much does it cost? should be recast with reference to specific technologies. l Because classroom learning is a complex, interactive process subject to many stimuli, it should be viewed as a living experiment. Under ideal conditions, teachers and their students continually learn about learning and adjust to their changing environment. The computer, or any educational tool, cannot be introduced into such an environment with the expectation of immediate benefit. Time is needed to integrate it in a useful way. The costs of new learning tools, then, include much more than the easily quantifiable market prices for hardware and software. The useful life of a classroom computer, an important element in cost estimation, depends on many factors: ruggedness or physical durability of the equipment, capacity to handle new and more sophisticated software, and changes in teachers classroom methods. In addition, schools cannot typically sell or trade-in used equipment, nor do they simply discard machines that have become obsolete. Thus, the establishment of an appropriate replacement cycle, which is relatively easy for books {usually 5 to 6 years), becomes a more complicated matter in the case of computer Increasing the utilization of school computer equipment can raise costs: for example, making the equipment accessible to evening school programs or to local libraries entails added personnel, maintenance, and security expenses. However y increased utilization can improve the overall efficiency of the installed equipment by creating additional revenues that offset operating expenses. Teacher Association, or business contributions, or a combination of these support technology used by school districts. (See figure 1-4.) Costs include purchases of technology, teacher training, maintenance, continuing upgrades of hardware and software, and supporting personnel. 12 (See table l-l.) OTA finds that States are key players in improving the use of technology in education, although the level of support across the States is by no means uniform. In addition to helping schools acquire technology, States provide funding, technical assistance, and other resources for improving the use of technology in schools. Their role has changed rapidly. In 1981, only a few States were inl~shella Corv, Co[>rdinator of program evaluation and educational computing, Chapel H ill-C arrboro City Schools, NC, personal communication, March 1988. volved with computers. 13 By 1987, almost every State had created an administrative position or department to plan, implement, or monitor State educational technology programs. Some States have established technology skill requirements for teachers and guidelines for technology-related curricula, and many are involved in some aspect of teacher training, software evaluation, or information dissemination. A few have produced instructional software or distributed software electronically, Some have funded demonstrations of new uses of technology such as distance learning. In identifying barriers to increased use of technology, almost 1The States of Alaska and Minnesota were early leaders. See, U.S. Congress, Office of Technolog y Assessment, Znformariona/ Tecbno/ogv and Its Zmpacr on American Education, OTA-CIT18? (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1982), pp. 214220 and 227-232. PAGE 22 10Figure 1-4.State Estimates of Major Sources of Funding for Technology Used by School Districtsa-140 30 2010n LocalStateFederal Federal Federalfundsb Chapter 2 chapter 1 Title IISource of funding technology coordinators were asked to select the three offunding used by districts. for technology by districts Include: 1) funds technology to all districts; 2) grants for technology; and 3) grants that may be used for technology. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, State Educational Technology Survey, 1987.two-thirds of the States surveyed by OTA cited lack of funds as a serious problem.14Federal programs have been and continue to be another important resource, particularly in increasing access to computers by educationally disadvan-taged students, and in enabling districts to purchasehardware and software. Compensatory Education Programs (Chapter 115) in every State fund the purchase and/or lease of computer hardware and software for use with educationally disadvantaged students,16and almost three-fifths (58 percent) ofChapter 1 teachers in public schools report that they Educational Technology the Education Consolidation and Improvement Survey of State Chapter 1 coordinators, see office of Tech-nology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 7.use computers to teach their students.17 In all districts, the Federal Block Grants (Chapter 2) can be used to purchase hardware and software.18 Most recently, in an OTA survey, 34 States ranked Chap-ter 2 as one of the top three sources for funding tech-nology at the district level.19 Other Federal pro-grams support acquisition of computer hardware andsoftware, but the amounts spent on technology purchases do not appear as separate items in their budgets and therefore cannot be measured. These programs include the Math/Science Program (Tide II of the Education for Economic Security Act, EESA), the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (Title VII of EESA), Vocational Education (The Perkins Act), and the Education for the Handicapped Act. National needs for educated citizens and workers combined with issues of equity suggest that the Federal Government work with State, local, and private sector efforts to expand the use of interactive technologies in schools. This could include increased funding and clear direction from Washington, supporting the role of technology as one component of improving learning. Steady funding is vastly preferable to money that must be spent quickly. This is because local districts and States need time to plan for integrated uses of technology and to train personnel. Flexibil-ity is also important, as districts and States need freedom to revise these plans as the technologies changeand as the learning potential they offer evolves. Moreover, efforts that build on local, State, and private sector experience and resources could provide greater leverage of Federal funds. analysis was based on original data from the 1986 National Survey of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act Chapter 1 Schools conducted by Westat Corp. for the U.S. Department of Educations 1986 National Assessment of Chapter 1. See Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 7, p. 50. 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act distributes these block grants to States based on the student population figures. Eighty percent of the funds a State receives must go directly to local districts, again according to a formula based on the number of school-aged children in the district. A 1986 study found that support for computer-related activities accounted for 30 percent of all local Chapter 2 expenditures. SRI International and Policy Studies Associates, The Educational Block Grant at the Local Level: The Implementation of Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act in Districts and Schools, prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, January 1986. State Educational Technology Survey, 1987. PAGE 23 11 Table 1-1.Costs of Computer Use (Frank Porter Graham Elementary School Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1986-88) Total 2 years . $10,216 $3,191 $1,547 $2,411 $7,473 $2,544 H~~d~~~~: cO~PUter hardWare ~Urr~ntlY ~~nsists of 24 Apple II computer stations. Fourteen are grouped together in a U)mpUti3r laboratory and 10 are located in individual classrooms, the science laboratory, or the media center. b~ftware: Software includes program5 provided by the school district 10 support the district-developed curriculum, Additional software has been purchased by the school to support the school and teacher objectives. csupplie~: Supplle5 needed t. Suppofi the district-developed curriculum are provided by the district, These include such things as books and discs. Additional SUpplies, such as paper and ribbons, are funded by the school. dstaff d eve l opmen t : District.level workshops are designed to support the district-developed curriculum, Attendance is required at these Sessions. Optional Staff development IS also provided by both the district and the school, eper~onnel: On.site personnel Witfl direct responsibility to the computer education program consists of a pan-time computer laboratory aide funded by the PTA. Additional personnel resources are provided by the district through their funding of a half-time coordinator who serves nine schools, SOURCE: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Public Schools, Chapel Hill, NC. Congress can profit from the States leadership stration efforts described throughout this report. and expertise in advancing the use of technology. Federal funds could expand State, local, and priThere is much that could be learned from various vate sector efforts. Federal assistance through conState efforts in teacher training, software evaluation ferences or through electronic networks could faand development, and model projects and demoncilitate sharing information. WHAT THE TECHNOLOGY CAN DO One of the most obvious questions about using interactive technologies in schools is Does it work? Performance and productivity are difficult to measure precisely, in part because the near-term effects of educational technologies may be different from what these technologies might eventually achieve. OTA examined recent research on educational uses of computers in a wide range of applications in man y different settings. Although the results build an incomplete and somewhat impressionistic picture, they do suggest that certain configurations of hardware and software, used with particular populations of children and under the supervision of competent teachers, contribute to meeting specific instructional objectives. OTA finds that the varied capabilities of the technologies are key to their power. Educators use interactive technologies for many pur- PAGE 24 12 poses; there is no single best use. The following are among the most promising current uses and demonstrations. Drill and practice to master basic skills.For almost 30 years, computers have been used to provide instruction or drill and practice in basic skills such as mathematics and reading. Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) has proven to be an effective supplement to traditional classroom instruction. For example, one recent study showed that elementary school children who used CAI for mathematics gained the equivalent of 1 to 8 months instruction over peers who received only traditional instruction. Development of writing skills.-Although word processing by itself does not create better writers, it has helped ease the physical burden of writing and revising. Studies have shown that both mainstream and special students who used the word processor as a supplement to writing instruction have made significant gains in writing ability. In addition, word processing technology has stimulated research on the most efficient ways to teach students to read, critique, and revise their written work. The findings of this research are being incorporated into new software. Photo credit: BreadNet Project English teacher Linda Henry and ninth grader John Quick Bear are part of the electronic network of rural schools set up by the Bread Loaf School of English at Middlebury College. This classroom on the Oglala Lakota (Sioux) reservation in Kyle, South Dakota, is one of 50 in a project to see if computers and telecomputing can improve the teaching of writing. Problem solving.- Problem solving skills and higher order thinking have always been difficult to teach. There is some evidence that teachers can use computer simulations, educational games, databases, and other software to train students to break down problems into their component parts and set strategies for their solution. More research is needed to understand problem solving strategies used by learners in different contexts and curriculum areas. Understanding abstract mathematics and science concepts. One of the more promising uses of computers is as a tool in the science laboratory. Microcomputer-based laboratories (MBLs) combine microcomputers with probes to measure phenomena such as light, heat, and temperature. With specially designed software, students can produce almost instant graphs of the data and explore effects of different variables. Studies indicate that students using MBLs have a deeper understanding of complex scientific concepts than do students not using MBLs. The computer is an invaluable tool for teaching graphing concepts. Computer simulations have also proved an effective way of helping students visualize abstract concepts. (See box 1-B.) Simulation in science, mathematics, and social studies. -Simulations provide science students with self-contained worldsfor example, a frictionless world where the laws of Newtonian physics are more apparentin which they can experiment and quickly see the result. Students can test abstract concepts and experiment with scientific processes that are not feasible or are too dangerous for actual classroom work. Simulations are also effective tools in social science. By playing the role of world leaders or citizens in other countries, for example, students have been motivated to engage in high level critical thinking, gain a better understanding of political affairs, and appreciate different perspectives on issues + Manipulation of data. Database management systems have become very popular in classrooms. These encourage students to define a problem in specific terms and break it up into its component parts. Students must then identify the data needed, extract them from the database, put the data in a useful order, use the data, and then communicate findings to others. Limited research results suggest that students using databases outperform other students PAGE 25 13 Box 1-B.The Teacher As a Coach: Teaching Science With a Microcomputer-Based Laboratory Douglas Kirkpatrick teaches an eighth grade physical science class in Walnut Creek, California. Working with a research team from the nearby Lawrence Hall of Science, he has been using the computer as a silent laboratory partner, helping his students understand concepts in heat and light in a new way. His 32 students are teamed up in pairs using 16 microcomputers donated by Apple. The software is made up of microcomputerbased laboratory (MBL) materials, temperature probes, light probes, and heat pulsars for the collection of data, with accompanying curriculum materials, all developed by the Technical Education Research Centers in Boston. Kirkpatrick found that his students had reasonable intuitions about the effect of insulation on the temperature of a liquidgained from their prior experience with styrofoam cupsand the relationship between volume of a liquid and the amount of heat that needs to be added to make it boil-gained from heating large and small quantities of liquid in the kitchen. However, Kirkpatricks students, like other science students, had persistent misconceptions about other scientific phenomena. As he noted, many students believed you only have a temperature if you are sick, or you have more hot chocolate, so yours is hotter than mine, or temperature is all the degrees, but heat only refers to temperatures that are above warm. Merely telling students how heat differs from temperature or having them read about it in a textbook has traditionally had little or no effect on these entrenched misconceptions. In the past, Kirkpatrick had clustered his students in small groups in a laboratory to study temperature. He had them observe water and moth flakes cooling, with some students calling out times and temperatures while others painstakingly recorded the data. Later, teams constructed graphs of their efforts and attempted to relate the curves on the graphs to key moments in the experiments. While students typically found these laboratory experiments more interesting and fun than a lecture or reading about temperature, the underlying cognitive concepts still did not seem to take hold. Doing the experiment with the MBLs, Kirkpatricks students were freed from the tedious mechanics of data collection, enabling them to focus on changes occurring before their eyes as recorded on the computer. Having the computer simplified experiments that would otherwise have been confusing. Real-time computer graphing was an antidote to their typically limited adolescent attention spans. His young experimenters, like real scientists, were able to use technological tools to collect, display, and analyze data, freeing them to concentrate on the effect of the experimental action, to observe, discuss, and analyze. Students were able to repeat their experiments easily when they had questions. They could also readily compare results with their fellow students, giving rise to lively class discussions about the meaning of the experiments. If the computer was the silent laboratory partner, what was the teachers role? Like any laboratory situation, where students have a hands-on engagement with learning, the teacher became a coach. In this instance, Kirkpatrick found that most students at first completely trusted the data from the computer. It was Kirkpatricks job to direct their attention, to help them become aware of sources of invalid data, to teach them to diagnose the causes and help them evaluate data the computer collected. He taught them to detect poorly calibrated probes, discard data from such probes, and to recalibrate their scientific instruments. He guided their discussion to confirm their understandings. Kirkpatrick has been delighted by the interactions he has observed among the students, and presides over countless fascinating classroom discussions of complex science concepts, He says, I cant imagine a physical science laboratory without computers anymore." lm~ is ~ ~OnfitiO~ ~mw~t ~k ~ti~= ~~ ~t ~ n r=l ctim ~=hr. % aliw~ti (1 Linn, Universit y of California at Berkeley, using the Computer as a Laboratory Pmtner: (%gnitiw XRCe$, mm ~ ~ ~ m Computers in Schc& Cognitive and Social Processes at the Second EARLI Conference, Tubingcn, Germany, .Septmnber 1987. in tests of information processing skills. In addition, Acquisition of computer skills for general purteachers report that students using databases underposes, and for business and vocational training. stand underlying concepts and relationships better, The most obvious use of computers and related tools work more cooperatively, and become more enthuin the classroom is to prepare students for the insiastic about gathering and analyzing data. creasingly technological world they will face when PAGE 26 74 they leave school. Keyboarding and skill in using generic computer programs are replacing the early focus on programming for all students. Advocates of teaching programming to students argue that it is an important skill that can improve problem solving abilities and has wide applicability to many areas of the curriculum, but research on the cognitive consequences of programming has produced mixed results. Access and communication for traditionally unserved populations of students. -perhaps the most impressive applications of computer-based technologies are in the field of special education. Some teachers have described the computer as the freedom machine because it has made communication itself possible for their students. Word processors allow students who could not hold a pencil to write (see box l-C); speech synthesizers provide some students with a means to communicate orally for the first time. Access and communication for teachers and students in remote locations.-Television via satellite brings classes in foreign language, calculus, and many other subjects to schools that cannot provide them because of the small numbers of students or because of the absence of specialized teachers. Declining costs of hardware and increased accessibility of telecommunications technology make distance learning projects more feasible and efforts are expected to increase. In addition, electronic networks allow students and teachers to share information and experience across cities, States, or continents, thus ending the isolation of the classroom. Several projects in science and writing using electronic networks have been particularly promising. individualized learning.The computer is interactive; a students entry generates immediate feedback. The increasing capacity of computer-based technology makes it possible to develop instruction that adjusts to each students prior knowledge, rate of learning, and the nature and style of the students response. For example, technology offers some very promising applications for strengthening reading comprehension through analysis of the students understanding of the text; intelligent tutoring systems in areas such as geometry can provide the learner with an expert and sensitive tutor; and hypertext Photo credit: Michael Zide, Smith College For children like Mallory Sanderson and Matthew Jenkins at the Clarke School for the Deaf, computers have opened new doors for learning. systems can allow students to manipulate text, graphics, and different levels of information. The computer can also keep exact records of student progress, which helps the teacher determine individual student needs. Cooperative learning.The new technologies can encourage cooperative learning. Telecommunications technology, by definition, makes new forms of communication and cooperation possible. On an electronic network, students from many locations can gather information from many sources. Teachers are especially enthusiastic about the ways computer simulations and problem solving software encourage cooperative learning in the classroom. Students of mixed abilities can be grouped in small or large teams to wrestle with tasks that cannot be performed individually. Management of classroom activities and record. keeping.Teachers believe that technology eases some aspects of classroom management. There are reports that students engrossed in computers pose fewer discipline and absenteeism problems. Computer programs such as spreadsheets, database managers, and desktop publishing can streamline recordkeeping and material preparation. In addition, computers make it easier to record the progress and determine the needs of individual students. As pressures for accountabilit y rise, more testing and recordkeeping are likely, even if the y do not necessarily contribute to the learning process itself. Clearly the technology serves man y functions well. Emphasizing a single use of technology now could PAGE 27 stifle much needed innovation, initiative, and experimentation. As researchers and practitioners gain experience with current technology, they are discoverin g new educational uses and are raising additional questions about the learning process. OTA concludes that Federal programs should not constrain technology, but should allow, perhaps encourage, flexibility of use by different districts. Many districts argue that existing Federal regulations hamper their flexibilit y to move hardware and personnel according to their changing needs, or to increase the productivity of equipment through multiple uses. The need for studies evaluating different approaches continues.Research has covered some areas more than others, and missed some areas entirely. For example, there has been some research on the cost-effectiveness of traditional CAI, finding it appropriate under specific conditions. But effectiveness assessments of newer applications of technology are needed, as are longitudinal studies that PAGE 28 16 follow groups of users over time. This kind of schoolbased research is difficult and costly. Better data and sophisticated tools are needed to measure cost-effectiveness, and it is difficult to gather detailed administrative data, apply economic considerations, measure effects, and account for social and institutional variables. Most school districts and States do not have resources to conduct such research and evaluation. Federal research should include studies on l both the educational effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of currently available technologies addressing traditional goals, and studies of innovations that push the boundaries of learning and cognition. Congress may wish to encourage evaluation and research on the uses of computers in education through existing Federal programs, possibly by including requirements for formal evaluation in National Science Foundation (NSF) technology projects, or requiring that the effectiveness of technology in meeting program goals be measured in major studies, such as the $10 million comprehensive Chapter 1 evaluation study authorized by Congress to be conducted by the Department of Education. Other initiatives that could provide data are the $30 million Improvement Fund aimed at improving the performance of students and teachers, the Secretarys Fund for Innovation, the Star Schools Program, and special education, bilingual education, and adult literacy programs. The Federal Government could provide assistance in data collection, research design, and dissemination of results. TEACHERS AND TECHNOLOGY Educational technologies are not self-implementing, and they do not replace the teacher. OTA finds that investments in technology cannot be fully effective unless teachers receive training and support. OTA has found many powerful examples of creative teachers using computers and other learning technologies to enhance and enrich their teaching. But this does not occur unless four interrelated conditions are met: training in the skills needed to work with technology, education that provides vision and understanding of state-of-the-art developments and applications, support for experimentation and innovation, andperhaps most valuable of alltime for learning and practice. Recent studies show that most teachers want to use the newest tools of their trade and to prepare their students for the world of technology outside the schoolroom. But despite the presence of computers in almost all American public schools, only half of the Nations teachers report having ever used computers. The number who use computers regularly is much smaller. Barriers to greater use include lack of equipment, inadequate or inappropriate training, and, for some, anxiety about new technology. How Teachers Use Technology Asking how teachers use computers and what effects computers have on teaching are questions almost as broad as How do teachers use books and how do books affect teaching? To no ones surprise, OTA finds that teachers use of computers depends on their instructional goals, teaching approach, training, the software and hardware available to them, and the instructional setting. Some teachers use computer laboratories; some have units in their classroom. Some use the computer to teach lessons to the whole class; some emphasize individual instruction. Some tie the computer tightly to their standard curriculum; some create a whole new curriculum. In general, teachers are moving awa y from teaching about computers and computer programming and toward integrating the computer into the curriculum. One of the most significant impacts of computers has been on teaching style. Teachers can function as facilitators of student learning, rather than in their traditional role as presenters of ready-made information. Because computers allow students to work on problems individually or in small groups PAGE 29 17while the teacher circulates among them, some teachers find they are able to see more of the learn-ing process. The interactive nature of computers letsstudents work at their own speed, figure things out for themselves, and learn from each other. Teachers can be coaches and facilitators as well as lecturers. Given the right circumstances, teachers could choose the appropriate way to reach their students. With the computer and other tools, the range of opportunities increases. But teachers have to be allowed to choose, willing to make choices, and qualified to implement their choices effectively. OTA finds that, just as there is no one best use of technology, there is no one best way of teaching with technology. Flexibility should be encouraged, allowing teachers to develop their personal teaching approach utilizing the variety of options offered by technology. To be sure, not all teachers are enthusiastic about the computer. Some report that it has caused little or no change in their teaching style or content. Interestingly, these reactions often come in situations where teachers are frustrated by insufficient hardware or software, or when they have not received training or had opportunities to develop confidence in using computer tools. OTA finds that teachers who have taught withcomputers agree thatat least initiallymost usesof computers make teaching more challenging. Individualizing lessons, matching software to curriculum, scheduling student computer time, monitoring use, providing assistance, and troubleshooting all add burdens to the teachers time. While the computer can minimize some administrative chores and ease classroom discipline problems, the net effect is increased demand on teachers time and creativity. Many teachers seem willing to trade off this increased time for more excitement in the class-room and new opportunities to expand their horizons.OTA finds that very few teachers have adequate time for planning and preparing to use technology, Federal, State, and local policy makers should beaware of the need for teachers to study on their ownor in formal courses, to attend conferences and professional meetings, and to gain comfort with the technology and find applications for the classroom.Teacher Training in TechnologyA major aspect of the current drive to improve American education is the focus on raising profes-sional teaching standards and giving teachers greater responsibility and autonomy. Technology, while notyet central in these efforts, could be an importantPhoto credit: Computer Learning MonthTeachers find different ways to use computers in their classrooms: with small groups and with their entire class. PAGE 30 18 lever for change. But the vast majority of those now teaching or planning to teach have had little or no computer education or training. The most recent data available indicate that only one-third of all K-12 teachers have had as much as 10 hours of computer training. 20 And much of this training focused on learning about computers, not learning how to teach with computers. The situation is no more promising for those just entering teaching. A recent national survey of education majors indicated that less than one-third (29 percent) perceived themselves to be prepared to teach with computers. 21 (See figure 1-5.) Although almost all teacher education programs provide some computer training for teacher candidates, many of these programs do not have adequate resources (upto-date equipment and faculty with expertise in technology) to go beyond the basic introductory computer courses. They are also constrained by Statemandated reforms that define and often restrict the teacher education curriculum. Despite a nationwide call to improve teaching, there is almost no Federal money for the training of new teachers. Congress may wish to upgrade the training of teachers overall, making understanding of technology an integral part of their preparation, through various options targeted to both students and teacher education institutions: l l l l l Grants and loans (forgivable or low-interest) for students entering teacher-training programs. Funding to schools of education to support purchase of equipment so they can have more current technologies available in their teacher training programs. Grants to support workshops and courses to upgrade the technology skills of education school faculty so that the education program reflects changing philosophies and so that methods courses demonstrate the application of technology across the curriculum. Demonstration grants for innovative teaching internships where electronic networks connect the student teacher to the education school. Grants for research on methods of training teachers to use technology and funding for the dissemination of promising practices. ~LOffice of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote ~. ~American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Teaching Teachers: Facts and Figures (Vashington, DC: 1987). Figure 1-5.Readiness to Teach: Perceptions of Education School Faculty and Student Teachers 1 0 50 100 Percent citing readiness SOURCE: Research About Teacher Education Project, Teaching Facts and Figures (Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1967). OTA finds that although preservice education is important, it serves only as a first step; training and the environment of support is even more critical once teachers are in the classroom. Teachers will need continuing inservice programs as technology changes, as more effective uses of technology are developed, and as research provides a better understanding of how children learn. Inservice training in technology has unique requirements that distinguish it from traditional inservice activities. Most obviously, teachers need a well-equipped facility and an environment that allows them to explore and master the technology. In addition, inservice training in technology must PAGE 31 19 often overcome the experienced teachers varying levels of technolog y anxiety. Instructors for these activities must appreciate teachers special concerns regarding computers. Moreover, studies point to the critical importance of followup and continuin g assistance. Federal support has contributed to the inservice technolog y training of teachers, through NSFs Teacher Enhancement Program and various Department of Education programs (Chapter 2, Title II, Special Education, Title VII, Vocational Education). States have been major supporters as well (see figure 1-6 and box l-D). The primary responsibilit y for continued professional development of teachers, however, lies with the local district. The amount of money the Nations 16,000 school districts have spent on inservice technology training is currently impossible to track. What is clear is that many disFigure 1-6.State Estimates of Sources of Funding for Inservice Technology Training a 30 20 ////// J 10 0 State funds b Federal funds c No State or Federal finds Source of funding astate technology coordinators were asked to select the top three sources of funding for technology at the local level. bstate funds include: I ) funds for technology training; 2) professional development funds or grants; 3) funds that flow through regional centers or districts; and 4) general State aid used at local discretion. cFederal funding includes Title 11, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and SpeCial Education funds. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, State Educational Technology Survey, 1987. nal Technology Survey, 1987. For more infor@rernors Steering Commimx for Excellence in Edu6#k3r% CUncO@, NH. tricts have very limited funds available for inservice training in general; man y also have limited facilities, resources, and expertise to prepare teachers to use technology. Some districts have developed workin g arrangements with other districts, nearby universi- PAGE 32 20 ties, regional service centers, and combinations of these to expand their own capacity and expertise. Enhancing the resources of schools of education to provide technology education programs for entrylevel teachers would also improve inservice programs, as these schools often train working teachers. l Congress may wish to expand current Federal activities for inservice teacher training in technology. The NSF Summer Institutes for teachers are well regarded and could be expanded to include broader applications of technology in interdisciplinary areas. The Department of Education programs that include provisions for teacher training (e.g., Title II, Chapter 1, Special Education, Bilingual Education) could be strengthened with greater resources targeted to inservice computer education. The Federal Regional Education Laboratories could be used to provide training for teachers. The National Diffusion Network, designed to share results of innovative and effective programs, could validate teacher training activities and provide greater dissemination of effective practices. Interactive technologies offer new possibilities for supporting teachers as they work. Teachers in several experimental writing and science projects use electronic networking to exchange information, develop lessons, and ask for help from their colleagues and project coordinators. Many find that networking is very convenient and efficient. Schools, State agencies, and regional centers are also beginning to make use of the communications capabilities of computers, using modems for networking activities such as electronic mail, information sharing, computer conferencing, and subject-oriented forums. Such networks have the potential to help overcome one of the most basic problems of the classroom teacher isolation. (See box l-E.) l Congress may wish to encourage computer networking as an informal source of teacher support. This can be accomplished through existing programs, such as the Special Education Resource Network sponsored by the Office of Special Education, NSFs support for the electronic network linking State science supervisors, or through demonstration grants funded under the Secretarys Discretionary Program. Federal efforts could provide initial or partial support for State, regional, or national networks that could link teachers and subject matter specialists or administrators. Some educators have begun to discuss the development of a nationwide, government-financed public school telecommunications network similar to those already functioning in government-sponsored civilian and defense research. Congress may wish to study further the question of network access and telecommunications charges, and whether these issues seriously inhibit teacher use of networks. l Congress can also expand opportunities for training teachers by satellite, microwave, or other distance learning technologies. Current funding for Star Schools could include teacher education programming, and funds for other demonstration programs could be increased. Finally, in considering ways to expand teacher training, Congress should be aware of the role played by the private sector. Computer companies and software developers, who want a market for their products, are also involved in training teachers and supporting their use of technology in the classroom. Apple, IBM, and Tandy, for example, offer discounts on hardware as incentives for teachers to use their technology. Several software publishers have reduced pricing on applications packages, e.g., word processing, database management, and spreadsheets, for the same purpose. In addition to sponsoring conferences and seminars, a number of companies publish guides or other resources especially designed for the teacher. These efforts, like industry cooperation in research and demonstration projects, are very important resources that should be encouraged. PAGE 33 21 Box l-E.--New York State Teacher Resource Centers and Electronic Networking New York States Teacher Resource and Computer Training Centers are professional development centers organized and run by and for teachers all across the State. The State has supported the centers since 1984. The centers have been extremely popular with both teachers and State education officials, as their rapid growth demonstrates. In 19$4, there were 44 centers, supported by a $3.5 million State grant. Today, the number of centers has more than doubled, and State support has grown to $15 million. Local funds and links with other projects augment the centers resources and activities. The centers serve approximately 77,000 teachers. The purpose of the centers is to give teachers a major role in their own professional development. Each center is run by a local governing board that assesses teachers' needs and training concerns, and sets policy for the center. At least half of the governing board members must be teachers from the area served by the center. Teachers generally conduct the courses for their colleagues after school, on weekends, during the summer, or during the school day, with provision made for release time and substitute teacher coverage. Most courses are free or available at a modest cost. Coordination with local universities is encouraged, and one member of the governing board must be a representative from higher education. This has led to innovative bridges between preservice and inservice education. Experienced teachers from the public schools serve as adjunct professors and teach methods courses at the university. It has also led to better coordination and oversight of student teaching internships in the local schools. Training and education in the uses of technology in the classroom is only one of six statutory purposes of the centers, but has, in fact, been a central focus from the start. Approximately 35 percent of the center activities have focused on technology. This interest in technology has evolved with the teachers own changing perceptions of the role of computers in schools. Moving from we need to know something about technology to an interest in computer literacy, the current focus is on how can we use computers, videodiscs, and other emerging technologies effectively in the classroom? Some centers offer outreach activities, with specially equipped computer buses that travel to remote locations to offer training to teachers on-site. Telecommunications is a special area of interest. Some courses offered at one center are broadcast by satellite to teachers in other centers. In the process of learning how telecommunications provide access to a range of information services and databases, the teachers have also discovered how they can use electronic networks to communicate with each other without regard to time, space, and geographical location. The Teacher Center Electronic Network, now in its third year, currently links all the centers across the State. Some 20,000 teachers have received training in its use and are users, either on the electronic bulletin board or by participating in ongoing computer conferences within regions or in curricular areas. The network allows teachers to share ideas and support one another in developing materials, conduct collaborative research, or serve as mentors to their less experienced peers. Many of the centers are involved in a network project focusing on students at risk. Although the network are developing not just a facility in using confidence. The teachers, often isolated and frustrated by their work with these most challenging of students, are encouraging one another, learning from one another, and developing an important mutual support group via the network. SOURCE: OTA site visits and interview, August 1987. %?, PAGE 34 22 EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE More than 10,000 software products intended for instructional or educational use with stand-alone computers in schools and at home are on the market today. These products, which come on standard floppy discs, typically aim at specific subjects, such as language arts or arithmetic (see table 1-2). They most often provide drill and practice. In some cases higher order skills such as hypothesis testing or concept development are featured, but such products are in very thin supply (see table 1-3). Advances in graphics and sound technologies have led to creative software for social studies, music, and other subjects that, unlike mathematics or business, are not commonly associated with computer-based instruction. While mathematics programs still dominate the market, generic programs for word processing and data management are among the best sellers; many teachers seem to appreciate software that affords them wide latitude in classroom application. This industry, now a decade old, consists of about 900 suppliers, the vast majority of which are quite small, averaging two full-time employees. Although total annual sales have grown, and are expected to reach $200 million by fall 1988, there are indications that commercial success may come at the expense of creativity and innovation. While many software titles receive favorable ratings from review agencies and professional computing magazines, there is a general consensus among educators (and softTable l-2.Distribution of Educational Software by Subject (N=7,325) Percent of Number of programs a programs a Comprehensive. . . . 6 427 Computers. . . . . 5 331 English/language arts . . 12 894 Foreign language . . . 5 356 Mathematics . . . . 27 1,971 Reading . . . . . 12 869 Science . . . . . 16 1,148 Social science . . . 8 565 Other b . . . . . 18 1,329 aTh~ sum of the progr~s iS greater than N because some pmfmms are =+i9ned to more than one subject category. Accordingly, the total of the percentages is greater than 100 percent. All percentages were rounded to the nearest unit. %he Other category combines 13 subjects (agriculture, aviation, business, driver education, early learning/preschool, fine arts, guidance, health, home economics, industrial arts, library skills, logic/problem solving, and physical edu. cation), each of which accounts for less than 4 percent of the total number of programs. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment based on analysis of data in the Educational Products Information Exchange, July 1987. Table 1-3.Distribution of Educational Software by Type (N =7,325) Percent of Number of programs a programs a Rote drill . . . . . 15 1,107 Skills practice . . . . 51 3,708 Tutorial. . . . . . 33 2,447 Concept demonstration. . 3 216 Concept development . . 4 270 Hypothesis testing. . . 1 91 Educational games . . 19 1,425 Simulations . . . . 9 669 Tool programs . . . 11 807 aThe sum of the programs iS greater than N because some programs were aSsigned to more than one category. Accordingly, the total of the percentages is greater than 100 percent. All percentages were rounded to the nearest unit. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment baaed on analysis of data in the Educational Products Information Exchange, July 1987. ware publishers as well) that the quality of educational software could be much better. What are the essential problems in this market? Aside from generic products that are applicable to many subject areas and grade levels, most instructional programs can reach only a small niche of the school system. Development and marketing costs are high relative to expected sales revenues. Surely some innovative products can become commercial hits. But, in general, software producers have a strong incentive to reduce costs and lower the risks of entering this market by producing software that is easy for teachers to adapt to their traditional curricula. This propensity toward producing familiar instructional materials is not limited to small entrepreneurs. OTA finds that large firms, with greater capital resources, do not necessarily take larger risks; integrated learning systems, for example, have a greater chance of being attractive to school districts if their content is closely linked to textbook materials and tests. These systems, which are currently manufactured by about a dozen companies (with total revenues last year of about $100 million), have been provided in response to the call for greater accountability and improved performance on standardized tests, but they may be less well suited to educational improvement strategies that make the teachers more autonomous in the classroom. OTA finds that software manufacturers tend to play it safe. They produce what teachers will buy, PAGE 35 23 Using the simulation Henrys Plants, they can observe plants growing on seven different sites in the Henry Mountains. Students use the database to record the datathey need to solve each problem. After gatheringtheir data, they summarize their answers and receive a printout of the problem, data, and answers.Photo credit: Wasatch Education SystemsIn studying plant classification, students apply their knowledge by using a simulation and a database manager to solve problems in science:and teachers usually buy products that are familnewcomers; unauthorized duplication of software iar. The potential result is a relatively homogene-programs, as well as theft of broad software designous set of products that fall far short of the possi-principles, continue to plague the industry; and thebilities provided by the new learning tools.presence of different computers in the schools, withThe problem of a fragmented market is aggravated different operating systems, raises development costsby information barriers, difficulties in enforcing infor publishers in pursuit of market share. The commercial market maybe viable, but there is substan-tellectual property rights, and the incompatibility tial concern for the long-term quality and diverof hardware and operating systems. Knowledge ofthe idiosyncratic processes by which school districtssity of its products.around the country acquire instructional materialsThe continued development of affordable andplace experienced companies (textbook publishers,effective educational software is critical to the for example) at significant market advantage over success of interactive technology in schools. Yet, PAGE 36 24 for all the reasons cited above, reliance on the private sector alone will probably not yield an adequately diverse, innovative, and responsive set of educational software products. State and local governments, and even the Federal Government, have roles to play in bringing forth affordable and effective educational software. OTA does not suggest that the Federal Government go into the software development business. The following policies might be used to strengthen commercial development of these products: l Underwrite software research and development (R&D). This is a technology push strategy that could reduce the risks faced by software developers. There are a number of existing programs available to provide support for software development: NSFs Advanced Applications of Technologies and the Instructional Materials Development Programs; 22 the National Aeronautics and Space Administrations computer software and interactive videodiscs materials development programs for space science and aeronautics education; the Department of Education programs for materials development for special populations (bilingual education, special education), and priority topics (at risk youth, drug education), as well as the Department of Educations research support to the Regional Education Laboratories and National Research and Development Centers; and the Department of Defense (DoD) R&D support for improved basic skills training and cognitive science applications for more powerful educational software. l The Federal Government could help States or districts develop joint mechanisms for defining software needs, encouraging developers, and acquiring software. One effect of this approach would be to alleviate the difficulty soft:For example, a panel of education leaders and publishers convened by the National Science Foundation recently recommended that the government undertake innovative and risky development of comprehensive software in areas of critical national importance. The panels principal finding was . in the absence of private sector investment in the computer curriculum necessary for school superintendents to experiment with these options, the Federal Go\ernment should subsidize their development at an estimated cost of $20 million for eight secondary school science and mathematics courses. Arthur Melmed and Robert Burnham, New York University, New Information Technolog y Directions for American Education, report prepared for the National Science Foundation, December 1987. ware developers face in attempting to serve a fragmented market. Federal and State support need not imply Federal or State control of product development or utilization; school users should define their own educational software needs. Support increased acquisition of more powerful and capable hardware. This market-pull strategy would complement software development efforts. With more computers accessible to students, demand for educational software products will probably increase, which will in turn ameliorate the financial picture faced by potential developers. Expand existing State programs for software review and evaluation. One of the problems of software review is that it focuses on technical program qualities (such as screen resolution) rather than on instructional effects. But evaluating the latter is a much more costly undertaking, which the Federal Government could better afford than individual States. In addition, there is a need for more systematic dissemination of evaluation findings of various existing review organizations. Fund research on system portability. If all schools used the same computer, software development costs would decrease. However, the choice of a standard might prematurely arrest hardware R&D, and might lock schools into systems that meet short-term goals at the expense of long-term progress. The Federal Government could reduce the problems arising from incompatible computer systems if it were to continue to support research on the development of transportable codes that would make programs written for one kind of computer compatible with other kinds of computers. Develop effective intellectual property rights strategies. Industry associations and academic consortia have been active in presenting to the public their case against unauthorized duplication of software. The Federal Government could help to facilitate agreements between State education agencies, software publishers, and school personnel on site-licensing, limited copying, and the development of pricing and distribution models that are compatible with the interests of software publishers and the educational community. PAGE 37 25 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT The Federal Role Todays most promising educational technolog y products are the result of Federal investments in R&D since the 1960s. These were developed with very modest levels of finding, and despite poor organization of the Federal R&D effort in education. Direct Federal funding of R&D for computer-based educational technology is about $200 million per year, a tiny fraction of the billions committed to other major categories of Federal R&D. Only $20 million of that is provided through the Department of Education. Investment in educational technology R&D has fallen since the mid-1980s. Federal policy for research on technology for the Nations students has been and remains erratic and disorganized, making it difficult to move from basic research to development, testing, and dissemination. There is no lead agency for educational technology and no coordinating structure across agencies. Despite this, individual agencies have played important roles. DoD took the lead in developing computer technolog y and applying it to education and training, beginning with early development of the computer and CAI. More recently, the military services have supported basic research in artificial intelligence, as well as developing prototypes and software for videodisc and interactive learning and training systems. NSF has had a major impact on educational technologies in use in schools today, although funding has varied greatly and emphasis shifted widel y over time. In the past 2 years, there has been a substantial increase in funding for advanced development of software and systems involvin g artificial intelligence, authorin g languages, problem solving tools, tutors and expert systems, and applications of technology to formal and informal learning environments. The Department of Educations research bud. get has always been a small percent of its overall funding, but even this figure declined dramatically in recent years. From 1973 to 1986, total Department of Education spending increased by 38 percent (in constant dollars). In the same period, rePhoto credit: Office of Library Programs, US. Department of Education American schools have long sought to provide the most up-to-date resources for education. search, statistics, and evaluation spending fell by 69 percent (in constant dollars). 23 Viewed another way, these reductions in resources for educational research, statistics, and evaluation were more severe than for other Federal agencies with similar missions. Overall Federal research funds grew dramatically between 1980 and 1984, but funds for the National Institute of Education declined by 48 percent. Similar drops were reported for statistical and evaluation funding in the Department. 24 Specifically, the National Institute of Educat[t]n exper[cn~mi a ~~ percent reduction, The National Center for Eclucatl[]nal Statistics a 65 percent reduction, and the OffIce of Plannlng, !3ud~et, and E\alua tlon a 64 percent reduction in constant 1972 Clollat->. Eleam]r Chellmskv, director, Program Evaluation and Nlethodoloxt DIilslon, General Accounting Office, testimony before the House Commlttce on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Select Education, Apr. 20, 198S, p. 8. ~+~lhlle the ~n~,estment in Statlstica] acttl,lt~, in other statlstica] agcll CIM clccllned by, 18 percent between 1980 and 1984, the National Cen, ter for Eclucatlon Statistics experienced a 28 percent reduction. And v.hlle resour~c~ for e~aluat~on in nondefense Federal departments and agen~ [es dropped b}, 37 pm-cent, the Department of Education fund< spent on etaluatlon contract< decllned by 63 percent. Iblcl, p. 9. PAGE 38 26 Support for R&D in technology dropped as well. Although important work was done on CAI in the 1960s, television programming in the 1970s, and new technology initiatives in the early 1980s, technology has been reemphasized by the Department since 1984. The Office of Educational Research and Improvement has supported few new technology projects. In those instances where R&D funding for education has been focused and consistent in the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation, the results have been positive and dramatic. Examples include technology for students with special needs: the physically and emotionally handicapped and the learning disabled; the development of childrens television programming from Sesame Street to Square One TV; and the development of LOGO. Support from the private sectorindustry and foundationshas also been important. Examples are many and varied, ranging from IBMs development of the Writing to Read program, Apples Classrooms of Tomorrow, which explore how an intense computer environment affects teaching and learning, up to the recently created Institute for Research in Learning, supported by the Xerox Corp. Without such private sector support, educational technology would be greatly impoverished. The Future of R&D Research in the cognitive, social, instructional, and computer sciences is changing our understanding of learning and teaching. Such research investigates education from the learners perspective, in contrast to the curriculum-centered approaches of past research. Using the learner as the focus of study, it examines the process of learning: the learners initial level of understanding, how preconceptions or misconceptions affect understanding, where blocks to new understanding exist, and how these can be overcome. This research, when combined with the power of computer-based technologies, has made possible the development of a number of promising innovations for education. These include: intelligent tutoring systems that can make the l l l l l l services of an expert and sensitive tutor regularly available to the learner; use of the computer as a flexible multimedia controller, adding the richness of video, graphic, and audio representations of information; simulations, exploratory laboratory experiences, and increasingly complex microworlds that build student understanding through exploration, manipulation, and guided discovery; integrated tools or intelligence extenders that enable learners to move from low-level tasks and concentrate instead on more cognitively demanding tasks; new assessment techniques that track learning, diagnose students conceptual understandings, and evaluate the attainment of a range of skills; new design/knowledge kits that enable teachers to create and shape their own teaching materials; and new curricula based on a changing vision of skills students need in the information age, shifting emphasis from what to learn to how to learn. OTA finds that the promising developments of learner-focused research will not reach full potential unless a number of important barriers are overcome. Researchers need costly hardware and advanced systems for R&D. There are shortages of researchers available to do interdisciplinary educational R&D. Extensive testing of materials and procedures in the schools is necessary. Technologies installed in schools today are not powerful enough to run sophisticated software applications suggested by advanced research. Commercial, industrial, and military applications have been the driving force in the marketplace for expert systems and other innovations; their requirements are seldom those of the schools. Much closer ties between the research community and the classroom are needed. A new dialog must be established among teachers, researchers, and school administrators. Teachers need to be exposed to and be part of new breakthroughs in education; researchers need a healthy dose of classroom realities. Classroom trials are essential to ongoing development and necessary to assess what works. The problem is that this takes time and funding. Contributions from many disciplines will also be required. PAGE 39 2 7 OTA finds that, if educational technology is to reach its full potential, the level of funding for R&D must be increased. The Federal Government must take principal responsibility for research, development, and demonstration in educational technology. Very few States, and fewer districts or individual schools have the capacity to conduct large-scale research. They also lack the capacity and incentive to disseminate products and findings. Moreover, the needs and opportunities to improve learning cross district and State boundaries. Business and private foundations can and should be part of the R&D effort, but only the Federal Government can provide leadership, pull together resources, and coordinate dissemination of results. Congress could build on existing programs: l l Increase funding and target research, development, dissemination, and evaluation in existing Federal R&D programs in various agencies. Congress could plan percentage increases in R&D budgets for educational technology efforts in the Department of Education, NSF, and the basic cognitive science research components in DoD for individual researchers and research centers. These grants and contracts could require school system collaboration as well as require contributions from the private sector to leverage Federal dollars. Set up mechanisms for Federal agencies conducting R&D in educational technology to pool resources, share information, and work more closely. It is particularly important to encourage technology transfer from the military to the civilian education community, since the military funding for technology R&D in education and training is seven times that of the civilian sector. Cooperative efforts could include interagency funding and co-sponsored program meetings and conferences. Congress could also request an annual or biannual report that: a) reviews the activities of all Federal agencies involved in educational technology, b) identifies opportunities to transfer technology from one type of activity to another, and c) recommends future research. Both these options could strengthen existing programs and allow for diversity of efforts. In light of the versatility and broad applications of new information technologies, diversity is desirable. However, these options carry the risk that technology efforts would have to compete with other Federal priorities for funding, as well as with one another, and no lead agency would emerge. Furthermore, interagency efforts are difficult to carry out. Moreover, without a concentration of resources and strategic planning on technology for education, it is difficult to make long-term investments. Valuable opportunities for education might be lost. Congress could support new initiatives to make significant changes. Policy options include: l l l Create centers for interactive technology and education. Centers would conduct research, development, demonstration, evaluation, and dissemination of educational technolog y projects, and would be tied closely to schools. This option would expand considerably current Federal and private sector R&D efforts 25 in terms of the scale of effort, level of funding, and longterm commitment. Centers should make it possible to attract and retain the best and brightest researchers from interdisciplinary fields to oversee projects from initiation to final evaluation and to distill and disseminate information. Create technology demonstration schools. Demonstrations would marshal all school resources (equipment, curriculum, teachers, administration, community, and parental support) for integrating technolog y in the daily life of the school. Evaluation of the educational effects of a technology-rich school environment would be a key element, especially if these sites were connected to university and other research centers. Develop a national education futures initiative that would include research, development, and demonstration in educational technology. This effort would pull together at the national level research, development, and dem-onstration; teacher training; software development in areas of critical need; longitudinal and comparative evaluations; and dissemination activities. Congress could include a sunset provision, perhaps using the year 2000 as an endpoint. 26 For example, the Department of Educations Educational Technology Center, or the newly formed Institute for Research on Learning, initiated by the Xerox Corp. Models for this level of effort include the Manhattan Project in atomic energy and the Apollo Mission to put a man on the Moon. PAGE 40 28 An effort of this magnitude would require establishment of a coordinating body or new institutional arrangement. One model is the British quango, 27 a quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organization that works closely with government on social policy issues. Such an education demonstration research corporationwith technology as a major area of study could bring together educators, funders, program operators, and researchers to support basic research and carry out rigorously designed development, demonstration, and evaluation projects. Both these programs sprang from a sense of national emergency and concentrated human, financial, and technological resources in a clearly articulated strategic plan of action. A national education futures initiative would not have the simply defined technical goal that characterized Manhattan and Apollo, but would focus national resources and provide momentum and commitment. ; Major R. Owens, chairman, House Subcommittee on Select Education, Committee on Education and Labor, Opening Statement, Oversight Hearings on the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Apr. 20-21, 1988. Finally, Congress may wish to consider new initiatives in international cooperation for educational technology R&D. The European community, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, the Soviet Union, and other nations are embarking on major efforts to use interactive technologies to improve education. The United States and these countries have common concerns, experiences, and outcomes, despite varying educational goals and cultural differences. Congress may wish to consider U.S. involvement in cooperative efforts such as sponsorship of conferences, exchange of researchers, electronic networking, and joint funding of projects. There are models for international scientific cooperation although little has been done to date with cooperative activities in educational technology R&D. Congress may wish to study this issue further, to identify the U.S. position with regard to other countries and to consider ways in which international efforts could proceed. PAGE 41 Chapter 2Interactive Technology in Today's Classrooms BORDER Shades Mountain Elementary School. Hoover, PAGE 42 CONTENTS Page Findings . . . . . . . . . . ........ 31 Adoption of Computer and Video Technologies: A Decade of Growth . . 31 Effects of Widespread Distribution . . . Student Access to Computers . . . . Beyond Computers and Video . . + . . Figures Figure 2-1. U.S. Public Schools With Computers, 1987-88 . . . . . . . 32 . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . . . 37 Page . . . . . . . 32 2-2. Annual Rate of Adoption of Computers in U.S. Public Schools, 1981-87.. . 32 2-3. U.S. Public Schools With At Least One Computer, by Grade Level, 1981-87. 33 24. VCRs and Computers in U.S. Public Schools, 1982-87. . . . . . 33 2-5. School Size and Student Access to Computers, 1987-88 . . . . . 35 2-6. Students Per Computer in U.S. Public Schools by School Enrollment, 1987-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2-7. Variation in Average Student-Computer Ratio by State, 1987-88 . . . 36 Tables Table Page 2-1. 2-2. 2-3. Distribution of Schools by Computer inventory, 1987-88 . . . . 34 Average Number of Students Ranges of Student Computer P& Computer in U.S. Density in U.S. Public Public Schools, 1983-87 34 Schools . . . . 34 PAGE 43 Chapter 2 Interactive Technology in Todays Classrooms The information age has arrived, and most are experiencing profound changes FINDINGS l There are currently between 1.2 and 1.7 million computers in U.S. public schools. Over 95 percent of all elementary and secondary schools now have at least one computer intended for instructional use, compared to 18 percent of schools in 1981. l The current installed base provides an average of 1 computer for every 30 children enrolled in U.S. public schools. School size as well as socioeconomic status of students are important determinants of the ratio of students to computers. However, actual student utilization of the technology depends l l Samuel Y. Gibbon, Learning and Instruction in the Information Age, Vthar Curriculum for the Information Age? Mary Alice White (cd.) (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987), p. 1. ADOPTION OF COMPUTER A DECADE Currently there are between 1.2 and 1.7 million computers in U.S. public schools. 2 Since the 1981 academic year, when data on computer use in schools began to be collected, the number of public schools with computers has grown from about 15,000 to about 77,000, representing an average annual increase of about 11 percent (see figure 2-1). ~Market Data Retrieval, Inc. and Quality Education Data, Inc., the leading market research firms specializing in school technologies, estimate the 1988 total at about 1.2 million available for instructional use. TALMLS, on the other hand, a firm that collects data on the computer industry more broadly, reports a total current base of 2.03 million, of which about 375,000 are in private schools. Finally, T.H.E. Journal, a prominent educational technolog y magazine, reports the highest figure, 2, 1 million overall, with 1.7 million in the public schools, based on their recent survey. Variations amon g these estimates are due largely to differences in sampling methodology and timing of surveys. societal institutions as a result. Samuel Y. Gibbon on many other factors, including the organization of computers in laboratories or classrooms, the availability of appropriate software, and the presence of qualified and interested instructors. Differences in access to computers between black and white students have abated as more schools have acquired computers. Gender differences in student access and utilization tend to dissipate when computer use is highly structured and closel y linked to the curriculum. Acquisition of video technolog y by schools has grown appreciably, following the pattern of computer acquisition. Today some 91 percent of all public schools use video technology (videocassette recorders, VCRs) for instruction. AND VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: OF GROWTH Peak growth occurred between 1983 and 1984, when 55 percent of the schools without computers acquired at least one (see figure 2-2). There are now computers in at least 95 percent of the 81,000 public schools (see figure 2-3). School adoption of the VCR, easily the second most prevalent new technology of instruction, started off a bit more slowly. In 1982, for example, when 37 percent of the schools had computers, only 31 percent had video. But by 1987, some 91 percent of schools were using video, close to the 95 percent that had computers 3 (see figure 2-4). This record of growth is impressive, and clearly suggests a widespread willingness on the part of Quality Education Data, Inc., personal communication, May 1988. 31 PAGE 44 32 Figure 2-1 .U.S. Public Schools With Computers, 1987-88 80 70 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 School year aTOtal number of IJ,S. public schools: approximately 81 ,Om. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment based on data from Market Data Retrieval, Inc., and Quality Education Data, Inc., 1988 school districts, schools, teachers, and parents to explore the possibilities of the new learning technologies. Schools have not embraced the new information tools as enthusiastically as American business firms, where office automation and computerbased data processing are ubiquitous; but they have shown an extraordinary eagerness to adapt these technologies to classroom teaching and learning. According to at least one prominent educator and advocate of increased use of electronic information tools, the U.S. has quickly become a world leader in its attempts to integrate computer-based learning in public schools. q In a period of less than 10 years, computer-based technologies were introduced to students with quite different intellectual and behavioral needs by teachers and administrators of varied backgrounds, experience, and technical skill, working in schools of diverse demographic, racial, ISpeaklng at the 1987 National Educatmnal G~mputing Conference in Ph]lacielphla, Mary Allce White noted that American publlc school adoption ~~f ~c~mputer~ I n the last 7 }cari wa~ the largest and fastest In the world. Figure 2-2.Annual Rate of Adoption of Computers in U.S. Public Schools, 1981-87 a 1 1 1 1 1981198219831984198519861982 1983 1984 198 5 1986 198 7 School year aThis graph shows the annual acquisition of computers amon9 schools which had no computers in the previous year SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment based on data from Quality Education Data, Inc., 1988. ethnic, and economic composition. Indeed, the available evidence points to a remarkably high rate of use: as of 1985, the latest year for which such data are available, less than 5 percent of the computers or terminals on school premises were not in use. 5 Effects of Widespread Distribution These growth statistics tend to obscure an important fact about the rate and magnitude of computer acquisition. As of 1985, only half of the computerusing high schools and 6 percent of the computerusing elementary schools had 15 or more computers in any one classroom; it is doubtful whether all or even half the students in typical classrooms had acThis figure is based on unpublished data from Henry Beckers survey of school use of computers. For more information on this survey see Henry Becker, Center for Social Orgamzation of Schools, The Johns Hopkins University, Instructional Llses of School Computers: Reports From the 198> National Sur\ey, Issue No. 2, August 1986. PAGE 45 33 Figure 2-3. U.S. Public Schools With At Least One Figure 2-4.VCRS and Computers in U.S. Public Computer, by Grade Level, 1981.87 Schools, 1982.87 100 I 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 1 ( 1 1 1981 1982 1983 1964 1985 1986 198 7 School year SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment based on data from Market Data Retnevd, Inc 1988 cess to computers. 6 Most schools still do not have the quantity of computers that would be necessar y to make them an integral part of the instructional day. Note, however, that the available data show differences b y grade level in acquisition patterns and in the size of the installed base. As shown in table 2-1, very few elementar y schools have a large number of computers, while over half the high schools do. Broad diffusion of the new technology characterized the first decade of this instructional innovation. Perhaps a more selective introduction of computers and software could have been more effective at achievin g certain well-defined instructional goals. 7 Henry Becker, Center for Social Organization of Schools, The Johns Hopkins University, Instruct[ona] Uses of School Computers: Reports From the 1985 National Survey, Issue No. 1, June 1986. See, for example, James W. Guthrw, Campaign and Education: A Primer for Presidential Candidates, I%i Dclra Kappan, \ol. 69, No. 7, Nlarch i988. The author writes: The pre~aillng stratcgv for lntrodu~]ng computms In U.S. educ-atlon has not hem to find effcttlt,e wavs to supplement human instruction, hut rather to ensure that each student has an equal, if inadequate, number of minutes each dai on the computer (p. 51 6). 100 90 80 70 60 5 0 40 30 20 10 0 I / / ( I 1 1 ~ 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Year SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment based on data from Quality Education Data Inc., 1988 There is a general consensus, however, that decentralized acquisition and implementation created an explorator y atmosphere in which students learning styles, teachers pedagogical methods, and various approaches to software design could be tried. 8 Preliminary results from this natural experiment are just now comin g in (see, for example, chapter 3), and while there is alread y a basis of data on which to formulate strategies for the next round of technolog y implementation and utilization, there is still a need for open-mindedness and ongoin g evaluation. Student Access to Computers Todays inventory of school computers translates to a rough average of 1 computer for every 30 chilFor an alternative vle;~ espousing greater State-le\el targeting of computer resoumes, see Stanle}, Pogrow, PolicY, Recommendation> for Developin g Appropriate Uses of Technology in California Schools, testlmon} before the AssemblY, Committee on Economic Development and New Technologies, Cahfornia State Ix%is]ature, on the Educational Techno]og} Local Assistance Program, Jan. 5, 1988. PAGE 46 34Table 2-1.Distribution of Schools by Computer Inventory, 1987=88Number of computers Schools with computers12-58-1011-2021+ Total Elementary. . . . . . 5,38813,16413,05912,6473,900 48,158 (11.2/0) (27.3%) (27.10/o) (26.30/o) (8.1%) Junior high. . . . . . .354 1,636 2,1353,505 4,592 12,222 (2.90/o) (13.4/0) (17,5/0) (28.70/o) (37.60/o) Senior high . . . . . .3401,3482,0733,8177,320 14,898 (2.30/o) (9.0/0) (13.9/0) (25.60/o) (49,1/0) Total schools with computers . 6,08216,14817,26719,96915,812 75,278 approximately that are not classified as elementary, or senior SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment based on data from Quality Education Data, Inc., 1988 update.1 hour per week on the computer. Between 1983and 1988, the national average improved from about92 students per computer to the current level (seetable 2-2). In exceptional cases, each child has a com-puter at school and another one at home. But most schools still do not have sufficient quantities to allow most students in a typical class access at the same time (see table 2-3). There is substantial variance in use of computers across schools of different size, demographic composition, and location. As OTA reported in 1987, school size is a significant correlate of computerownership and pupil access. In absolute terms, smallschools have fewer computers than large ones, but Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Trends and Status of Computers in Schools: Use in Chapter 1 Programs and Use With Limited English Students, staff paper, March 1987.Table 2-2.Average Number of Students Per Computer in U.S. Public Schools, 1983=87Grade level19831984 1985 1986 1987 Elementary ..........112.4 79.3 55.3 43.7 36.8 Junior high . . 92.3 61.2 41.6 32.9 27.6 Senior high . . 76.651.5 37.9 31.1 26.3 All . . . . 92.3 63.5 45.5 36.5 30.8SOURCE: Market Data Retrieval, Inc., 1966.Photo credit: Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyAvailable evidence points to a high rate of computer utilization: as of 1985, less than 5 percent of the computers on school premises were not in use.dren. Some teachers have turned this constraint intoan opportunity by connecting the classroom com-puter to a large screen and involving the entire classat once in various learning activities. However, onaverage, computer-using students spend only aboutTable 2=3.-Ranges of Student Computer Density in U.S. Public SchoolsStudentsPercent of schools per computer Elementary Junior high Senior high 1-29 . . . .34.5%43.4%53.1 0/030-59 . . .33.334.3 31.460-89 . . .14.410.9 8.290-119 . . 7.14.8 3.4120+ . . .10.7 6.63.9SOURCE: Office of Technology based on data Quality Education Data, Inc., 1968, PAGE 47 35 smaller schools have proportionally more computers than large schools (see figure 2-5). Thus, students who attend relatively small schools are likely to have greater access to computers than students in large schools. This enrollment penalty factor was documented several years ago 10 and seems to have persisted even as overall growth in computer acquisition and utilization has continued. For example, as shown in figure 2-6, schools with 100 to 199 students on average have twice as good a ratio of students to computers as large schools with 500 to 999 students. Because minority students are more likely to attend large urban schools, their access to computers has been worse than that of white students. This pattern is aggravated by the fact that wealthier schools have acquired technology more rapidly than schools with students of predominantly low socio Challtv Educat~on Data, Inc., Microcomputers and VCR Lsage In SCTh(XI1.S, 19S5-19% (Denver, CO: 1986). Figure 2-5. School Size and Student Access to Computers, 1987-88 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 Figure s 2-6.Students Per Computer in chools by School Enrollment, 19 5 0 I I % 40 3 0 2 0 10 0 U.S. Public 87-88 I 17.3 29.4 22.9 34. 7 33.1 <100 100 200 300 500 1000 2500+ -199 -299 -499 -999 -2500 Enrollment calculations were b-d on sample of 72,159 schools In the database for which all data were obtainad. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment based on data from Market Data Retrieval, Inc., 1988. economic status (SES). In addition, after controlling for SES and school size and location, all of which have influenced acquisition of new technology, OTA found from an analysis of 1985 data that predominantly black elementar y schools were significantly less likely than predominantl y white schools to have a computer.!] Average student access also varies by region, as shown in figure 2-7. It is interesting to note that access to video equipment varies by State, but that States with relativel y good access to one type of technolog y do not necessarily do as well with other technologies. Alaska, for example, which was ranked first in average number of students per computer in 1986, was ranked 11th in average access to video Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 9, pp. 28-29. Note that this Prohlem has abated since 1985, because there are now very few schools left l~rithout ant computers. PAGE 48 36 / .,. I .,.. PAGE 49 3 7 It is important to keep in mind that these estistalled modern computer laboratory equipment mates of student access provide rough measures at (such as networking or communications devices), best. For example, while a school with 300 students children in that school could benefit more from the and 3 computers has a better ratio (100 students per technology than their counterparts in small schools computer) than a school with 2,250 students and which do not have the important additional equip15 computers (150: 1), access and use might be sument and which may not be as technologically adperior in the latter school. If the large school has vanced. acquired more sophisticated software, or has inBEYOND COMPUTERS AND VIDEO Computers and VCRs have become familiar fixtures in the American classroom. There is a strong belief on the part of many educators that these learning tools belong in the classroom, and there is widespread interest in understanding the conditions necessary for the new technologies to realize their potential. In addition, the rapid adoption of computers for classroom use has stimulated great interest in even more advanced systems, and in linking the powers of the computer to other communications and information technologies. Indeed, much of the current school equipment is technologicall y crude compared to the advanced systems commonly found in business, scientific, and military settings. Computers typically found in schools, compared to typical office computers, operate with one-quarter the speed and about half the screen resolution quality. Thus, while these computers are being used in many areas of instruction, they typically cannot accommodate the latest developments in software that call for substantial storage and high-speed processing. The new instructional technologies are costly. Even free-standing computer and peripheral equipment, such as disc drives and printers, can be taxing to local school budgets (see chapter 4). Nevertheless, advanced systems have begun to appear in some schools. For example, as discussed in greater detail in chapter 8, there are over 6,000 schools with modems, 15 and over 26,000 schools in districts with modems; 35 States currently support distance learning programs, many of which use satellite technology to bring instruction to children in isolated areas; there are roughly 650 school districts with satellite dishes; and some schools have installed networked systems of computers, which often include integrated instructional and classroom management software. At the same time, advances in software design, which tend to outpace the capacity of schools hardware, have shown how basic research in cognition and learning might be applied to classroom instruction. Some of the newest software exploits the increasing convergence among computer, television, and telephone technologies, embodied in such devices as the laser disc or the electronic bulletin board. But these systems are still prohibitivel y expensive for most schools. At present, the most sophisticated technologies for interactive learning are still in the experimental stagein the research laborator y and in a handful of classrooms, Their fuller implementation awaits continued evidence of their potential effectiveness, and will depend on an array of factors: their compatibility with teachers current and future classroom roles; the crafting of economic and organizational policies to stimulate the production and distribution of affordable and appropriate software; and research that blends laboratory findings with the realities of current and future classrooms. We turn now to these issues. f Modems enable computer users to communicate oler telephone lines. See ch. 8. 87-002 0 88 2 : QL 3 PAGE 50 38 Thirty-five States currently support distance learning programs, many of which use satellite technology to bring instruction to isolated areas. This generic system combines broadcast or narrowcast with VCR use in a media center or class. Most systems have some, but not all, of these elements. Interactive television made it possible to offer a foreign language class for the first time in 20 years to students in Mackinaw City on Michigans Upper Peninsula. PAGE 51 Chapter 3The Impact of Technology on Learning PAGE 52 CONTENTS Page 41 42 44 45 48 51 51 52 53 54 56 58 59 60 60 61 61 63 65 Box 3-A. Solving Problems With the Algebra Tutor 3$. Microcomputer-Based Laboratories in Practice . . . ..... . . . .... Page 50 55 Figures Page Figure 3-l. Teachers Perceptions of Effects of Using Computers in Classrooms. . . 41 3-2. Graphing Equations Using the Computer . . . . . . . . 57 Writing Scoresby Table Page PAGE 53 Chapter 3 The Impact of Technology on Learning INTRODUCTION One of the most obvious questions about using interactive technologies in schools is, Do they work? Against a background of growing concern with the way American public school children are prepared for productive adult lives, computers and other electronic media have been hailed for their potential role in achieving a wide range of educational objectives. While only a handful of the most solve the difficult problems of American public education, many educators believe that interactive technologies can be an important element, if not the linchpin, in a broader program of organizational and substantive reforms. Surveyed for their perceptions of the effects of computers in the classroom, computer-using teachers supplied a long list of educational objectives for which they believe the technolfervent visionaries think that technology alone can ogy has a positive effect (see figure 3-1). Figure 3-1.-Teachers Perceptions of Effects of Using Computers in Classrooms I for which they use computers disabled students 8 I o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent of responding teachers who reported that as a result of using computers this is MUCH IMPROVED at our school, a aReSpOnderltS could have choserr somewhat improved, little changed, Or negatively affected. SOURCE: 1985 National Survey of the Instructional Uses of School Computers, Center for the Social Organization of Schools, The Johns Hopkins University. 41 PAGE 54 4 2 Given the promise of technology, a sizable number of educational researchers have taken an interest in systematic and scientific evaluation. State and local education officials also want to know about the performance of these technologies as substitutes and complements for alternative classroom strategies. 1 The basic questionDo they work? covers the full spectrum of our expectations (and demands) of the schools: Do the technologies improve students acquisition of basic language and computational skills? To what extent are childrens higher order intellectual skills sharpened or dulled by exposure to computer-related systems? Are traditionally deprived childrenthose with physical, emotional, economic, or geographic disadvantagesreached more effectively by electronic learning tools than by traditional methods? Do the technologies help or hinder childrens socialization skills and motivation? By and large, the research to date supports the continued use of instructional technologies in the schools. But it is important to point out that questions of performance and productivity are much more easily asked than answered, in part because the near-term effects of educational technologies are not necessarily the same as the vision of what these technologies might achieve in the long run. For example, there is evidence that computer-assisted instruction (CAI) can raise achievement test scores for some students; but there is also wide agreement that computer technologies can already do more than provide electronic equivalents of drill and practice workbooks, and that much of their future promise lies in experimentation and development of nontraditional learning methods. Without evidence of short-run gains, teachers and students will lose faith in the long-run possibilities The issue of cost-effectiveness, i.e., how the technologies compare to other methods per dollar of expenditure, is taken up in ch. 4. of the new learning tools; if so, it will be difficult to garner the political and financial support necessary to realize the technologies potential. On the other hand, if short-run effects are overemphasized, researchers and practitioners may lose sight of the longer-term potential, in which case the grander vision of the technologies role in education will remain a vision. This basic tension is manifest in much of the literature surveyed in this chapter. Many early studies of CAI, for example, relied on changes in standardized mathematics and reading scores as the criteria for effectiveness. This approach allows for rigorous measurement, because test scores provide a quantitative proxy for a range of cognitive outcomes; but there is concern with the validity of standardized tests generally, and with their impact on teachers classroom strategies. Further, standardized tests are not indicators of long-run effects of interactive technologies on higher order analytical and language skills specifically. On the other hand, tests that could measure other goals of education, including motivation, creativity, and social behavior, are necessarily constrained by state-of-the-art measurement techniques. The research reviewed here addresses a wide range of learning technologies, applied in many different settings with diverse populations of children and teachers. Although the results are somewhat scattered and impressionistic, they do suggest how certain configurations of hardware and software, used with particular populations of children and under the supervision of competent teachers, contribute to the achievement of specific instructional objectives. In the light of these considerations, school administrators planning the implementation of a particular computer-based system need to tailor the application to their schools and students needs, and should not expect to see aggregate research results exactly replicated in their particular environment. FINDINGS l CAI has been the most researched of the various interactive technologies. It has been demonstrated to be an effective supplement to traditional classroom instruction. In particular, elementary school children who used CAI showed gains equivalent to between 1 and 8 months of instruction over peers who received only traditional instruction. CAI may be more effective for low- PAGE 55 43lPhoto credit: Kjell-Jon Rye, Bellevue High School, Bellevue, WashingtonHands-on technology applications provide meaningful contexts for learning and encourage students to learn from one another.achieving students than for average and high abil-ity students, even when controlling for base-ratedifferences between these groups. While most con-ventional CAI programs involve drill and practice, there is evidence that the method can be applied to improving higher-order thinking skillsamong disadvantaged children. A number of CAIstudies have been challenged on methodologicalgrounds.Intelligent CAI (ICAI), or intelligent tutoring sys-tems, represent an attempt to apply advanced artificial intelligence techniques and theories of humancognition, and are considerably more complex than standard CAI. ICAI programs employ a wider variety of teaching strategies than conventional CAI, and allow for more thorough analysis of individual students skills, knowledge, and problem solving processes. Some ICAI systemstrack an individual users thought processes, identify problems, and provide specific exercises in re-sponse. Experimenters with ICAI have pioneered new approaches to teaching of mathematics, sci-ence, and language. These technologies, especiallythose that are based on so-called natural lan-guage processing, are still in their earliest stage of development. Effects of teaching computer programming as ameans to learn analytical skills more generally aremixed. The possibility of using programming asa way to prepare mathematics teachers has gainedcredibility, although new and better research is PAGE 56 44 needed. There is limited evidence that programming develops basic thinking abilities. l Simulation programs have been effective in teaching principles in both the physical and social sciences. l Microcomputer-based laboratories (MBLs)--probes and measurement tools attached to a computer for use in scientific, mathematical, or musical laboratorieshave been shown to help students grasp complex concepts as well as to master important analytical techniques (like graphing). The skill of the teacher using the MBL is a critical factor. l The teaching of graphing concepts stands out as an exemplary application of computer technology in the classroom. l Database management programs have become very popular in classrooms. Limited research results suggest that students who use computerized data management systems outperform other students in tests of information processing skills, including identification of requisite information to solve a given problem and selection of efficient modes of organizing information. l Word processing tools account for roughly 10 percent of the available instructional applications of computer technologies. While these tools do not, in and of themselves, create better writers, they have demonstrated their importance in easing the physical requirements of writing and revising. Both normal and learning disabled students who used the word processor as a supplement to writing instruction made significant gains in writing ability, compared to control groups that did not receive the computer-assisted intervention. In addition, the advent of word processing technology has stimulated new research on essential strategies for reading, critiquing, and revising ones own written work, some of which are now being incorporated into new writing software. Reading comprehension can be strengthened through computer-aided reading programs that aim to improve comprehension through interaction with the whole text. These include decoding and word recognition programs, text mediation programs, and speech synthesis. Disabled readers seem to enjoy using these technologies, and have made progress in important aspects of reading. Electronic networkslocal, national, and internationalbuild cultural bridges that connect children working on different types of projects in different places. Several science-related communications networks are particularly promising. In addition, these systems offer a form of distance learning to children and teachers in remote rural areas. EVALUATION RESEARCH: SCOPE AND METHODS 2 Most of the data on the effectiveness of educational technology comes from research on the uses of computers to enhance learning. The computer has several unique features relevant to education. The computer interacts: students provide information to the computer and receive immediate feedback. The computer is precise: learners must be specific and precise in their instructions or responses. The computer is consistent: instruction and feedback provided in a computer program will be the same for every student who interacts with that program. In addition, the feedback a student receives ~The remainder of this chapter draws heavily on Joanne Capper, Center for Research Into Practice, Computers and Learning: Do They Work? A Review of Research, OTA contractor report, Jan. 21, 1988. is private. Children do not risk public criticism and embarrassment with a response, and they often have many chances to try again. The computer can provide multiple and dynamic representations of a concept, phenomenon, or a relationship. Over the past 30 years, computers have been used in education primarily to provide drill and practice or to convey traditional course content. These uses of the computer had the benefits of releasing teachers from the drudgery of drill and practice, freeing them to work with other students on more complex material, and motivating students to attend to otherwise tedious learning tasks. These early uses of the computer did not necessarily address the more creative, reflective, or meaningful aspects of learning. PAGE 57 . 45 It is only in the last few years that computer use has moved beyond this workbook approach to learning. Only now are there more than a few software and computer applications that encourage the active construction of knowledge, provide meaningful contexts for learning, promote reflection, foster intellectual work similar to that encountered in an adults work world, and free students from many of the tedious aspects of learning, There are several approaches to studying the effects of computers in the classroom. Cognitive researchers focus on the intellectual processes that are tapped by the computer. Their focus is often the individual student engaged in a problem solving task. Because research in cognition has successfully explored the finer-grained aspects of teaching and learning, it has been able to contribute to some of The revlmv of research that follows is intended to be Illustrative rather than comprehensite, The studies described were selected to give the reader a sense of the type of research underway and the trends that are emerging from the results of that research. The methods used for Identlfylng sources consisted of: 1) Educational Resc>urccs Information Center (ERIC) and IIbrary searches; 2) references cited in research articles; 3) telephone calls to funding agencies (L1.S. Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and the Office of Na\al Research); and 4) telephone calls to researchers regarding the status of their work and to identify others working in the field. The latter two methods were found to be the most efficient In that fundcrs and researchers tend to be familiar with the work of their colleagues. The primary focus of this retlew IS computer-tool applications as used In basic sub)ect areas. The areas not addressed include: computer use at the college and university level; computer use In milltary train[ng; Instructional design Issues; social, affective, and equity Issues; videodiscs; distance Iearnlng; modeling; and computer applications in art, music, foreign language, or vocational education. the more sophisticated developmental work with computers. The strength of this line of research is that it can tell us how something works (e.g., a piece of software) and why it affects learners that way valuable information to guide future efforts. Other studies consider how the technology or the software is used by individuals, b y small groups of students, or by entire classrooms. Often the intent of this type of research is to improve the software or computer application, or to determine the extent and type of training needed to support teachers in their use of the technology. Some studies of this sort explore the contextual factors that influence how computers are used in schoolsfactors such as district support, extent of resources (hardware, software, and training), or equity issues. Traditional experimental studies where computer-using students are compared to control groups of students working on the same topics without computers can reveal whether or not a treatment worked in a particular setting; but they usually omit information about why a particular treatment worked. Current testing techniques are relatively advanced in assessing whether or not students have learned basic content knowledge, but are still immature in assessing more complex thinking skills and changes in attitude toward learning. Many computer applications aim to enhance complex types of thinking and problem solving abilities. Without appropriate techniques to measure these abilities, we can onl y infer effects. Consequently, the research findings reviewed in the following pages are limited to effects that can be currently measured. COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION For almost 30 years, computers have been used to provide instruction and drill and practice in basic computation and language skills. CAI is the oldest instructional application of computers and the most researched. 4 The early CAI programs were pro.See, for example, P.K. Burns and W.C. Bozeman, ComputerAssisted Instruction and Mathematics Achievement: Is There a Relationship? Educational Tmhnology, October 1981; Joanne Capper and Carol Copple, Computers in Education: Research Review and Instructional Implications, The Research Into Practice Digest, vol. 12, No. 3, spring 1986; J.F. Vinsonhaler and R.K. Bass, A Summar y of the Major Studies on CAI Drill and Practice, Educarlonal Technology, vialed through large mainframe, time-sharing computer systems, operated and controlled from a central location. Examples of such systems include PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations), created at the University of Illinois, and Stanford Universitys CAI project for elementary reading and mathematics skills. vol. 12, 1972; Dean Jamison et al., How Effective Is CAI? A Review of the Research, Educational Leadership, vol. 33, 1975; and S.S. Hartley, University of Colorado, Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Individually Paced Instruction in Mathematics, doctoral dissertation, 1977. PAGE 58 46 Until recently, mainframe or minicomputers were necessary to accommodate comprehensive and integrated curricula that could cover the entire grade span of an elementary or secondary school. With advances in memory and speed of microcomputers, however, and with the emergence of optical storage media (such as compact disc-read only memory, known as CD-ROM), integrated approaches to CAI no longer require mainframe computers: systems now being marketed by several companies use a microcomputer-based file server located in the same computer laboratory where the children work at terminals. While this change has brought about substantial cost reduction, it has not changed the basic philosophy of CAI, which involves a direct link between student and software and the transfer of basic instructional decisions from teacher to curriculum developer. Even after the introduction of stand-alone computers (microcomputers), CAI programs remained little more than computerized workbooks. Information was presented on the screen, students were asked to indicate a response, and their response was evaluated. If the student was correct, he or she moved on; if incorrect, similar additional problems were given until correct responses were elicited. Many programs of this type are still used because they have proven effective when used in conjunction with traditional instruction. Critics of CAI argue that drill and practice tasks could be done just as easily without computers. Another complaint is that CAI promotes passivity on the part of the user. Advocates argue that many students who have not mastered basic skills can benefit from drill and practice, and that the computer helps to motivate students. In addition, the teacher is freed up to provide initial instruction and to work with individuals or small groups of children. Hundreds of studies were conducted to determine the effectiveness of CAI. Several researchers have synthesized the results of a number of individual studies conducted at various levels to see if the results held up across studies. These syntheses reveal that elementary level students who received brief daily CAI lessons as a supplement to instruction showed gains equivalent to 1 to 8 months of instruction over their peers who received traditional inSecond graders views of computers, submitted to the Computer Learning Month contest. struction only. 5 However, when CAI is used as the sole basis for instruction, the results are mixed. Other findings show that CAI is more effective at raising achievement among low-achieving students than for average or high-achieving students, and that students complete material faster with CAI than with traditional instruction, sometimes as much as 40 percent faster. Increases in student attendance, motivation, and attention span have also been reported in most studies. Students who learned on the computer remembered as much of the maJames A. Kulik et al., Effectiveness of Computer-Based Education in Elementary Schools, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 1, 1985, pp. 59-7. PAGE 59 4 7 terial as did students who received traditional instruction only. Similar results were revealed in studies of CAI with secondary or college and adult populations, However, the gains in achievement were less significant. 6 One criticism of CAI is based on a question of equity. Economically disadvantaged children and low-achieving children, many of whom are in federally supported programs (for example, under Chapter 1 of the Education and Consolidation Improvement Act of 1981), use the computer largely for drill and practice in basic skills. Gifted students, as well as children in predominantly white lowincome schools, do less CAI and more programming than do students in predominantly minority elementary schools. ; It might be argued that low-achieving students are more likely to need the type of support provided by drill and practice. But while low-achieving students do need to master basic skills, they can also benefit from instruction that develops their higher cognitive abilities and learning strategies, Unfortunately, there is a tendency to consider such instruction beyond the ability of low-achieving students and to offer only gifted and high-achieving students such opportunities (with and without the computer). An exception is the Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) Program developed at the University of Arizona. The program is designed to teach thinking skills to Chapter 1 students, primarily by teaching teachers to ask questions that elicit thinking responses. Teachers are also taught how to use selected software as the focus of Socratic dialogs with students. Early results indicate that Chapter 1 students enrolled in the HOTS program showed substantiall y Dean Jamumn et al., The Effect\vcness of Alternative Instructional Med[a: A Survey, Re\ie\+ of Educational Research, vol. W, No. 2, 1974, pp. 1-6; D.N. Hansen, Computer Assistance With the Educational Process, Re\iew of Educational Research, vol. 36, 1966, pp. 588603; and David B. Thomas, The Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction in Secondary Schools, AEDSjourna/, vol. 12, No. 3, 1979, pp. 103-115. Henry J. Becker, School Uses of Microcomputers: Reports From a Aarlonal Survey (Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools, The Johns Hopkins Univers~ty, 1983-1984), issues 1-6; and Ellzabeth Reisner, The L!~e of Computers In Instructwn Supported L1nder Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidatmn and Impro~cment Acr (Washington, DC: Policy Studm Association, 1983). Beau F. Jones, Qualitv and Equalltv Through Cognitl\e Instruction, Educational Lcadershlp, April 1986, pp. 5-11, greater gains on standardized tests when compared with the national average. According to its developer, the HOTS program is designed to develop thinking abilities among students in Chapter 1 programs. While the results concerning the effects of CAI are generally favorable, they are based on studies that have been frequently criticized on methodological grounds. One problem, for example, is that the computer treatments in some studies were supplementary while control treatments were not. Students using computers would receive 40 minutes per day in mathematics instruction, 10 of which would be devoted to drill and practice on the computer, while the control students would only receive 30 minutes of instruction. In this case, one cannot be sure that the increased performance of the treatment students was due to the extra 10 minutes per da y or to the drill and practice on the computer. Would the results be so significant if the control students received an extra 10 minutes using flash cards or some other form of drill? Other flaws include disproportionate attrition from experimental groups, nonrandom assignment of students to treatments, incommensurable instructional content provided to control groups, and differences in relevant teacher attributes in control and treatment groups. In one review study, 26 out of 51 research reports were deemed unusable because of various methodological problems; however, the positive results of CAI remained stable even after eliminating the flawed studies. 10 The main problem with the results of this 30year body of research is that it provides no insight into how CAI produced those learning outcomes. It is only recently that researchers have begun to ask more useful questions, such as how and what students learn when the y interact with computerbased instruction. A national field study being led by Henry Becker of The Johns Hopkins Universit y Stanley Pogrow, Preliminary Report on the Effectl\cness of the HOTS Program, unpublished data, 1987. pHenry J. Becker, The Impacr of C(~mputer Lsc on Ch//drens Learning: What Research Has Shown and Mhat It Has Aot (Baltlmore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University, Center for social C)rgan(zation of Schools, 1987). See also Richard E. Clark, Evidence for Confounding in Computer-Based Instruction Studies: Analyzing the Meta-Anal\~ses, Educational Communications and Technolog\Journal, \ol. 33, 1985, pp. 2-1~-262; and Patrick Suppes and Mona Morningstar, ComputerAssisted Instruction, Science, \ICI1. 166, Oct. 17, 1969, pp. 3+3-350. PAGE 60 48 is designed to provide information about the features of various computer-based programs that influence learning. The study has a large and representative sample, will last 3 years or more, and will collect information on how various programs are implemented in different grades and for different subjects each year. Intelligent CAI ICAI is a branch of artificial intelligence devoted to developing instruction in curricular areas. The distinctions between CAI and ICAI are subtle and profound. With CAI, instruction is controlled by the developer of the program who determines what is presented, how much information is presented, the order of presentation, and the specific questions to which the student must respond. CAI programs cannot respond to students questions, responses, or problems that are not specifically designated in advance by the programmer. ICAI programs, on the other hand, theoretically increase students control over the machine and allow them the opportunity to learn by doing. Students interact with the computer rather than merely respond to it in a prespecified way; tutoring is often carried on in dialog form as a response to student input. In addition, ICAI is characterized by a far more thorough and finegrained analysis of the skills, knowledge, and procedures involved in solving problems in a subject area. The strength of ICAI is not only the substantially more precise and detailed understanding of the nature of learning and problem solving, but also the ability of the program to articulate, or make transparent that understanding in a form that can be absorbed by the student. ICAI programs specify in detail a mix of three types of knowledge: the declarative knowledge (what), the procedural knowledge (how), and the metacognitive knowledge (thinking about what and how). ICAI, also referred to as an intelligent tutoring system, can generate and solve problems, store and retrieve data, diagnose students misconceptions, select appropriate teaching strategies, and carry on dialogs with students. In addition, intelligent tutoring systems employ a wider variety of teaching strategies than are likely to be found in a simple CAI programs. Many intelligent tutoring programs incorporate simulations and/or games that allow students the opportunity to try out their evolving models of knowledge in a domain. Two science programs exemplify these advanced CAI efforts. Batteries and Bulbs, developed by researchers and educators at the Educational Technology Center at the University of California, Irvine, teaches electric circuitry in a way that conveys important aspects of the scientific method. It simulates electric circuit problems and students connect wires on the screen with the objective of lighting a simulated bulb. In addition, the program keeps track of a students progress, offering assistance if a student consistently makes mistakes on a particular type of problem. Studies of Batteries and Bulbs show that students typically complete the program within an average of 2 hours and exhibit a qualitative understanding of terms such as current and resistance, and a rudimentary understanding of a model of simple electrical circuits. 12 QUEST is another program in electric circuitry that contains simulation activities, but unlike those in Batteries and Bulbs, the QUEST simulations allow students a variety of solutions to a problem while also designing an arbitrary circuit of their own that they can test through simulation. This aspect of the simulation works because all of the formal electrical laws of circuitry are built into the program and used to determine whether or not a circuit works. In addition, the proof or solution of a circuit is broken down and students can walk through a step-by-step, voice-simulated explanation of the proof. The QUEST learning environment provides students with the opportunity to select from among several instructional approaches. For example, the open-ended exploration option lets students construct and modify circuits and test them with the simulation to see how they work, and with the problem-driven learning option, the system presents a series of problems for students to solve and gives 1}James L. Poirot and Cathleen A. Norris, Artificial Intelligence Applications in Education, The Computing Teacher, August/September 1987, pp. 8-10. Much of the information in this section is drawn from Christopher J. Dede et al., Massachusetts Education Development Center, Intelligent Computer-Assisted Instruction: A Review and Assessment of ICAI Research and Its Potential for Education, unpublished manuscript, 1985. lzAlfred B o r k, Personal Compurers for ~ducarion (New York) y : Harper & Row, 1985). PAGE 61 4 9 computer-generated voice explanations of the solution when requested by the student. QUEST is based on cognitive research that identified the essential knowledge about electric circuits and the optimal way to teach that knowledge. As of fall 1986, seven students have worked with the complete QUEST program, and after 5 hours of play, all of the students were able to answer simple questions about circuits and could troubleshoot for opens and shorts-to-ground in series circuits. 13 Developers of intelligent tutoring systems have attempted to integrate findings from research on how novices learn and how experts solve problems. For example, a feature found in some programs is the audit trail, which leaves a record of a students work as he or she progresses through problem solving. This trail allows students to look back over their own or other students work and to reflect on the relative value of various approaches to problem solving. The intelligent tutoring system allows students to practice problem solving strategies, and is designed to diagnose errors and provide feedback when a student makes an error or needs help. The tutor does not intervene as long as the student generates correct solution steps. Box 3-A illustrates and describes how an algebra problem is solved with an intelligent tutoring program called the Algebra Tutor. Similarly, the Geometry Tutor is an intelligent tutoring system that employs audit trails and is currently under stud y at Carnegie-Mellon Universitys Advanced Computer Tutoring Project. 14 It provides instruction in proving geometry theorems and focuses on teaching students to problem solve and to plan when they prove theorems. According to the authors of the Geometry Tutor, these skills are seldom emphasized in a standard geometry curric1]Barbara Y. White and J.R. Frederiksen, Intelligent Tutoring Systems Based Upon Qualitative Model Evolutions, Proceedings ofAAAI86: The National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Philadelphia, PA: American Association of Artificial Intellgience, 1986); and Barbara Y. White and J.R. Frederiksen, Progressions of Qualitative Models as Foundation for Intelligent Learning Environments, Report No. 6277 (Cambridge, MA: BBN Laboratories Inc., 1986). I+John R Anderson et a]., The Geometry Tutor (Pittsburgh, pA; Carnegie-Mellon University, Advanced Computer Tutoring Project, 1985); C.F. Boyle, The Geometry Tutoring Project in Action, Educational Leadership, March 1986; and C.F. Boyle and John R. Anderson, Acquisition and Automated Instruction of Geometr y Proof Skills, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1984. ulum. Students often complete a geometry course with only a modest abilit y to generate proofs and little deep understanding of the nature of proofs. The Geometry Tutor monitors students while the y are actuall y engaged in solving the problems and provides instruction and guidance during the problem solving process. Students do not have to wait until their papers are corrected to receive feedback. Feedback is immediate, precise, instructionally relevant, and based on a far more thorough analysis of problem solving behavior than would be possible with one teacher and a classroom full of students. The Geometry Tutor was initially tested on a few high school students, some who had no geometr y instruction and some who had just completed a high school geometry course. After 10 hours of instruction, all students were able to solve problems that their teachers considered too difficult to assign to their classes. In fact, a student who had almost failed geometry was successful, and the students considered their time on the computer as fun. The researchers are now testing the Geometry Tutor in a high school, comparing the treatment students performance with that of a control group of students, Other intelligent tutoring systems have been developed in a variety of areas. For example, SOPHIE (Sophisticated Instructional Environment) 15 provides students with a way to solve problems by trying out their ideas within the context of a simulated electronics laboratory. The system can answer students questions, critique their hypotheses regarding why a piece of circuitry equipment is not working, and suggest alternative explanations. SOPHIEs ability to communicate with students depends on its natural language capabilities. The process of programming a computer to understand the ambiguities of natural language (English rather than Fortran) is one of the most intractable problems confronting artificial intelligence researchers today. SOPHIE approaches this problem by replacing conventional categories of grammar, such as nouns and verbs, with categories that represent concepts relevant to the SOPHIE system, such as circuit, transistor, or hypothesis. The system then attends onl y John Seely Brown et al., Pedagogical, Natural Language, and Knowledge Engineering Techniques in SOPHIE I, II, and III, Inrelligenr Tutoring S}rstems, D. Sleeman and J.S. Brown (eds. ) (London: Academic Press, 1982). PAGE 62 50 PAGE 63 5 1 to the concepts it recognizes and tries to make sense of students responses from those concepts, ignoring other pieces of information. Impressive as this program might be, it is still a long wa y from understanding the subtleties of natural language. In fact, most artificial intelligence experts are cautious in their estimates of when, if ever, computers will really be able to cope with natural language. 16 Nonetheless, SOPHIE, along with other natural language-based tutors such as Writers Workbench (AT-&T), Critique (IBM), and RINA (created at the artificial intelligence laborator y at the University of California at Los Angeles) have raised the hope that language barriers might be surpassed much the same way computers have overcome human limits to complex mathematical computation. Terrv \Ylnograd, an associate profc~mr of computer sc~ence and llngulstl~s at Stanford Lln]iersit}, says flatly, Its not In sight its not somethin g that can be done bv improtlng and tunin g u p exlst]ng systems.} In B. Wallraff, The Literate Computer, Ar]arlric .ifc>nrh~~, vol. 261, No. 1, Januar} 1988, p. 11. MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE Programming For over 25 years, mathematics educators have advocated the use of programming for teaching mathematics on the grounds that, Children who program solutions to science and mathematics problems develop a procedural understanding of the fundamental theories of these disciplines. 17 The effects of using programming to teach mathematics at the elementary and middle school level are mixed, Two studies showed that students who did not use programming outperformed those who did, while two other studies found partial and limited support for programming, At the high school level, four studies found that students who received programmin g instruction in addition to mathematics instruction performed less well than did students without programming instruction. Two studies found partially positive results. i -Svl~la A. Shafto, Programming for Learning in Mathematics and Science, paper presented at the Conference on Inno~ative Microcomputer Apphcanons in Schcd Programs, Friends School, Baltimore, MD, March 1985. See also National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, The Impact of Computing Technology on School Mathematics: Report of an NCTA4 Conference (Reston, VA: 1984); National Research Council, Renewing U.S. Marhemarics (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1984); Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, The Mathematical Sciences Curriculum K-12: What 1s Still Fundamen. tal and What IS Not, Report to the National Science Board Commlsslort on Precollege Education In Mathematics, Science and Technology}! (Washington, DC: Natlonal Science Found auon, 198 3); and Richard J. Shumway, Ohio State Unitersltv, Mathematical Concept Lcarn[ng Through Computer Programming: A Surve~ of Related Re~earch, unpublished manuscript, 1985. Research on programmin g In middle schools IS reported [n D.F. Robltaille et al., The Effects of Computer Utlllzatlon on the Achle~ement and Att]tudes of Ninth-Grade Mathcmatlcs Students, ]ournai Another use of programming has been to prepare student teachers to teach facts and concepts of mathematics. From one such experience the researcher observed certain essential difficulties for both teachers and students: 1) students who have problems learning mathematical concepts are likely to find programming concepts equall y elusive, 2) additional and more complex cognitive effort is involved in establishing a connection between programming and mathematics, and 3) learnin g to program requires a great deal of timetime that could be devoted to learning mathematics. 19 Nevertheless, the idea that programming might be an effective vehicle to teach mathematics and to prepare teachers of mathematics is appealing and warrants ongoing study, perhaps along different theoretical lines. 20 for Research in Mathematics Education, Lol. 8, 1977, pp. 26-32; and D.T. King, Research on Computers in Ma[hematlcs Educat~on, The Use of Computers in Mathematics Educatmn Res[mr,-e Series (Columbus, OH: ERIC, 1973). High school results are discussed in S.M. Katz, Temple Llnl\erslty, A Comparison of the Effects of TWO Computer Augmented h4ethods of Instruction With Traditional Methods Llpon Achle~ement of Algebra II Students in a Comprehensive High School, doctoral dissertation, 197 1; R.F. Ronan, University of Michigan, A Study, of the Effectiveness of the Computer When Used as a Teachin g and Learning Tool in High School Mathematics, doctoral dl~sertatlon, 1971; and Larry L. Hatfield and Tom E. Kleren, Computer-Assisted Problem Solvin g in School Mathematics, journal fi>r Research In ,ifathematics Education, vol. 3, 1972, pp. 99-112. 1J.B.H. duBoulay, Teaching Teachers Mathematics Through Pr(>gramming, lnternationa~ Journa/ of Mathematical Edu~atlc)n In Science and Tec-hnolog\, ~wl. 11, 1980, pp. 347-360. ~:See, for example, G. Blume, A Re\iew of Research on the Effects of Computer Programming on Mathematical Problem Solving, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associat~on, Nev, Orleans, 1984. PAGE 64 52 Employability Programming has been taught in schools in part to enhance students employment opportunities after graduation. Researchers at the National Commission for Employment Policy examined the need for computer skills in the work force and concluded that only about 1 percent of the work force will require long periods of computer training (for example, engineers and scientists who design computers, programmers, and system analysts). Another 1 percent will need to be able to write their own programs (for example, some engineers, scientists, technicians, and accountants). The remaining computer users, however, will learn their skills in brief, on-the-job training. These findings suggest that computer programming need not be part of the general curriculum but should be part of a total training package for occupations that require computer use. 21 Programming and Thinking Evidence to support the belief that programming develops students thinking abilities is limited and mixed. One study found that students who learned BASIC did no better than control students on three problem solving subtests: understanding the problem, carrying out the plan, and looking back at the problem. 22 This result is supported by the finding that students who spent a year programming did not differ from control students in planning efficient routes for completing a set of chores. 23 Positive results were found in a large-scale study of LOGO in 15 schools over 7 months. The LOGO students showed significantly more improvement than did non-LOGO students on a test of nonverbal cognitive abilities, exhibited less reliance on their teachers, and showed more independent judgment. 24 I n addition, 9to 1 l-year-old students who received ~lHarold Goldstein and Bryna S. Fraser, Training for Work in the Computer Age: How Workers Who Use Computers Get Their Training (Washington, DC: National Commission for Employment Policy, 1985). 22M. Ford, Arizona State University, Effects of Computer Programming on the Problem Solving Abilities of Sixth Grade Students, doctoral dissertation, 1984. ]Roy D. Pea and D. Midian Kurland, LOGO Programming and the Development of Planning Skills, Technical Report No. 16 (New York, NY: Bank Street College of Education, Center for Children and Technology, 1984). ~4T.A. Swartz et al., Looking Into a Large-Scale LOGO Project, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1984. 1 year of instruction in LOGO performed significantly better than control students on two of four problem solving tasks. 25 Another study of 18 6year-olds found that students who received 12 weeks of instruction in LOGO outperformed students who used the computer to study reading and mathematics in a CAI environment. Students were assessed on measures of creativity, metacognition (ability to monitor and evaluate ones own thinking processes), and on their ability to provide accurate descriptionsan important skill in programming. The two groups did not differ on general measures of cognitive development. 26 Simulations Computer programs developed to simulate complex processes that occur in the world are available in several disciplines, including the physical and social sciences. The computer simulates a process through a variety of activities, including writing messages, acting-out the process of a phenomenon through illustrations and animation, and drawing graphs based on simulated data. Examples of simulations range from programs that allow students to see how an object behaves in a Newtonian environment, to programs that allow students to play the roles of world leaders making important decisions. Some simulations are able to represent complex scientific concepts in ways that are impossible without computers. These representations attempt to increase the understanding students have of concepts that have been traditionally quite difficult to grasp. Physical Sciences In physics, several pieces of software have been developed to simulate an artificial, frictionless world where the laws of Newtonian physics can be examined. Students can perform experiments and observe results that are not possible in a friction-filled, classroom environment. One study used two computer simulations to diagnose and correct first-year college physics students misconceptions about speed Joyce Statz, Syracuse University, The Development of Computer Programming Concepts and Problem Solving Activities Among TenYear-OIds Learning LOGO, doctoral dissertation, 1973. lhD. Clements and D.F. GuIIo, Effects of Computer Programming on Young Childrens Cognition, Journal of Educational Psychology, VO1. 76, No. 6, 1984. PAGE 65 53 and force. In the speed study, racing cars moved across the screen representing relative motion; in the force study, rockets represented the principles of force as related to energ y and momentum. Students clearl y understood speed better after using the race car program, but did not improve in their understanding of force after working with the rocket programs. 27 High school students working with computer simulations to teach them to solve force and motion problems using Newtons laws of motion learned significantly more than students who did not use the program. 28 Social Sciences Noncomputer-based simulations have long been used to raise students interest in and understanding of social studies. Although research indicates that simulations do not necessarily improve the learning of content or skills beyond conventional instruction, the y do seem to increase students motivation, attitude, and participation. Simulations can also be a more effective wa y to involve students in decisionmaking processes, and they help convey complex representations of reality better than print materials or classroom lecture and discussion. 29 Graduate students and faculty at the Universit y of Michigan have developed two computer-mediated social science simulations in which students play the role of national or world leaders engaged in governmental or international affairs. One simulation represents the United States Constitutional Convention. Another, International Communications Simulation (ICS), represents the Arab-Israeli conflict. Working in teams of five or more, each student assumes the role of a particular individual or group represented in the conflict, such as the president or king of the country, the defense minister, leader of a guerrilla group, or diplomatic envoy. TPeter W. Hewson, Microcomputers, Conceptual Change and the Design of Science Instruction: Examples From Kinematics and Dynamics, South African Journal of Science, vol. 80, 1984. q Barbara White, Designing Computer Games To Help Physics Students Understand Newtons Laws of Motions, Cognirion and Znstrucrlon, \ol. 1, No. 1, 1984, pp. 69-108. Allen Glenn and Lee Ehman, Compurer-Based Education in Soc{al Srudics (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Social Studies De~elopment Center and ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education, 1987); and Mark C. Schu g and Henry S. Kepner, Jr., Choosin g Computer Simulations in Social Studies, The Socia/ S(ud~es, \ol. 75, September/October 1984, pp. 211-215. Teams are dispersed over 15 States and countries, including Mexico, West German, and France; they communicate with each other and with universit y staff. Nearly 120 schools have participated in ICS, and informal evaluations have shown a number of positive effects. Students are more motivated to engage in high level critical thinking, have a better understanding of the dynamics of political affairs, appreciate the variety of perspectives on issues, gain experience with the computer and computer-mediated communications, develop insight into the research process, acquire research skills, have an opportunity to practice writing clear, forceful prose, and experience the challenge of making important decisions and the seeing the consequences of their decisions. There are many types of simulations, but ver y few have been studied in a research setting. Because of the wide variabilit y in the types of simulations, it would be difficult to generalize about the effects on learning of simulations in general. Microcomputer-Based Laboratories One of the more promising uses of computers is as a tool in the science laboratory. Scientists have been using computers to measure and graph phenomena for years, but they are just now making their way into classrooms. These laboratory tools, called microcomputer-based laboratories (MBLs), consist of probes attached to a computer. The probes, interacting with speciall y designed software, sense and measure various phenomena, such as light, heat, temperature, brain waves, pulse rate, and distance. For example, students working with a sound probe can measure loudness or pitch, and the computer will record, display, analyze, and play back the sounds being measured. Students can try to produce a smooth graph by humming a pure note into the microphoneor can compare the graphs of high and low notes. They can measure the wave length of sounds that are an octave apart or compose a tune by plotting a graph of pitches they select. These activities help students to gain a sense of what is meant by the pitch of a tone. Measurement is not new in school science laboratories. Students spend most of their time measur- PAGE 66 54 Photo credit: Marcia Linn, University of California, Berkeley Studies of microcomputer-based laboratories (MBLs) indicate that students using them grasp complex scientific concepts at a deeper level of understanding and become more proficient in using graphs than when MBLs are not used. ing, recording, and graphing phenomena of interest; they often get lost in detail and lose sight of the experiments focus the concepts it is designed to convey. The computer can free up students to ask the What if? questions that characterize the practicing scientists world. A number of studies of MBLs in science laboratories indicate that students using MBLs grasp complex scientific concepts at a deeper level of understanding than when MBLs are not used. 30 I n addition, MBLs have been successful in helping students to understand graphsan important skill in learning science, but one that students often fail to master. A critical factor in MBL use in the classroom is the way it is used by the teacher. Researchers examined a teachers approach to using MBLs with various groups of students: one honors class, two average-ability classes, and one class of learning disabled students with average or above average intelligence. The teacher was most structured with the special needs students, discouraging them from exploring the equipment or from trying variations of %farianne Wiser, Designing a Microcomputer-Based Laboratory To Induce the Differentiation Between Heat and Temperature in Ninth Graders, Technical Report No. 85-15 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Educational Technology Center, 1985); and Marcia C. Linn et al., Cognitive Consequences of Microcomputer-Based Laboratories: Graphing Skills Development, Journal of Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1986. an activity presented on the laboratory sheets. With the honors students, the teacher allowed substantially more autonomy. All students, except those in the special needs class, showed significant gains in their overall scores in mathematics skills and in understanding scientific concepts. The researchers plan to conduct further studies where learning disabled students use MBLs in an inquiry-based instructional setting. 31 Educators and scientists generally agree that it is important for students to engage in a process of scientific inquiry. This is often characterized by extensive discussions where students attempt to construct defensible explanations for observable phenomena. Researchers noted that many teachers tended to use MBLs in a very structured way, with little or no discussions of experiments. In some instances, little time was devoted to independent exploration or experimentation. In fact, even projects that trained teachers in the use of inquiry-based instructional strategies for use with a particular computer application showed that teachers reverted to a procedural approach. (See box 3-B.) Graphing National test results show that students do poorly at graphing, despite the fact that graphing receives considerable attention in both algebra and geometry classes. Graphs are a powerful way to see functional relationships, for example, relationships between temperature change and time, or pulse rate and exercise. Students who have a solid grasp of graphing skills are more adept at studying changes in physical and social sciences. The computer is an ideal tool for teaching graphing skills: it provides an instant representation of the relationships between variables and allows students to see graphs in real time as an experiment unfolds. The computer frees students from lowerlevel tasks (such as plotting points on a graph by hand) and allows them to focus on the more abstract, complex, and intellectually meaningful concepts. Results of studies where students use the computer to develop graphing skills are more consistently positive than any other area of computer use. iJanice R. Mokros and Deborah L. Levine, Technical Education Research Centers, The Use and Impact of MBL as a Function of Learner Characteristics, unpublished manuscript, n.d. PAGE 67 55 Sixth-grade students who worked in groups of a test of related graphing skills. Several other studies three used MBLs to produce and observe graphs of using MBLs to develop graphing skills show simimotion in real time. The childrens task was to prolar results. 33 duce a particular graph by movin g about the room. This was possible because of sonar detectors and software that sensed the direction and speed of students movements. For example, one student would play the role of the dancer, movin g about the room under the direction of two peers who offered advice about which way to move. When a graph was completed, students critiqued their own performance, and often, the dancer would beg for a chance to repeat the graph until he or she was satisfied with the results. 32 Students exhibited a solid understanding of distance and velocity graphs and achieved a mean score of 85 percent correct on ~Ron K. Thornton, Tbols for Scientific Thinking: MicrocompurerBased Laboratories for the Naive Science Learner, Technical Report 85-6 (Cambridge, MA: Technical Education Research Centers, 1985). Game-like strategies are a second approach to teaching graphing skills. Programs called Green Globs and Algebra Arcade were developed to hel p students understand the relationships between algebraic equations and their corresponding graphs, This is based on the observation that one skill that seems to distinguish bright students with an a p titude for mathematics from other bright students who are less able in mathematics is their abilit y to look at polynomial equations and to quickl y visualize what their graphs would look like. ~Linn et al., op. cit., footnote 30; and Janice R. Mokros and Robert F. Tinker, The Impact of Microcomputer-Based Labs on Childrens Abilit y to Interpret Graphs, ]ourna/ of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 24, No. 4, 1987, pp. 369-383. PAGE 68 56 These computerized graphing games develop this ability by asking students to write an appropriate equation for a given graph. In Green Globs, the computer displays coordinate axes with 13 green globs scattered randomly on the screen. The students task is to hit all of the globs with graphs that are generated by typing in equations. When a glob is hit, it explodes and disappears. The students equation is instantly displayed in graphic form, so the student receives immediate feedback on his or her ideas (see figure 3-2). One evaluation showed that students who regularly used Green Globs increased their graphing abilities more than control students who were unintentionally exposed to the graphing games for a short amount of time. 34 Algebra Arcadean outgrowth of the Green Globs graphing programwas used with bright, female high school students who exhibited mathematics anxiety. Students who used the computer in this study were much more likely to explore relationships, try out ideas, try more experiments, and ask more questions, such as If we made the numbers on the coordinates small by making the scale spaces large, would it speed up our calculations? What would we miss? These results carried over to science laboratory investigations. The computer students were more likely to explore the differences in the interplay between phenomena and their representations in models, data tables, and graphs. 35 J4Sharon Dugdale and D. Kibbey, University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign, Prototype Microcomputer Courseware for Teaching High School Algebra, SED80-12449, final report to the National Science Foundation, 1980. Mary Budd Rowe, University of Florida, Gainesville, Computer Graphics in the Science Laboratory: An Experiment, unpublished manuscript, 1986. MULTIMEDIA PROGRAMS Several software programs have been developed in conjunction with videodisc and other media to provide learning environments in mathematics and science for students in grades 4-6. The Voyage of the Mimi was developed by researchers at the Bank Street College of Education, Center for Children and Technology. The instructional materials include learning modules, each with a different type of software and assorted print materials. The software models a variety of adult uses of technology, including a training simulation, a microworld, a programming environment, and a microcomputer-based physics laboratory. All of the video programs are closed-captioned in two languages: English and Spanish, and since one of the main characters is deaf, signing is used throughout. A key element of the design of the Voyage of the Mimi was the involvement of teachers throughout all phases of development. 36 dCynthia Char and Jan Hawkins, Charting the Course: involving Teachers in the Formative Research and Design of The Voyage if the Mimi, Children and Microcomputers: Theory, Research, and Development From Bank Street Colleges Center for Children and Technology (working title), Roy Pea and Karen Sheingold (eds.) (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, in press). The video documentary segments show scientists in their actual working environment; students get a sense of the scientific processes and procedures as they are used in real work situations. The learning modules include: simulation games of navigation problems; an MBL package for gathering and graphing temperature, sound, and light data; and a comPhoto credit: Agency for Instructional Technology While studying with the Voyage of the Mimi in school, Colby Leonard became hooked on science and built this bioshelter, a complete ecosystem, in his backyard. PAGE 69 57 Figure 3-2.Graphing Equations Using the Computer !. { L -1 J. . ,L The student types in equations, which are graphed by the computer. The globs explode as they are hit by the graphs. Shown is the initial display of 13 globs, followed by the students first three shots. SOURCE: Displays of computer screens from Green Globs by Sharon Dugdale and David Kirby, reprinted with permission of the authors. For additional information see, Sharon Dugdale, Green Globs: A Microcomputer Application for Graphing of Equations, Mathematics Teacher, March 1982. PAGE 70 58 puter simulation that allows students to explore the food chain, species populations, and the impact of human intervention on ecosystems. The software is accompanied b y teacher guides that include a comprehensive discussion of whales (one of the major topics) and suggestions for classroom activities. The learning modules were field tested over a 2year period with 82 teachers and staff developers from 13 districts across the country to obtain their reactions to the videotape and software. The researchers observed the use of the materials in classrooms, conducted student and teacher interviews, and collected daily logs maintained by teachers regarding their perceptions of the materials as they were being tried out. The researchers conducted 1 week training sessions for teachers in the principles of inquiry-based instruction. The integration of inquiry teaching strategies with the use of technology was the primary goal of the Mimi project. Inquiry teaching promotes an environment that tolerates ambiguity and encourages students questions. The researchers found that few teachers were able to adopt or sustain a style of teaching that encouraged inquiry. Teachers tended to ask the majority of the questions and rewarded students for guessing correctly. Teachers required continual help in maintaining a classroom climate that emphasized reasoning rather than right answers, and only teachers who had experience in inquiry-based instruction used the materials in an open-ended way. The researchers found that it was important to provide training in the scientific concepts covered in the materials and to give teachers rich and varied suggestions for classroom activities. All teachers using the Mimi materials reported that they intend to use them again and recommended the materials to other teachers. ~ ; Margaret A. Honey et al., Teaching Technology: Creating Environments for Change, paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, 1987. DATABASE MANAGEMENT Students in some classrooms use database management software to store, update, retrieve, organize, sort, format, and perform computations on data. Unfortunately, while there are numerous anecdotal reports enthusiastically describing their use in classrooms across the country, there is very little research documenting the effects of such tools in learning. One of the few studies conducted on the use of databases involved 14 teachers and 665 students in grades 7 through 12. One group of students used a computerized database (PFS: Curriculum Data Bases for U.S. History and for U.S. Government), while the control students used the same curriculumspecific data printed on 4 x 6 index cards housed in plastic file boxes. The key difference between the activities engaged in by the two groups was in the level of structure. Students in the computer group received detailed instruction in how to use the computerized database system to solve problems, define information, develop data retrieval specifications, interpret and evaluate retrieved data, and revise retrieval specifications. The control students did not receive similar step-by-step guidance in noncomputerized data management. In addition, the design of the database program imposed more of a structure in manipulating data than was possible with the students who used the index card system. In a carefully controlled experimental design to test information processing skills, students using the computer database program in concert with structured activities significantly outperformed the control students. The specific abilities measured on the Information Processing Scale were: I) to recognize sufficient information to solve a given problem, 2) to recognize whether the information presented was relevant to a given problem, and 3) to discriminate between efficient and inefficient organizations of information to solve a given problem. ~~Charles White, Indiana University, The Impact of Structured Activities With a Computer-Based File Management Program on Selected Information-Processing Skills, doctoral dissertation, 1986. See also Charles White, Developing Information-Processing Skills Through Structured Activities With a Computerized File-Management Program, Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 3, No. 1, 1987. PAGE 71 59 The use of database systems is likely to increase, especially as this tool will continue to play a central role in business management, science, and industry. Skills that students need in order to use these systems include the ability to: l l l l l define a problem in specific terms, perhaps breaking it up into several small problems; identify specific data needed to address that problem; locate and extract relevant data from the larger collection of data; put the data in a useful order (e.g., by size, date, age); organize printed lists or arrangements of the data; l l l use the information obtained to identify patterns such as relationships or trends (as well as cases that depart from the patterns); identify further information needed in order to explain, interpret or investigate cause and effect relationships; and communicate findings to others. 39 q Beverly Hunter, Knowledge-Creat~ ~e Learn[ng With Data Baws, Social Education, vol. 51, No. 1, 1987. See also M. Rothman, Usin g the Microcomputer to Study the Anatomv of Revolution, The Com put~ng Teacher, vol. 10, September 1%2; Tama Traberman, Usin g Interactive Computer Techniques to Detelop Global Llndcrstancllng, The Computing Teacher, September 1983; and D.hl. Nlorrison and J. Walters, IMMIGRANT: A Social Studies Slmulatl(>n for AppleWorks, Computers in the Classroom: Experiences Tcach!ng \Ylth Fle.x~blc Took, C. Thompson and L. Vaughn (eels. ) (Chelrnsford, N4A: Northeast Regional Exchange, Inc., 1986) WORD PROCESSING Word processors offer writers ease in editing, neat printed copy, and tend to make the process of writing more public. The y often incorporate features that hyphenate words and check on spelling, and some of the more complex correction programs comment on the screen about style and grammar, while others catch errors and report them to the writer. Students writing does not necessarily improve merely by using the word processor. While students may be inclined to write more text, and enjoy writing more when they use a computer, students corrections are often mechanical rather than substantive. 40 A number of key differences in the writing and revision process of expert and novice writers have emerged from research on writing. Experienced writers revise extensively, while beginning writers tend to make superficial changes, such as spelling or word choices. In fact, beginning writers often do not even read over their text when asked to revise, but rewrite from memory. Revision is a complex cog~rColette A. Daiute, Psycholingulstlc Foundations of the Writing Process, Research in the Teaching of English, 1981, pp. 5-22; Colette A. Dalute, The Effects of Automatic Prompting in Young \Vriters, interim reports to the Spencer Foundation, 1981, 1983. See also R.M. Collier, The Vord Processor and Reyvsion Strategies, College Cornpos{t~on and Commun)cat/on, \ol. 34, 1983, pp. 149-1 55; and L. Bridwel] et al., Revlslng and Computing: Case Studies of Student Writers, The Acqulslrmn of I!r/ttc>n Language: RetisK>rJ and Re~ponse, S. Freedman (cd. ) (Norwood, NJ: Ahlcx, 1985), pp. 172-1 W. nitive process. 41 Young or novice writers may not know what to do when asked to revise. Revision requires writers to evaluate their writing, diagnose problems, and figure out how to correct the problems. Merely easing the physical requirements of writing does little to ensure that these cognitive abilities are developed. Researchers have begun to identify key strategies that seem to be essential for reading, critiquing, and improving ones own written work, Some of these strategies are being incorporated into software programs for writing. For example, a program called Catch encourages students to take the point of view of the reader as they revise and prompts students to focus on the meaning of a passage rather than on its more superficial aspects. Studies with middle school students showed that students using the Catch software made more revisions from the original text when compared with students who used only a word processor. Revising in this manner also means that more changes can be made within the body of the text rather than by adding changes at the end. These results are particularl y significant, 4] Colette A. Daiute, Physical and Cogn]tlie Factor. In Rcw!lslng: Insights From Studies Vlth Computers, Research in the Tta(hing ~)fEng]lsh, to]. 20, 1986, pp. 1 ~ 1159; Colette A. Daiute, Writ/ng and Comi~urers (Reading, hfA: AcLllson-Wesley, 1985); and L. Flower et al., Detection, Dlagnosls, and the Strategies of Re~ision, College Compc>s{[lon and C(jmmun]~9r/on, ~,ol. 37, 1986, pp. 16,55. PAGE 72 60 because it is rare for beginning writers to revise in this fashion, regardless of their age. 42 Findings concerning how learning disabled students use the word processor are consistent with those from studies of regular students. In a year-long study, learning disabled students who used the word processor as a supplement to writing instruction made significant gains in their writing ability compared to a control group that did not receive the special intervention. 43 It appears that the word 4~Colette A. Daiute, Rewriting, Revising and Recopy ing, paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1984; and Colette A. Daiute and John Kruidenier, A Self-Questioning Strategy To Increase Young Writers Revising Processes, App/ied Psycholinguistics, vol. 6, 1985, pp. 307-318. 4]L.B. Kershner and B.J. Kistinger, Language Processing/Word Processing: Written Expression, Computers and Learning Disabled Students, Learning Disability Quarterly, vol. 7, 1984, pp. 329-335. See also S. Graham and Charles MacArthur, Improving Learning Disabled Students Skills at Revising Essays Produced on a Word Processor: Self-Instructional Strategy Training, unpublished raw data, 1987. processor alone does not significantly enhance the writing abilities of either regular or learning disabled students. But when coupled with instruction in strategies for writing (for example, strategies for generating ideas or for revising) tend to produce more fluency in writing and revisions that affect meaning. 44 Wsee, for example, Catherine C. Morocco and S*B. Neuman! Teachers, Children and the Magical Writing Machine (Newton, MA: E. C. C., 1987); C. Morocco and S.B. Neuman, Word Processors and the Acquisitions of Writing Strategies, Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol. 19, 1986, pp. 243-247; E. Ellis and E. Sabornie, Effective Instruction With Microcomputers: Promises, Practices and Preliminary Findings, Focus on Exceptional Children, vol. 19, No. 4, 1986, pp. 1-16; Charles A. MacArthur et al., Learning Disabled Srudents Composing With Three Methods: Handwriting, Dictation and Word Processing, Research Report No. 109 (College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth, 1986); and S.B. Neuman and C. Morocco, Two Hands is Hard for Me: Keyboarding and Learning Disabled Children (Newton, MA: University of Lowell, Education Development Center, 1986). LANGUAGE ARTS Reading Comprehension According to reading theory, comprehension is dependent on several cognitive processes, including decoding, word recognition, and knowledge. If a reader is deficient in one or more of these aspects, the ability to read and understand will be impaired. Early instruction in reading typically aims to develop proficiency in the subprocesses, so that learners can devote intellectual activity to higher levels of thinking. While the vast majority of computer-based learning materials treat the simplest of language tasksspelling and vocabularythere are some products that aim at more complex aspects of comprehension. In a study of 108 low-achieving, poor black children, it was found that students who used two reading programs outperformed a control group in both accuracy and efficiency of decoding and recognition. 45 These programs, called Construct-a-Word and Hint-and-Hunt, have students compose words from letter strings and identify words with vowels and vowel combinations. The improvements for low-ability students were substantialthey gained over 1 year on standardized testsbut students who were already adequate in their decoding skills did not show any changes. The findings were essentially the same for the development of students ability to comprehend phrases and sentences. The hypothesis that a computer can enable readers to understand text according to their individual needs for assistance in comprehension has been tested in a controlled experiment; results showed that students who received various forms of comprehension assistance without asking for such assistanceoutperformed other groups. 46 In addition, computers have been paired with speech synthesizers to assist both regular and special education students in understanding words or pairs of words. Among the perceived advantages of computer-aided reading, researchers point out that: 1) disabled readers can conveniently and privately receive the decoding help they need without an indi45steven F. Roth and ]5abel L. Beck, ( Theoretical and Instructional Implications of the Assessment of Two Microcomputer Word Recognition Programs, Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 22, 1987, pp. 197-218. 46 D av id Reinking and Robert Schreiner, The Effects of Computer-Mediated Text on Measures of Reading Comprehension and Reading Behavior, Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 10, No. 5, 1985, pp. 536-551. PAGE 73 6 1 vidual human tutor or teacher, 2) speech feedback can be tailored to match the unique needs of each student, 3) a wider variety of reading materials can be used, 4) reading can become a means for gaining knowledge, 5) the amount of actual time spent reading is maximized because the reader/student does not have to wait for the teacher to explain an unknown word or spend lengthy periods trying to identify difficult words, 6) students are more likel y to experience a feeling of success as the y progress through the material and easily gain knowledge of new words and increased information from the passages, and 7) the computer maintains a detailed record of the students reading and requests for assistance, thereby providing researchers with useful information for the stud y of comprehension problems. 47 In one study of the impact of computer-aided reading on reading disabled students aged 8 to 18, it was demonstrated that the students enjoyed using the system and showed significant short-term gains in word recognition and comprehension when audio feedback was available. 48 In another pilot study, six students enrolled in an adult education center were observed individually and interviewed by researchers as the y used a computer-aided reading system. The researchers asked the participants to alternate reading the passages with and without the use of the speech feedback. One of the more interesting findings was that use of the speech feedback significantl y reduced the level of stress the participants exhibited when struggling with reading in the unaided situation. The participants commented about how hard it was to read and asked if the y had to continue. The researchers reported that much of the stress disappeared when they used the speech feedback. The students all indicated that it was much easier to read when they had the assistance and inquired if it were possible to obtain such a system for their personal use and for use b y their children or spouses. In addition, TGeorge W. McConkie et al., Center for the Stud y of Reading, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Computer Aided Reading With Illiterate Adults, unpublished manuscript, 1987. WR Olson et ~l., Reading Instruction and Remediation With the Aid of Computer Speech, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Compucers, vol. 18, No. 2, 1986, pp. 93-99; and R. Olson and B. Wise, Computer Speech in Readin g Instruction, Compurers and Reading: Zssues for Theorv and Pracrice, D. Relnking (cd.) (New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 1987). man y students indicated that they would read more if such a system were available. 49 Vocabulary and Grammar Staff at the Houston Independent School District used speech synthesizers in their locally-developed computer courseware designed to assist limited English proficient students in learnin g English vocabulary and grammar. The district resorted to developing their own computer-based instructional system when they were unable to locate commercially-developed materials suitable for their 34,000 limited English proficient students. The resulting courseware incorporates dynamic, high resolution graphics and digitized speech within a variety of simulation and game programs and is intended for students in kindergarten through fifth grades. Results of one of the 14 courseware units showed that the treatment group scored significantly better than did control students. 50 Writing, Reading, and Spelling One of the most widely marketed computer-based educational programs using digitized speech is IBMs Writing to Read. It is a multicomponent system involving kindergarten and first grade children in typing words, reading while listening to tape-recorded stories, and listening to computerized speech designed to teach basic phonics. The evaluation of Writing to Read was one of the most comprehensive studies conducted at the kindergarten and first grade levels. A nationwide sample of 35 Writing to Read schools and 25 nonWriting to Read schools was assessed, representing over 200 teachers and 7,000 children. Writing, reading, and spelling skills were measured. 51 The results showed that the Writing to Read students performed significantl y better in writing than ~~George w. McConkie and David Zola, computer Aided eading: An Environment for Developmental Research, paper presented at the Society for Research on Child Development, Toronto, Canada, 1985. Jean Anderson, English as a Second Language: Courseware l?roouct Eva]uarion Report (Houston, TX: Houston Independent School D!strict, 1985). lRichard T. Murph y and Lola Rhea Appel, E\a/uacion of the \l~riring to Read Instructional System 1982-84 (Princeton, hlJ: Educational Testin g Service, 1984). PAGE 74 62the control students in both kindergarten and first grade (table 3-l). Writing to Read students in the first grade 1 year after using the program still outperformed non-Writing to Read students, but the differences between the two groups narrowed substantially. In fact, while the non-Writing to Read scores increased over the year, the Writing to Readscores decreased slightly. The effects of the programwere consistent across all ethnic groups, with the exception of Oriental students where the nonWriting to Read students performed slightly better than the Writing to Read students. Classroom ob-servations revealed that students were delighted withtheir writing and eager to read their passages aloud to visitors.The results for reading were less impressive. Chil-dren in both the non-Writing to Read and the Writ-Table 3-1.Mean Writing Scores by Group (percent)Non-Writing GroupWriting to Readto ReadKindergarten . . .4.5 3.1First grade . . .6.64.9 First grade afterWriting to Read . .6.55.7SOURCE: Richard T. and Lola Rhea of Writing Read instructional System, 1982-84 (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1984).ing to Read program progressed at about the samepace. Spelling was assessed in a less systematic fashion,but results showed that the performance of bothgroups was quite similar: although it uses a phoneticalphabet, Writing to Read did not appear to have a negative affect on students spelling.The IBM Writing to Read Project has been adopted by many schools as a way of improving early reading and writing skills. PAGE 75 63 A surve y of teachers showed that Writing to Read teachers rated the program far more effective for above-average students than for average or belowaverage students. Unfortunately, the study suffered from a problem found in several other studies described in this chapterthe Writing to Read students spent more time in reading instruction than did the control groups. 52 A larger percentage of teachers involved in the Writing to Read program reported spendin g more time on reading instruction than in previous years (58.2 percent) than did the nonWriting to Read teachers (26.7 percent). In writing, 80,5 percent of the Writing to Read teachers indicated that they spent more time on writing than in the previous years as compared with 30.5 percent in the non-Writing to Read classrooms. On the one hand, any program that engages kindergarten and first-grade children in writing activities is desirable, but the positive effects found in the program may be attributable to increased time rather than to an y aspect of the Writing to Read program. Researchers at Vanderbilt Universitys Learning Technology Center have shown that the speech synthesizer can be effective in providing spelling instruction. In traditional approaches to spelling instruction, the teacher says the word, students write it, and then the written word is compared to the correctly spelled word. Some computerized approaches have students type the word from a model on the screen, then type the same word after the model is removed, and then enter the word into a sentence. Most studies usin g variations on this instructional ~:olson and Wise, op. cit., footnote 48. theme have shown either no significant difference between computer and noncomputer groups and/or limited success with either group. 53 The Vanderbilt researchers argue that these approaches were unsuccessful because the student could rely on spelling the word b y engaging shortterm memory. They investigated presenting the spelling words to students by using a voice simulator, which, the y believe, activates long-term memory. When the student spells the word incorrectly, the computer visually and auditorially imitates the students error and provides the correct spelling, so that the student can compare the two, Results of studies using this approach show that computerusing students achieved an accurac y of over 90 percent on lists of spelling words; in addition, the computer students averaged over 30 percent more correctly spelled words than when the y used traditional procedures. 54 ]G. Fitzgerald et al., Computer-Assisted Instruction for Students with Attentional Difficukles,]ourna] of Learr]]ng D1sahI)IrIc,s, k,ol. 19, No. 6, 1986, pp. 376-379; P.A. McDermott and N4.W. Natklns, ( Computerized vs. Conventional Remedial Instruction for Learn[ng-D[sab[ecl Pupils, Journal of Special Education, vol. 1, No. 1, 1983; Jacqueline Haynes et al., Effect of Computer-Assisted lnstru~tlon on Learning Disabl&Readers MetacWnirion and Learning of,\ctt Words, Research Report No. 101 (College Park, MD: Universit y of hiar~land, Institute for the Stud y of Exceptional Children and Youth, 1984). 5qTed Hasselbring, Remediatlng Spelllng Problems In LearningHandicapped Students Through the Use of Microcomputers,) Educational Technolo~, vol. 22, 1982, pp. 31-32; and Ted Hasselbring, Using a Microcomputer for Imitatin g Student Errors to Improte Spellin g Performance, Compurers, Reading and Language Arts, \rol. 4, 1984, pp. 12-14. See also Ted Hasselbring, Effectl~e Computer Llsc in Special Education: What Does the Research Tell Lls? a paper presented at Funder Forum, sponsored by Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA, 1987. ELECTRONIC NETWORKS Electronic networks allow individuals or groups to communicate with one another using computers that are connected through local area networks (LANs) or through telephone lines. Electronic networks are being used in every subject area and at all but the earliest grade levels. A good example of a computer network used in education is the Computer Chronicles Newswire project, where third and fourth grade students in Alaska communicate with students in California about events and issues in their school and community. Each site publishes a newspaper that consists of articles selected by the student editorial board. Through this process, students engaged in dialogs with others from a different culture, struggled with communicatin g clearl y in writing, and gained valuable experience in evaluating and revising compositions. 55 Similarly, in a computer network called De Orilla a Orilla (From Shore to Shore), limited and non-English speaking students in New England and California are paired 5~M.M. Riel, The Computer Chronicles Newswire: A Functional Learning En~lronment for Acquiring Literacy Skills, Journal ofE&catlonal Comlmting Rescarmproml.w: The Dilemma of the Amer:L an Hi&~h S( h[ x)1 (Boston, hIA: Houghton Nflfflln Co., 1984) l l And, although technologies such as distance learning and interactive videodisc are becoming increasingly important in K-12 schools, the y are currentl y used less than the computer. While instructional television through the videocassette recorder (VCR) is experiencin g a renaissance in the schools, it also often serves as the . spark plug for educational chain reactions incorporating computer applications such as word processing or computer simulations." 2 Finally, all interactive technologies raise similar issues: how do teachers use them and why, how does their use affect the teachers role, what training do teachers need to take advantage of them, and what barriers stand in the way of fuller utilization? See hfllton Chen et al., Case Studies of E.~emplarl ln~rru~tlonal Telc\ision Lse (San Francisco, CA: KQED Instructional Tele\,lsion, Janua r y 1988). FINDINGS Despite the presence of computers in almost all K-12 schools nationwide, only half of the Nations teachers report that they have used computers in instruction. Barriers to use are both practical (inadequate access to the technology) and intellectual (initial fears of using the technology and a lack of understanding of the computers l value in serving the curriculum). Few teachers have found ways to exploit the enormous potential which interactive technologies offer. Use in most cases is adapted to the curriculum at hand and the teachers existing teaching methods. Teachers are just beginnin g to understand the computers potential for helping students solve problems, think for themselves, and collaborate with other students. The computer can help shift the teachers role from education dispenser to coach, guiding and encouragin g each student to become an active participant in his or her own learning. Most teachers want to use technology. Some of their reasons are personal: the desire to develo p professionally, to learn the newest tool of the trade, and to do their jobs better. Some are centered on benefits they see for their students: preparation for the world of technolog y outside school and a vehicle to channel the students enthusiasm for technolog y into creative learning. Other rea8 7 PAGE 98 88 l l l l sons include fear of being left behind or being replaced by the technology, and pressure from parents, school boards, and administrators. The process by which teachers appropriate technology is more complex than that by which teachers adopt other changes. Initial fears regarding technology may need to be overcome before teachers feel in control. Training with computers is an ongoing process that takes place at varying levels, depending upon the teachers responsibilities and the way the technology is to be used. Teachers need opportunities for practice with the computer, with continuing support from trainers or computer-using peers. Once teachers feel comfortable with the computer as a tool to help them do their job, they look for ways to integrate it into their existing curriculum and seek opportunities to do things previously impossible in the classroom. Few then wish to go back to teaching without computers. Teachers use computers in ways that work best with their own teaching styles and methods, but these styles evolve as teachers gain more computer experience. Some teachers individualize instruction, encourage individual and group problem solving, and enhance peer learning when they have computers in the classroom. Activities facilitated by computer use include teaching writing, doing laboratory experiments in science, solving sophisticated problems in mathematics, or using simulations in social studies classes. The very opportunities opened by the computer can create more work for the teacher, making the job harder initially. Although the computer can minimize some administrative chores and ease classroom discipline, other tasks which accompany computer use (individualizing lessons, matching software to the curriculum, scheduling student computer time, monitoring use, providing assistance, and troubleshooting) add a net burden to the teachers time in the short term. The teacher reform movement has created special challenges and opportunities for the application of technology to education. As more teacher education programs become 5-year programs, with students earning undergraduate degrees outside of education, computer training will need to be sandwiched into a tighter teacher preparal l l l l tion curriculum. Integrating the use of technology in subject matter courses can be an effective way of making computer skills part of preparation of new teachers. Having student teachers intern with computer-using classroom teachers can also provide role models for technology use. Preservice technology training, while important in giving prospective teachers facility with the computer, only serves as an introduction. Teachers need continuing training as the technology changes, as new and more effective applications are developed, and as more is learned about learning with technology. The Federal Governments role in training teachers to use technology has been a limited one, although Federal support was important in creating a first wave of computer-using educaters. The major players in supporting teacher training have been the States and local districts. They have made substantial financial commitments to preparing teachers to use computers, but this support has been highly variable across States and districts. Any further investment in technology for education must factor in teacher training and support, whether that effort is focused on a few specialized teachers or on all teachers. Although most of the responsibility for training will fall on local school districts, there are important ways to use the resources of intermediate education agencies, States, the Federal Government, and the private sector. School administrators must support and encourage teachers to use technology throughout the curriculum. For this to occur, they too will need training that provides them with an understanding of instructional applications of computers and a vision of the potential for change they offer. Efforts to support teachers require attention to more than immediate needs and current practice. The technology offers new possibilities for enhancing the teaching environment and teachers personal and intellectual growth. Teachers need an environment in which they can feel free to experiment if they are to discover the opportunities that the technology can provide. PAGE 99 89 HOW TEACHERS USE TECHNOLOGY Background: Teacher Attitudes Almost all teachers want to use technology. 4 Some of the reasons cited are related to personal growth, some to concern for students, and some are reflective of external pressures. Being professionals, most teachers want to stay abreast of the latest developments in their field. As one teacher stated: I always made the commitment that when I became a teacher who didnt want to do the new things or at least investigate them and give it a good shot, then 1 didnt want to teach any-more. Some see the use of computers in all aspects of society as inevitable. They want to be able to prepare their students for the outside world. Many have used computers at home and are intrigued b y the possibilities they offer, or they have observed their students enthusiasm for computers and want to channel that enthusiasm to the classroom. Some have seen the computers potential as a tool to do things in the classroom they had been unable to do before. In some ways Im rewriting the curriculum. I cant show on a blackboard a thousand balls dropping through a triangular grid. And to get a distribution, I want a graph to talk about theoretical and experimental probability. So I use computers a lot for simulations. The y understand from experience that students learn in different ways. Having computers in the classroom can help provide different kinds of learnin g experiences for students; for example, the visual learner, or those overwhelmed by the large classroom and all its distractions, who really pay attention to the focus of the computer screen. For many teachers, the computer lights a fire under their teachin g spirit, rekindling waning enthuThis secclon draws heavil y on Martha Stone Wiske, Harvard Llnl\w-sttv, Educational Technology Center, and Philllp Zodhiates, Educ atlon Dcwelopmenr Center, Inc., H OW Technology Affects Teaching, OTA controct~}r report, October 1987. As early as 1982, a National Education Association random sample of approximately 1,200 teachers revealed that 83 percent of the teachers surveyed wanted to take a course to learn ho\~! to use a computer for Instructional purposes. Se\enty percent or more believed that computer use in schools has a posltlve effect on student motivation, suhject Interest, attentwn span, self confidence, and cognitive learnln,g. National Education Assoclat[on, Teacher Sur\re\, ,VEA Report: C(~rnpurers in the Classroom (Uashlngton, DC: 1983). The comments [n quotes are dml\ed from teacher inter\iews conducted for OTA bv ~~iske and Zodhiates, op. cit., footnote 3. siasm for teaching. As one teacher said, describing her colleague, The use of computers in teaching gave him a new lease on life. This is all he talks aboutwhat his students did in class. Hes reall y excited about it! Finally, some teachers admit that they are responding to outside pressures. Administrators and parents want teachers to use the machines that have been placed in their classrooms. Having computer skills can also open doors to new jobs in the schools, as in cases where teachers avoid staff cutbacks by switching to positions that involve computers. Pressure from teacher peers can also be a strong motivator. When asked to describe the relationshi p between teachers who use computers in their classes and those who do not, one teacher stated, Its the advocates versus the guilty! Yet, not all teachers embrace computers with open arms. As one teacher said: They rolled this thing (the computer) into my class and said, Here, its yours for the month. What did I want with it? It was a distraction. I let each kid have a half hour on it and the other 23 would be looking at the clock the whole time, saying Is it my turn yet? By the end of the first week I just used it as a place to throw the kids coats on. Others express their concern in more positive terms: I dont plan to use it and dont feel the need to apologize. I teach the way I teach because it works for me and my students. Id rather take a course in the summer on Greek traged y so I can add that to my literature course, than a course in how computers work. Its a question of allocating a valuable resource, my time, where, in my professional judgment, I can best nourish m y own growth and that of my students. Finally some teachers fear that their students may lose important underlying skills, such as penmanship or computation, when adopting new technologies that replace these skills. Fearing the loss of the old in adopting the new is not a novel concern. In the words of an early critic of technology: Those who acquire it will cease to exercise their memor y and become forgetful; they will rel y on (it) to bring things to their remembrance by external signs in-stead of on their own internal resources. He went on to criticize this new technology for replacin g a human response with a manufactured artifact and PAGE 100 90 for cheapening learning by democratizing access to training, and lack of exposure to uses of computers. knowledge. The critic was Plato, in Phaedrus, arTeachers (and others) also tend to blame computers guing against the introduction of writing in ancient for problems caused by the people who use them Greece. 6 poorly. Without contact with effective computerSome of the objections voiced by teachers are using teachers they have no positive models. (See based on prior skepticism, partial information, bad box 5-A. 7 ) As cited in James Cummins and Dennis Sayers, MicroTrends: The portrait in this box and in boxes 5-B and 5-C are composite Computer Writing Networks and Empowerment (Reading, MA: profiles of fictionalized teachers who illustrate common themes of Addison-Wesley, in press). teachers varying approaches to technology use In the classroom. The (c Onf]nmd m next page) PAGE 101 91 Uses in the Classroom There is not one computer in education; there are man y possible educational computer cultures. s Sherry Turkle There are as many ways teachers can use computers in the classroom as there are varying teaching styles. Teachers use groups of computers in laboratories very differently than one or two in the classroom. A single computer in a classroom can be used by the teacher in various ways at various timessometimes as a provocative learning station for individual students, sometimes for interactive demonstrations led by the teacher for the whole class, and in other instances for collaborative problem solving by a small group of students. Use in social studies is different from that for science laboratory work; drill and practice for review of basic skills is very different from students programming a computer to make machines move. Indeed, asking, In what ways do teachers use computers, and how does the computer affect the teacher and his or her teaching? seems as broad a question as, How do teachers teach with books and what effects do books have on teachers? (See box 5-B.) One of the most frequently cited areas where computers make possible things that could not be done before is in special education. The computer has been described b y some as the freedom machine, opening the door to educational pathways previousl y inaccessible to handicapped or learning disabled students. For the physically handicapped, adaptive devices can make communication itself possible. For trained teachers with access to appropriate information, computers can be powerful teaching tools for special education students. (See box (C ,,r]r)nutd from prct tc)u\ pag(.) compo\ltcs arc draun from Wislce and Zodhiates, op. cit., footnote 3. In thli rcp<~rt s \amplc c>f 76 teachers, from 10 regionally diverse school Jl\trl~ t~, Inc ludlng urhan, dra\\ a pic turc of, If not real people, real t}pm of tcachcrs, tc> g[tc a feel f(lr ~ommon catcg(~rles and concerns. The cicnlce rwults In a cr{m\ herwccn straight statistical sur\e\ research and hypothcsl~. Sec. the Nrl\kc ,Ind Z(dhlatc< report for addltl(~na] cc~mpo\lte profllm. Shcrr} Turkle, pcrw>nal ~(~mmunlcatl~>n, N(J\cmher 1W7. 5-C.) However, many special education teachers (and classroom teachers who have disabled students mainstreamed in the regular classroom) are not aware of what is available and what is possible, In addition, the educational system provides few if any incentives or rewards to teachers who go out of their way to see that their special education students have equal access to computers. As a result, the special education student, especiall y if mainstreamed into a regular classroom, often is placed, like the nonEnglish speaking student, at the end of a lon g line when it comes to classroom computer use. How the Use of Computers Can Change Teaching Style One of the most significant impacts of the use of computers in the classroom is change in teaching style. Teachers can go beyond the traditional information delivery mode where they are presenters of ready-made knowledge and become facilitators of students learning. With computers, students can work on problems individually or in small groups while the teacher acts more like a coach circulating among them and giving assistance. (See box 5-D.) Some teachers find that the y are able to observe more of the learning process when watching students interact with computer-based materials. Some teachers welcome the opportunit y to learn alongside their students: Ive become more of an involved participant than an authority figure a learner with students rather than a presenter of facts. For many, this is a significant change from how they were taught to teach. It can be both exhilarating and intimidating. Teachers who use the computer as a medium that students can manipulate individuall y or in small groups find their students become more activel y en-gaged in learning and thinking than during traditional lecture-oriented lessons. Such teachers use the computers to give students more responsibilit y for their own learning. 10 Students can work at their See U.S. Congress, Office of Tcchnolog} A\w,sn~cnt, Trcn.ls and Status of Computers in Schools: USC ]n Chapter 1 Pro~ram\ and Use Vtth Lim~ted English Proficient Students, staff paper, hlarc h l~Si. SW Sizer, op. cit., fo(>tn(xc 1, for a fuller discussion of the traJittonal American high s~-hm~] and the d(~~ illty it engenders I n student<. In hls report he states, NO more ]mportant finding has emerged from the inqulr]c\ of our stud! than that the American htgh sch(x]l student, as studcnc, IS all too often docile, c(>mpllant, and without lnlt]atl\w. Slzcr contrasts this to w hat he ~all~ the hungry student ac r III C >, engaged [n h]\ or her (]\\n learn lng. The student takes the ] nl tlatl\e and \tork< at tcachlng himself (p. 5+). PAGE 102 92 own speed and can figure out more for themselves. or two computers each. ll As demands for separate Some students who do not respond well to lessons computer literacy and programming courses diminbased around a lecture format deal more positively ish, some schools are moving their stand-alone comwith the interactive, visual medium of the computer. 1 Jsee ~h 8, ~x 8. A_ App]e Classroom of Tomorrow, for a descrlpThe typical school today has a specialized comtion of the exceptional case of classrooms where every student has a puter laboratory and/or a few classrooms with one computer on his or her desk. PAGE 103 93 Box 5-C.--Using Computers With Special Education Students Chris Johnson teaches special education: learning disabled, mentally retarded, physically handicapped, and speech impaired students ranging in age from 12 to 18 years in a large urban high school. Several years ago Chris enrolled in a graduate level course on educational uses of the computer. He saw the possibilities of using computers for individualized instruction and enhanced social interaction with his students, but realized that available software would need to be adapted or new software "invented to meet his students special needs. It was embarrassing for his students to use elementary school software when they were in high school. He wrote a mini-grant proposal to a hardware manufacturer to adapt promising special educational materials, making them user-friendly and suitable to the structure and pacing of a special education classroom. As a result, he was awarded two computers for his class. Chris explored various ways to apply the computer to his teaching. He has used the program Printshop as a business venture to help students develop vocational and social skills. Word processing skills have been particularly important for improving student self-esteem when, perhaps for the first time, a disabled student produces something legible that could be put in a book and shown to parents or friends with great personal pride. Like many computer-using teachers, Chris views the computer as a tool that can do many things. Perhaps the most telling reason for Chris enthusiasm is the computers role as equalizer among his students and between them and other students in the school. He has instituted a peer buddy system to promote this process, pairing a special education student with a mainstreamed student to work together on computer activities. My retarded kids could whup those regular kids with some of the memory games and some little spelling games and things like that. I think it was one of the first times that the regular kids perceived this normal competenc y level in handicapped kids. He has observed how the computer allows students with disabilities to find common ground with other students in the school. He also believes that many of his handicapped students will later in life need to interact with machines on the job or at home. School experiences with computer-based technology can present the handicapped learner with opportunities for future success. Chris claims that the presence of computers in his classroom has made a substantial difference in the way he teaches. Some software has led him into content areas he would not otherwise have explored. The adaptation and invention of other software programs for special students has forced him to concentrate on students control over their environment and over their own learning. He has observed his students using the computer to open new channels of communication with their peers, especially those students who have had difficulty with the social dynamics of the classroom, in making friends, or working with others. Ive had romances form around the computer; for some of the students it was a deflection of having to work that difficult interaction of male/female roles. His enthusiasm is tinged with the understanding that computers are costly and require alot of his time to organize their use in the classroom, but he is undaunted. "The most compelling reason for using computers with special education students is that they work. They function as a multipurpose coping mechanism and as a catalyst to better social interactions, particularly important features of academic success in the special education classroom. lc~PitC ~~t W-by M *hb* ~ Unfvarsiry, Education TechnoiosY Gntcr, and phillip Zodhiat-, Education Development Center, Inc., H OW Technology Affects Teach OTA contractor report, Cktobrx 19S7. puters into individual classrooms. Many teachers For example, OTA staff observed a junior high have found that having only one or a few computers in the classroom requires students to work together. This stimulates cooperative learning and peer teaching among students, and develops their communication and social skills. Even simple drill and practice programs may be used with-pairs or triads of students at one terminal taking turns and helping each other. English for Speakers of Other Languages classroom, where three boys, one from Honduras, one from Laos, and another from Pakistan, worked together at the computer puzzling over a multiplication/division drill software program written in English. The boys skills in spoken and written English were limited and varied, but together they encouraged each other to solve the mathematical problems so PAGE 104 94 PAGE 105 95Photo credit: Computer Learning Month learn a lot more about my students because I can watch them learn. Before, I couldnt watch them learn, because I was busy delivering the curriculum. My role has changed with computers. OTA teacher interview.they could win" the game. Three boys, three languages, one computer. Together they succeeded where one alone would have been lost. The teacher, busy elsewhere in the classroom, was available to them but was called upon for assistance only when all three were stuck on a point. Besides learning themathematical facts at hand, the students were learn-ing other social and communication skills equally important for school success. Cooperative learning at the computer works particularly well in classroom activities using simulations and problem solving software. Students can be grouped with mixed abilities and work together on tasks that cannot be completed individually. Many software simulations are designed with the assumption that only one or a few computers are available for a whole class. Such simulations also provide opportunities for teachers to integrate various disciplines. For example, teachers using the popular simulation The Oregon Trail, which puts students into the role of early pioneers, have incor-porated subject areas beyond social studies: languagearts (having students keep journals); mathematics (in planning purchases for the trip); art (makingmaps and drawings for the walls illustrating the jour-ney); science (learning about climate, wildlife, and nutrition during the trip), and music (singing songs of the pioneer days).12Group learning with the computer engages students as actors and decisionmakers and channels their need to feel important as contributing members of a team. Too often this need is met only by after-school activities, such as band, play production, or putting together the school newspaper. 13This cooperative, group learning model has of course been used in other situations without computers as the focal point, but the interactivity of computer simulations and the machines management of content frees the teacher to observe the groups in action, and to concentrate on the art ofleading the students in their analysis and discussions.Not all teachers welcome this change in the teachers role. For some, it can be threatening. If all the eyes in the classroom arent on me, Im notteaching. Others wonder, Are the teachers who are not successful with traditional teaching methods the ones who switch over to using the computer? Other computer-using teachers report that computers have exerted little or no influence on their personal classroom behavior. These reactions reflect: Holly Montgomery helm, PA, A Look at room, interface: No. 3, November 1987, p. 2. Research has documented searchers studying the introduction of restructuring expertise by students. See Jan Hawkins The of a Story: Computers and of I n rooms, for (Chic IL: Chicago Press, 1986), pp. 40-58. PAGE 106 96Photo credit: Center for Children and Technology, Bank Street College of EducationPeer learning and language development can take place as students work together at the computer.different circumstances and styles of computer use. Since drill and practice or tutorial software is de-signed for use by individual students working independently from the teacher, it is understandable thatteachers using such software find computers have little impact on their teaching style. They see the computer as a way of giving their students more seatwork or practice time, which they wouldotherwise provide with mimeograph practice sheetsor other kinds of drillwork. Furthermore, present-ing concepts to a whole class, then breaking the classinto small groups to allow the children to become actively involved in solving problems, can be done with or without the computer. For teachers whohave long used such methods, computers seem a nat-ural extension of their arsenal of teaching tools. Fi-nally, for many teachers, especially those in elemen-tary schools who have classroom activity centers, the computer provides another engaging learning station.Effects on Classroom ManagementAlmost all teachers who have taught with computers agree that, at least initially, most uses of computers make teaching more difficult. It takesplanning to handle the basic logistics of scheduling14which students will use computers when and where,to make the necessary equipment and materialsavailable, and to have a fall-back lesson in case the computer malfunctions. It also takes a great deal ofplanning to incorporate computers into a lesson.Much of todays computer software covers only oneor a few instructional concepts. The teacher must access to the computers orlaboratory time can be a major scheduling nightmare. This is another area where administrative support is important. Principals need to be aware of the scheduling issues (and equity implications) in determining who gets access to the equipment. PAGE 107 97Photo credit Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyComputers give teachers a better opportunity to individualize, but that doesnt mean its easy. Individualization is difficult to manage. OTA teacher interview.find the best ways to incorporate sundry pieces into the overall curriculum. As one teacher said:It took me a while to get used to all this. It tookme two months to understand what was going on. .then a year to get good at it to learn all thesoftware programs and all the intimate details andintricacies of how the room worked. It took me a good year to be comfortable but by the end of that time my room was pretty red-hot.Although teaching with computers may require more preparation initially, teachers also report that technology eventually eases some aspects of classroom management. When students find their work on the computer engrossing, discipline problems decline. Absenteeism can be cut down, both by increased student enthusiasm for school, and through management systems such as automatic telephone calling systems that report to parents on unexcused absences in school.15Spreadsheets orspecial purpose grading programs, word processors,database managers, and desktop publishing canstreamline many of the teachers administrative burdens such as maintaining records and preparing materials. Management tasks can be greatly simplified when teachers use networked systems. Some of todays in-tegrated learning systems, which use large capacitystorage systems on hard disc or compact disc-read only memory (CD-ROM), can hold thousands of individual lessons matched to the schools curriculum, at levels ranging from primary through sixth grade skills, for the teaching of reading, language arts, and mathematics. Each student in the classroom can be working on a different lesson, with the management system automatically recording each students progress, printing out for the teacher a detailed record of the students work. The printoutindicates which problems the student answered cor-rectly, which were missed, and how long it took the student to complete the tasks. The teacher can then incorporate this information in planning which concepts must be reviewed when students return to the classroom, and cluster students by needs. By greatlyeasing recordkeeping and monitoring, these systemsmake it possible for the teacher to individualize teaching to a much larger degree.Effects on Teacher Accountability: The Testing QuestionOne of the major issues in teaching is testing and teacher accountability, an issue that also has a di-A recent study at the University of for dealing with student absenteeism at nine high schools, matched for their student body period, it was found that student absenteeism dropped schools where the parents of absent students based automatic calling systems in student dropped only 18 percent parents were called school personnel during day. rgenerated systems found to much of contacting parents. M. McDonald, of see, A Comparison of the Effect of Computer and for Attendance in Public High School s, doctoral dissertation, PAGE 108 rect bearing on use of computers and other technology in the classroom. Teachers evaluations are often tied to students scores on standardized tests that do not directly measure the progress of students who are tackling open-ended problems, collaborating with other students, and turning in assignments that require more than a right/wrong answer. 16 Teachers thus have an incentive to use skill-specific software that matches the curriculum goals for which they are responsible. They are deterred from exploring exciting possibilities offered by software that is not tied to a particular measurable skill, but which 1Hawkins and She]ngcdd, op. cit., footnote 13. TEACHER TRAINING Although the State, district, and administrators set systemwide curriculum requirements, it is the teacher who determines how instructional activities are carried out. The classroom teacher looks at the time and texts at hand, slices the subject matter into daily lesson plans, and determines how to teach the required materials. If computer technology is to have an impact on teaching and learning, teachers must be comfortable with computers, seeing them as tools that enhance rather than interfere with their daily teaching. For this to happen, teachers need special training. However, the vast majority of todays teachers have had little or no training on how to apply computers in teaching. Recent reports suggest that only about one-third of all K-12 teachers have had even 10 hours of computer training. Much of that training has focused on general computer literacy, at the introduction to computers level, rather than on the more sophisticated and comprehensive issues of how to integrate computer technology into the curriculum or how to use the computer for a variety of teaching tasks, some of which may be entirely new. Teachers need more technology training (learning how to use computers to accomplish their current classroom goals), as well as more technology education (gaining enough knowledge about ;Much of the work in this scctmn is based on Allen D. Glenn and Carol A. Carrier, A Revvtw of the Status of Technology Training for Teachers, OTA contractor report, Sept. 22, 1987. IOffice of Tcchnologv Assessment, op. cit., footnote 9. may provide opportunities for the student to engage in problem solving or to just play around. Educators have legitimate concerns regarding how the work done on the computer fits into the curriculum. They know that the bottom line is testing, and that they are held accountable for assuring that the facts of the subject matter are covered in their classroom. Therefore, although a teacher may recognize the value of seeing the students working together, cooperating, and developing creative solutions to problems offered by simulation of an historical event, this same teacher must worry about whether these students have memorized the historical facts that tests measure. IN TECHNOLOGY 17 the computer and understanding of its capabilities so they can explore the potential of the computer to improve learning in nontraditional ways). OTA finds that teachers need both training and education if technology is to take hold in schools. They need to know how to work the technology to meet their goals, and how to work with it in changing goals based on what the technology makes possible. Training and professional development, for both new and veteran classroom teachers, need to be seen as continuing efforts. Inservice education can bring the existing cadre of teachers up to speed, help them overcome computer anxieties, and guide them as they attempt to adopt powerful, multipurpose, and ever-changing technologies in the classrooms. Concurrently, it will be necessary to ensure that those entering the profession have the most up-to-date technology skills and underlying understandings. Unfortunately, the solution, like so many other answers to educational questions, is neither simple nor easily attainable. Teacher Education Reform Efforts The need to improve teachers technology training and education arises at a time when reforming teacher education is receiving much attention. This comes on the heels of several years of critical review of U.S. public education. Two major reports address these reform issues and their implications for teacher PAGE 109 9 9 education.] The Holmes Group, composed of deans from large, research-oriented colleges, and the Carnegie Forum, a group of political, business, and educational leaders, each call for major changes in the preparation of teachers, higher standards for teachers, and increased professionalism, along with appropriate professional compensation. The Holmes Group recommends that colleges abolish the undergraduate education major and move teacher education to a post-baccalaureate degree program. This would be a drastic change for almost all schools of education because, while postbaccalaureate programs have existed for years, they are the exception rather than the norm. The Holmes Group, Inc., Tomorro\{~~ Teachers: A Report of The Ho/roes Group (East Lansing, LII: 1986); and Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the .21st Centur}r, the Report of the Task Force c>n Teaching as a Profession (Neu, York, N I r : May 1986). The Carnegie Forum has set into motion a National Board for Professional Teachin g Standards that will develop national examinations and guidelines for teacher certification, efforts many feel will change the profession profoundly. Concomitant efforts to reform teacher education are also occurrin g at the State level. More than 25 States require teacher competenc y testing in at least the basic skills of reading, writing, and mathematics. State regulations also specif y the number of credits permitted in teacher education programs. Debate continues over how much time should be spent on content versus process in teacher education. As a result of these calls for reform at the State and national levels, teacher education programs are changing. In the midst of these sweepin g changes, technology training is not the onl y issue in the teacher preparation debate, but it can be one piece of the solution. The teacher reform movement provides the opportunit y to consider new roles for teachers and how technology fits in. PRESERVICE TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION A Brief History As the number of computers increased in elementary and secondar y schools over the last 10 years, schools and colleges of education tried to respond. Many incorporated a basic computer literac y course into their curriculum, covering such topics as: What is a computer? How does it work? How do you program it? Proponents of programming suggested that learning to program would remove much of the mystery surrounding the operation of computers and would give teachers greater flexibilit y in using them. 20 Teachers would also be able to develop their own software in a period when good educational software was scarce. 21 Others found emphasis on programming reinforced the idea that only technical peoplelike those in the audio-visual/instructional design departments where early computer courses often originated, or those in mathematics or the sciencescould understand computers. Other : Vllliam Bramble et al., Compurers In SChoo]s (Nw York, NY: McGra\\ Hill, 1985), p. 225, T.]. .slngletarv, Programm~ng for Leadership, ]ournal of Tea~her Educar)(]n, ~ol. 38, No. 4, 1%6, pp. 26-30. teachers were often intimidated by and/or uninterested in computers, Current Efforts To Prepare Todays New Teachers To Use Computers Approximatel y 142,000 new teachers were expected to graduate in 1987-88. 22 Over 1,500 private and public institutions prepare these teachers. Their programs range in size from those with a handful of teachers to those that graduate several hundred each year. Toda y almost all of these teacher licensure programs provide some instruction in the use of computers. 23 Despite course offerings, graduates of teacher preparation institutions apparentl y do not feel ~~l.s, Department of E~UCa[lon, Offlcc of Edu~atl~)nal [{ewar~ h and Impro\ement, Center for Education Stati\rl~s, The CondJr/orI of E&carwn (Washington, DC: 1986), p. 64. In makln~ thcw pro]cct]~>n\, the National Center for Educarion Statistics used data from the Natlonal Education Assoc]at]on. : Elghtv-nine percent of all schools of education offered some form of computer training to their student\. See U.S. Department of Education, Oilce of Educatlona] Research and Development, Teacher Preparat~f)n ~n rhe (-w c)f C<)mpu rcr\ (Nashlngtt>n, DC: January 1986). PAGE 110 100 prepared to use computers in teaching. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education recently surveyed education faculty and students in 90 member institutions offering bachelors, masters, or doctoral programs in education. Both education faculty and students were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of their teacher education program in preparing classroom teachers. On all but 2 of the 12 aspects of teaching in the survey, more than twothirds of both groups considered students to be prepared to assume the tasks of classroom teaching. Yet this preparation did not carry over to teaching with technology. The faculty rated only 58 percent of the students as prepared to teach with computers, while only 29 percent of the education students felt ready to teach with computers. 24 (See figure 5-1. ) Factors Affecting Technology Training Programs Several important changes over the past 10 years directly affect teacher technology training programs. Some have facilitated the technology training efforts, but others have created new problems that may explain why so many new teachers do not feel prepared to teach with computers. Changing Technology. Hardware and software have become easier to use, more powerful, and more useful in the classroom. More powerful and adaptive software means teachers have less need for programming skills. Computer training has become less technical overall. However, rapid technological change also creates problems for schools of education similar to those faced by teachers already in classrooms. As one dean at a major college of education said: The problem is how to prepare teachers for hardware that is not yet invented, for software that is not yet designed, and for curricula not yet imagined. Its hard to have a vision of what technology will be, but, as deans, we have to have a vision, and we have to realize that it will change. 25 + American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Teaching Teachers: Facts and Figures (Washington, DC: 1987). fCarl Berger, Dean of the College of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, quoted in Education and the Challenge of Technology, proceedings of a Conference on Technology and Teacher Education, sponsored by the University of Califorma, Berkeley and Apple Computer, Inc., August 1986. Figure 5-1 .Readiness to Teach: Perceptions of Education School Faculty and Student Teachers Aspects of teaching / A Develop materials o 50 100 Percent citing realness SOURCE: Research About Teacher Education Project, Teaching Facts and Figures (Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1987). Varying Student Levels of Preparation.Schools of education are faced with students whose computer backgrounds vary considerably. Since many more high school students now have at least minimal experience with the computer, the education schools student population is more computer literate than was the case even 5 years ago. According to one estimate, approximately 60 percent of freshman entering college today have experience using the computer. Nevertheless, some education school faculty have argued that education majors may be less preb]udith A. Turner, Familiarity With New, Technology Breeds Changes in Computer-Library Courses, The Chmrde of Higher Education, July 22, 1987, pp. 9, 12. PAGE 111 101 pared to use technology than their peers in mathematics, sciences, or business majors. 27 State Regulations and the Education Curriculum.State departments of education and professional organizations are establishing guidelines for what technology skills teachers need. For example, the Northwest Council for Computer Education prepared guidelines for teacher education in schools of education in Washington and Oregon. (See table 5-l.) The trend at the State level is to establish preservice education requirements. Currently, 18 States and the District of Columbia require all students in their teaching degree programs or those seeking certification to take a course on computer topics, or require that students demonstrate familiarity in using technolog y for instruction. 28 An additional seven States recommend that some preservice training be taken. 29 This leaves half the States currently neither requiring nor recommendin g technology preparation for new teachers. (See figure 5-2.) Although formal requirements may force the development of new programs of study in educational technology, establishing new programs with education school facult y whose technolog y expertise is uneven or limited is difficult. Furthermore, some analysts believe that schools of education are over--Gar\ Bitter, Arizona State Lln]\crslty, personal communlcatwn, ~>~t<]b~r 198~. The State of California la\\ reads as follo\\s: Commencing July 1, IW8, the mlnlmum requirements for a clear teaching credential also Inc Iucic satisfactory completion of computer education coursework \\ h l~h Includes general and spcclallzed skills in the use of computers In edu~atlona! settings, In ac~ot-dance \\[th regulations established bv t}le c(]mmlsslon. (a) The Lqyslature hereh\ finds and declares that Californias puhIIC \chool pupils need qualltv Instruction and support in the areas of computer educ atlon I n order to develop the skills necessary for entr~ Into an I ncrcasingly technological society. The legislature recognizes that computers and other technologies are an integral part of contem~>orarl society and the state educational s}rstem. It IS the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to provide a state\\. [de standard for the preparation of educational personnel in the areas of computer education. (h) For purposes of this section, computer education means the pro~e~s of teachin g pupils about computers. (c) The Commission on Teacher Crcdentia]lng, In consultation uith the Supmntendent of Public Instruction, may develop and disseminate \,oluntarv standards for the training and performance of teachers and resource personnel In the area of computer education. (d) The Commission on Teacher Credentialing shall study the effectl \cnew of the training and performance of teac hers and resource perwnncl I n the area of c(>mputer education, and shall suhm It a report {}n the re Abbreviations: O: Oblifration: EO: Estimated Obiiaation; A: APwoPriation; R: Budget Request %her programs supp;rf technology demonstrati~ns and applications, but there iino information avaiiable to document funding reiated to technology. These inciude: the Magnet Schoois Assistance Act (Title Iii, Education for Economic Security Act EESA), the Bilingual Education Act (Title Vll, EESA, Parts B and C), and three programs authorized under the Higher Education Act (the Fund for improvement of Postsecondary Education, HEA X-A; Leadership in Educational Administration Development, HEA V-C-2; and the Christa McAuliffe Feiiowships, HEA V-D-2). Formuia funding programs also support technology. These include: Chapter 1, Economic Consolidation and improvement ActECiA; Chapter 2 (ECIA); EESA, Mathematics/Science Program; the Bilingual Educatjon Act (Part A, State and iocai grants); the Education for the Handicapped Act (State grants); and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act (Titie Ii). With the exception of Chapter 2 biock grants, information to document activities related to technology is not availabie. An eatimated 30 percent of appropriations for Chapter 2 block grants is used for technology applications. bNine regional educational Iaboratodes car~ out applied research gnd development and provide technical assistance within multistate regiOnS. The tOhi anIWd appropdatlon is $17 miiiion for 19S7, 19SS, and 19S9. Funding for educational technology activities comes from OERi grants and other sources. Additional funds for technology were provided to the laboratories through the Rurai Education initiative (Education Appropriations Act of 1986) which appropriated S4 miilion over 2 years and g}ves a priority to applications of technology. The amounts shown inciude only Federai funding. Cfqineteen centers conduct research on educational topics of national significance over a 3 to 5 year period. The total annual appropriation has been $17.5 nlilliOrr since 19S5. Center awards range from S500,000 to $1.2 miilion annualiy. One center has designated responsibility for educational technology R&D, but severai others support research projects that have a strong technology component. Some centers support research that may iead to future applications of technology for iearning. dinclude9 Criticai foreign language projects involving technology, which account for approximately 10 percent of critlcai foreign ianguage discretionary funds, einciudes $1 million for Square One TV, currently under review. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on data from the U.S. Department of Education, The Fiscal Year 19S9 Budget, Summary and Background /formation (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, February 1988); personai communication and iists of Departments of Education grants and awards, April 1988. PAGE 179 171 A new technology competition under the Programs of National Significance in the Title II Program for Mathematics, Science, Computer Education, and Critical Foreign Languages will have a funding level of $1 million. There is also a new competition for an Educational Technology Center. However, the RFP calls for less support ($5 million over 5 years, versus $7.7 million from 1983 to 1988 under the current contract) with a much broader research agenda. The new center will be responsible for all curriculum areas, not just mathematics and science, and its mandate will cover not only technology, but also teaching, learning, assessment, and school leadership. Despite the limited budget, interest in the center competition has been very strong. Indeed, the new technology center is perceived as the only game in town by the educational technolog y research community. No new educational television initiatives are planned, and although the new congressionall y mandated Star Schools Program for distance learning projects is authorized at a level of $19.1 million for 1988, no funds are requested in the Departments 1989 budget. OTA concludes that these efforts fall short of focused, long-term commitments called for by the National Governors Association, the National Task Force on Educational Technology, and the National School Boards Association. 43 See National Governors Association, Center for Policy Research and Analysis, Time for Results: The Go\ernors 1 ~~1 Report on Education (Washington, DC: 1986); Natlonal Task Force on Educational Technology, op. cit., footnote 35; and National School Boards Association, A Nar~onal lmperatlte: Educating fiw the 2 Isr Cenrur} (Alexandria, VA: 1988). PROMISING DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH 44 OTA finds that both recent research results and current demands for change in schools make increased research on technology and education especially promising at this time. 45 Three major factors make this so: 1. The technology makes possible the testing and trying of new ideas. Some of the best and the brightest scientists and researchers today see education as an important frontier for research because of the potential offered by interactive technologies. 46 Work in psychology, computer science, and artificial intelligence is contributing to understanding coherent the+h!uch of this discussion comes from Roy D. Pea and Elliot Solowav, Mechanisms for Facilltatmg a Vital and Dynamic Education System: Fundamental Roles for Education Science and Technology, OTA contractor report, December 1987. l(Jgy Dlrc~ti(]ni for Amcrlcan Educatl(>n, Report for the Na t]onal S~ Ienc c F(~undat]c]n, Deccmhcr 1987, Interagency funding of projects. This is one mechanism that could increase coordination and support larger efforts. 58 However, past experience with this approach points to difficulties of securing interagency agreements on objectives, procedures for awards, and requirements for reports or contracted products. Congress has sometimes viewed joint funding as duplicative. Collaboration among programs. Support from a variety of discretionary or operating funds within agencies can bring together Federal program managers, in-house researchers, and external grant and contract recipients to present findings on work in progress. Meetings on topics of mutual interest could provide cross-fertilization of research ideas. With better awareness of work in progress, Federal officials could target discretionar y and operating funds to developments that seem most promising, as well as to areas where gaps exist. Coordinating activities and meetings of this scale requires resourcesstaff time and funds for travel and per diem. While these are not large expenditures, many grants today, especially in the Department of Education, do not include travel funds for researchers, nor have agency staff been encouraged to travel to professional meetings. Electronic networks for research and dissemination. The history of ARPANET and the recent establishment of research networks in NSF demonstrate the important resource these provide for communication and collaboration among funders, researchers, school practitioners, and policy makers. 5~The Departments of Education, Lahor, and Defense have supported an lnnotatl~e technology, transfer pr(]grarn ln~o-i~lng the mllltarys Job SkIlls Education Program (J SEP). Rcprmcr~tatl~,m frc>m each agency met for nearlv 2 years as an Interagency} Vrorklng C~r(>up [~n Adult Literacv to accomplish this transfer. \Xith ]olnt fundin g fr{,m the Department of Labor ($500,000) and the Department of Edu~atmn ($128,000), the militarys computer-based job sk]lls educational materials are being converted for use in functional llterac~. Pr(>grams In the civilian sector (students In high school and adults In other pr(}grams). Florida State UnlJerslt} and Ford Aerom the Arm\ Research Institute who had worked directlv on the JSEP program ~oordlnatcci the details of making this technology transfer feasible. The Department of Labor is fund~ng three demonstration sites In California, Delaware, and Indiana, i~here State ~ocatlona] education and Job Training Partnership Act personnel are playlng a kc} role, New York State is supp<)rt]n~ two clcmonstratlon >Ites as t~ell. Karl Ha]gler, director, Adult Llteracv Inltlatlte, L. S, Department ~}f Education, persc>nal communlcat](>n, June 19S8. 87-002 0 88 5 : QL 3 PAGE 190 182 Nevertheless, various research communities have limited access to one another, with the education community the most infrequent user. Congress may want to study how national networks can better serve the needs of the education and research community, especially as rising costs discourage network usage. Congressional oversight. Congress could request an annual or biannual report that: a) reviews the activities of all Federal agencies involved in educational technology, b) identifies opportunities to transfer technology from one type of activity to another, and c) recommends steps to be taken for further research or in transfer activities. Requests for periodic reports to Congress are not unprecedented, particularly in areas of rapid development and high national interest. Periodic reports could motivate agencies to collect and analyze information in a more systematic fashion. Agencies may consider this an extra reporting burden. Some agencies are organizing information on technology funding and project scope for their own purposes (e.g., DoD), but considerable resources are required to make information databases useful. Assembling an annual report would require expenditures to provide trained personnel to coordinate the assessment and the computer support for developing and maintaining databases. Option 4: New Initiatives The magnitude of the problems facing education, increasing demands for a better trained populace to meet international economic competition, and promising applications of technology for learning argue for a different approach. More than band-aids on the existing system may be required; instead, some suggest consideration of totally new initiatives that would provide a national focus on technology and educational improvement. That technology can improve the productivity of the workplace is no longer in doubt. Whether it can offer comparable improvements to education needs to be tested. Major commitments to R&D could explore classroom applications and changes to make learning more productive: allowing teachers time to spend with individual students, coaching and tutoring them; and tailoring instruction to each students level of understanding, learning speed, and learning style. To find out whether these goals could be realized requires a major investment in R&D. Perhaps it is time for education to invest the same fraction of gross expenditures on research as does the average privately owned business in the United States. If that were the case, about $9 billion a year would be spent for education research. This is 60 to 90 times more than the present allocation. 59 Options incorporating this level of focus and investment include support for centers for interactive technology and education, major long-term demonstrations of technology in schools, and funding a national education futures project, or a combination of the above. Centers for interactive technology and education. These centers would conduct research, development, demonstration, evaluation, and dissemination of educational technology projects. h{ They would be tied closely to schools and involve teachers in research. The work could be modeled on the Department of Educations Educational Technology Center; the differences would be the scale of effort and funding, the interdisciplinary research focus, and the long-term commitment. Such centers would have several attractive characteristics. They would encourage the coordination of technology use in teaching and learning. They would integrate all stages of R&D, from science to classroom, in one setting, providing opportunities for technology transfer among the center and schools, Federal laboratories, private industry researchers, and university research. They would stabilize the R&D effort, making it possible to attract and keep the best personnel who could see projects through to final evaluation and dissemination. There would be economies of scale, making it possible to support costly advanced hardware and bring together a variety of people from various specialities, enriching the research mix. Finally, centers would provide training opportunities for teachers and graduate students, enlarging and enriching the manpower pool for educational technology R&D. But there are drawbacks. Such centers are expensive. A new major funding commitment (from $5 to $10 million per year) in a time of budget deficits 5uSee Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 49. For a fuller discussion and description of centers for interactive technology and education, see Pea and Soloway, op. cit., footnote 44. PAGE 191 183 may be unrealistic. Centers could duplicate current efforts. What would be their relationshi p with existing Federal centers and their research in this area? Would important work in progress now lose support to continue? Would independent researchers still be supported for smaller efforts not tied to the work of the centers? Would new centers strip existin g universit y research centers of their best people, given the shortage of highly skilled personnel? Finally, the long lead time for research applications to reach fruition could be politically unpopular and jeopardize future funding. Experts estimate that many products in the R&D pipeline now could take a decade or more before they can be expected to make a significant impact on the classroom. Long-term demonstrations of technology. The scale and scope of these demonstration schools would be much larger than current demonstrations that typically focus on one technolog y product or process with just one class or a small group of students in a school. Technolog y demonstration schools could be representative of the student population nationwide and involve all the school resources (teachers, researchers, equipment, curriculum, parents, community support) for applying technolog y in school activities. Demonstration sites would make it possible to evaluate the educational effects of a technology-rich school environment. The costs of setting up and sustaining demonstration schools would be large, requiring the Federal Government to reimburse States and local districts for the extra required resources. States and districts sponsoring demonstration sites would have to agree to relax standard requirements for curriculum, teacher staffing and salaries, and organizational and administrative restraints, in order to provide a site allowing for experimentation. And not all schools would benefit equally at first, raising concerns about equity and the choice of sites. A national education futures initiative for research, development, and demonstration in educational technology. 6l This option, on the order of $1 billion per year for 10 years, could include the initiatives suggested above, as well as support all levels of research, development, and demonstration; teacher training; software development; longitudinal and comparative evaluations; and dissemination. Congress could include a sunset provision, using the year 2000 as an endpoint, a period in which the Federal effort would make enough of an impact on education to create significant change. In addition to focusing the Nations attention on technological solutions, an initiative of this order could also strengthen the hardware, software, and telecommunications industries, which have become important industries for U.S. economic competitiveness. Many educators have suggested that the magnitude of U.S. educational problems, and the Nations decreased economic competitiveness, require an initiative on this order. This effort would require the establishment of a coordinating bodypossibl y a new institution made up of staff from existing Federal agencies, university laboratories, school personnel, and members of the private sector. 62 It would draw resources, both personnel and financial, from other sectors as well as from other approaches to educational improvement. Other social programs might suffer funding cuts to support an educational buildup of this order. Finally, this level of Federal activit y in education could prove politically difficult if it led to the development of national curricula or national educational standards, or if the public became impatient and did not detect significant educational improvements after the first few years of funding. Option 5: Support International Cooperation The European community, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, the Soviet Union, and other nations are embarking on major efforts to use interactive technologies to improve instruction. These efforts share common concerns, experiences, and outcomes with U.S. educational technology activities, despite vary- PAGE 192 184 ing educational goals and cultural differences. There is much we can learn from one another. As information technologies are used to link students and classrooms all over the world, it may be appropriate to support larger efforts for international cooperation. Congress may wish to consider international cooperative efforts such as sponsorship of conferences, 63 exchange of researchers, and joint funding of projects. Models for this occur in other areas of science, but little has been done to date for cooperative educational technology projects. As the Chairman of the 1987 Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation conference stated: Some educators would advise caution and warn against the possibility of creating too great expectations. Such views are praiseworthy but we should not be daunted by the magnitude of the task. The application of information technology to education requires new and imaginative approaches. The potential return is very high indeed. 64 The Center for Educational Research and Innovation of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has sponsored international conferences on education and information technology. See Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, New Information Technologies: A Challenge for Education (Paris, France: 1986); and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Information Technologies and Basic Learning (Paris, France: 1987). Quote from Denis Healy of Ireland, Information Technologies and Basic Learning, sponsored by the Center for Educational Research and Innovation (Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1987), p. 13. On the other hand, some would argue that the resources available for enhancing educational technology in this country are already scarce. To attempt to support international efforts might put too great a strain on our system. Others suggest that the centralized educational systems of other industrial nations, or the special problems of developing nations, would make it hard to generalize research results into useful programs for this country. More study is needed to identify the U.S. position with regard to other countries and to consider ways in which international efforts could proceed. Conclusions OTA concludes that increased coordinated support for R&D in educational technology is necessary. Significant improvements in education can be made if sustained support is made available for development of new tools for teaching and learning. The private sector, while a contributor to this effort, does not have the primary responsibility or appropriate vision for making this a priority. States and localities do not have the capacity. The magnitude of the challenge facing education, allied with the potential offered by new interactive learning technologies, requires that the Federal Government accept this responsibility and opportunity for leadership. PAGE 193 Chapter 8Technology and the Future of Classroom Instruction PAGE 194 CONTENTS Page Figures Tables PAGE 195 Chapter 8 Technology and the Future of Classroom Instruction the computer is an innovation of more than ordinary magnitude, a one-in-several-centuries innovation and not a one-in-a-century innovation or a one-in-ten years innovation or one of those instant revolutions that are announced every day in the papers or on television. Herbert A. Simon l What we need to do, then, is to educate as though this technological revolution is what it reall y isthe third learning revolution the most important change in learning since the 16th century. Mary Alice White 2 INTRODUCTION The current wave of educational technology which began roughly in 1981, when schools first began acquiring computers in large numbers, is a good news, bad news, good news story. The good news is that schools showed a remarkable willingness to invite computer technologies into the classroom, and to see how these interactive cognitive tools could be applied in a setting devoted in large part to training young minds to think. American schools are often criticized for their slowness to change,; for their lag in adapting to modern times. Yet their eager embrace of computer technology may signify a break with the past: despite the constraints of local budgets and the exigencies of distributional equity, 4 the United States has been among the worlds leaders in providing public school children access to new technologies. The fact that U.S. schools were willing to meet the challenge of the Hcrhcrt A. Simon, The Computer Age, Compurcrs In Educar)c)n: Rc>s)]:]ng rhc P<)renria), Report of a Research Conference (Washington, DC: ( .S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Rewarch and Impro~ement, August 1983), p. 37. -Nfarv Alice Nhltc (cd.), Information and Imagery Education, Wh,7t Lurricu/um fi~r rhe Information Age? (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987), p. 63. See, for example, David K. Cohen, Educational Technology and .ihool Organization, paper prepared for the Confercncc on Technol(>gv In Education In 2020: Thinking About the NTot-Distant Future, Har~ard Unlvcrsity Educational Technology Center, Oct. 15-17, 1986. Thl~ c~>nfcrencc was supported in part by OTA. This paper and others presented at rhe conference will be publlshed in Ravmond S. Nickerson and Phlllp P. Zodhiates (eds. ), Technology in Edu~arion in 201U (Hlllda]e, NJ: Lattrence Erlbaum Assoclares, in press). See ]amc< Guthr]c, (uampalgn and Education: A Ptvmer for Prcsldcntlal Candidates, fhl Delra Kappan, \rol. 69, No. 7, March 1988, pp. 514-519. new information world and to attempt to integrate a nascent tool into their already dense curricula is perhaps more important than the limited proof of educational improvements. The bad news, however, must be reported too: even this remarkable achievement in the schools pales in comparison with the rate and magnitude of entry into the age of information experienced by business, the military, higher education, and medicine. A handful of classrooms have one computer for each child and another one for the child to use at home (see box 8-A). But in general, classrooms today resemble their ancestors of 50 and 100 years ago much more closely than do todays assembly plants, scientific laboratories, and operating rooms. A number of information technologists point out that if business organizations toda y evolved at the same rate as the schools, the y would still be using quill pens instead of electronic word processors. It might be argued that the complex goals of education are not necessarily advanced by application of new electronic gadgets, and certainly not in the same obvious way that accounting tasks have been simplified with the electronic spreadsheet or file management has been streamlined with database systems. Nevertheless, the chasm in technological sophistication between our schools and the environment in which students will work gives pause. But there is more good news: under the right conditions there is reason to hope that the new technologies will continue to spur major school 187 PAGE 196 188 PAGE 197 189 improvements. Polled for their interest in emerging technologies, over 20 percent of public school teachers were found to be very interested in networks, integrated learning systems, on-line database access, and distance learning. Perhaps even more impressive, 31 percent of surveyed teachers indicated that they . would like to see publishers concentrate on developing innovative programs that teach problem solvin g and higher order thinking skills, while 17 percent desire software that. reinforces and closely matches the skills taught in the basal textbook series. 5 If this level of enthusiasm can be sustained, new information technology may prove to be a principal catalyst of educational improvement. Some of the economic and institutional prerequisites have been the subject of preceding chapters. This chapter takes a close look at the technolog y itself, and asks: What can state-of-the-art information tools do for classroom learning? TALk!IS, The K-12 Nfarkct for Technolog y and Electronic Media: A Rcwarc h Report Prepared for TALhlIS Continuous Information Serklcc Clients, unpuhllshed manuscript, March 1988 (itallcs added). CONVERGENCE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES As indicated earlier (see chapter 2) the desktop computer is currently the prevalent electronic tool used for instruction in U.S. elementary and secondary schools. However, along with acquisition of computers, schools are gradually becoming consumers of communications and mass storage (memory) technologies. The former refer to technologies that connect students or teachers working in different places via phone lines or other electronic link; the latter are devices that store large quantities of data, such as magnetic disc or optical media. Many of the new learning tools are computer related: the y must be connected to a computer to be functional. Others can be used independently, but their appeal stems largel y from a principle of interactivity made familiar by computers. In video, for example, which is already found in over 90 percent of schools, the advantage of the videocassette recorder (VCR) over ordinary television is time shifting. Few teachers today would settle for less than the ability to control the timing, if not the selection of televised programs. It is the convergence of information technologies that holds the greatest potential for the development of new learning and teaching tools. In some instances, the three principal information technologiescomputer processing, telecommunications, and television (video)have already converged into state-of-theart instructional applications. A good example is the marriage of video and computer technologies through digital video interactive (DVI), developed by researchers at the David Sarnoff Laboratory. The Center for Children and Technology at the Bank Street College of Education has applied DVI to a project called PALENQUE, which affords users a television walking tour of that ancient Mayan village, as well as the occasion to control the direction and order of their tour (see photo). Perhaps most exciting about PALENQUE is that users can collect images in a scrapbook for future viewin g and studying. There are other examples of convergence. The Kids Network Project uses computing and communications to allow children to collect and process scientific data and transmit their findings to peers across the country. b Electronic teleconferencing, made possible by the convergence of television and switched (telephone) communications technologies, is commonplace in large corporations and is gradually finding applications in schools. Distance Learning Although instructional television has been widel y used for several decades, more recent advances that For details, sw Technical Education Research Centers, National Geographic Soclct~ Kids Nctuork Project, Annual Report, October 1986 -September 1%7, n.d. PAGE 198 190enable teachers and students to communicate in-teractively over thousands of miles have special appeal. There are many rural and isolated communi-ties with teacher shortages where distance learninghas overcome potentially significant instructional barriers. Distance learning allows students to hear and sometimes see teachers, and, perhaps more important, allows those teachers to react to studentsquestions and comments. The declining costs andincreased accessibility of satellite technologies haveenabled 35 States to support some type of distancelearning program7 (see figure 8-l). Transmissionmethods vary. Some involve two-way video and audio Educational A on Annual of States, 2, p. 41.while others make use of electronic mail services forcommunication and evaluation of homework.Some State distance learning programs offercourses developed and taught by local educators,while others offer courses provided by universities,private organizations, or other States. In most cases,distance learning courses are similar to regularcourses, with teacher lessons, print--based materials,and tests. For example, TI-IN Network, Inc., aTexas-based private company, provides courses and staff development opportunities via satellite to morethan 250 subscribing school districts and othereducational agencies in Texas and in over 20 otherStates. During the 1986-87 school year, TI-IN offered23 high school courses, including calculus, honors English, Latin, and computer science and over 400Figure 8-1.States With Distance Learning ProjectsHISOURCE: Electronic Learning, Educational Technology 1987, A Report on ELs Seventh Annual Survey of the States, No. 2, October 1987 PAGE 199 191hours of inservice training. Master teachers in each subject broadcast their courses from studios locatedin San Antonio and at California State Universityin Chico. Each subscribing school receives the signal via satellite. Students view the lesson and communicate with the teacher via a telephone call-back system. Students who miss a class need not miss alesson but can watch it later on videotapesNew transmission technologies, such as fiber optic cables, will help facilitate the delivery of video,audio, and computer communications allowingmany more signals to travel over one fiber than cantravel over many conventional copper cables. As one example, seven rural school districts in Min-nesota use a system of fiber optics, multiple video monitors, and cameras to link together classrooms up to 78 miles apart so that the teacher can see students in up to three other locations simultaneously. The originating classroom has eight video monitorsand three cameras: one on the teacher, one on thestudents, and one above the teachers desk for dem-onstration materials. Three monitors, a camera,microphone, and telephone are installed in each re-mote classroom. YFacsimile transmission (fax) is another technology that has recently become inexpensive enoughto be used in distance learning projects. Fax unitsnow cost about $1,000. Students and teachers with access to such machines can send documents over telephone lines: each telephone in a fax link is connected to a device about the size of a VCR, whichproduces a printed copy of transmitted material. What normally would require photocopying andmailing of a document can be accomplished inminutes.NetworkingNetworking is a generic concept that includes different types of communications links, usuallycomputer-related. Local area networks (LANs)connect the computers in a laboratory or school toGregory M. Benson, Jr. and William Hirschen, Distance Windows for Education, T. Journal, vol. 15, No. 1, August p. Robin Interactive Breaks New Ground, p. For other examples of distance learning Karen Kitchen and Will Kitchen, Learning: A Primer (Alexandria, School Association, PAGE 200 192 already found in the school, and do not include special software for electronic mail or monitoring of student progress through computerized lessons. However, some experimental projects and recently introduced products incorporate such educational networking software. Modems are devices that permit the transmission of data over regular telephone lines. They have led to the creation of thousands of informal networks: users sharing ideas, programs, data, and messages. There are currently over 6,000 schools (about 7 percent) with computers connected to modems. ll Schools, therefore, are slowly beginning to take advantage of the many available on-line financial services, news, database services, and public information networks that businesses and homes have enjoyed for years. Experimental projects have also been designed and implemented that exploit modem communications for nationwide sharing of student research data (see box 8-B). Some teachers reach their colleagues on-line from home via commercial networks like CompuServ or the Source, or via networks set up by their districts, regional education service centers, or State education agencies. Judging from lists published in the bulletin boards themselves, public access educational boards number at least in the hundreds, perhaps thousands. In addition, there are a growing number of online services designed expressly for teachers and students working in classrooms or school computer laboratories. 12 One example is MIX, a commercial network for education operated by McGraw-Hill. In December 1987, high school students in different classrooms began participating in an international negotiations game, with each classroom representing an opposing power. Other conferences had students communicating with electronic pen pals across the Nation and in foreign countries; one allowed teachers and their students in agriculture classes to hold a corn growing contest (see table 8-1). There are few teachers with telephone lines in their classrooms, but many of them are creatively Quality Education Data, Inc., Microcomputer Usage in Schools: A QED Updare (Denver, CO: spring 1988). !:Earl Dowdy, Computer Networks in Elementary and Secondary Education, OTA contractor report, October 1987, p. +. PAGE 201 Table 8-1 .On-Line Conferences for Teachers and Students Available to Subscribers to MIX (McGraw-Hill Information Exchange), December 1987 Conference name Description stix. talk pen pals debate student, books round robin time. capsule writers assist video Iogo. pen pals us. ussr Australian .reg living, history other, side politics orillas coordinacion astronomy water flat earth twistedscience science zoo weather plant weather, data Discussion and information about STIX projects Student pen pal conference On-line debates for high school students Student compiled books dbase; discussion Shared student story writing Student collection of writing on one day Student writers assistance by students Student video exchanges Student pen pals via LOGO projects Communications between Minnesotan and Hawaiian students about USSR Registration/information on the Australian Bicentennial Project Interact with living figures from history Global conflict simulation for students Student interaction with politicians Bilingual and foreign language sister classes For Project Orillas Coordinators Minneapolis Planetarium staff on-line Student water data collection/discussion Students v, Flat Earth Society Students argue/explain science to Dr. Misconception Science discussion, experts, data from 86-87 Minnesota Zoo Online Weather data and experts on-line Online plant growth data project Weather maps, tables, etc. from the U.S. Weather Service SOURCE: MIX, McGraw-tilll Information Exchange, December 1987 experimenting with networks. As shown in table 8-2, there are already several exemplary efforts underwa y in various subject areas that exploit the convergence of processing and communications technologies. Cooperative science and writing projects for students are being developed by some groups; teachers and administrators are collaborating on curriculum research and development and writing with this technology. The number of commercial and informal networks is expanding as the cost of operating local bulletin boards is dropping. However, important policy questions related to pricing and regulation of telephone communications must be addressed before networking becomes a regular feature of classrooms. In particular, there is the question of whether information transfer companies (such as CompuServ or the Source) should pay access charges to local telephone companies (as do long-distance telephone companics). 13 ] The Federal Communications Comrnlsslon rcccntl~ postponed Indeflnltely its rullng t~> charge access fees to information networking 193 Audiographic Communications A different kind of communications system, called audiographic, allows teachers or students in one location to communicate with others in distant locations via a common electronic graphics system and telephone conference call. In Norwich, New York, 18 rural schools are connected by telephone lines to a central location where a teacher with a regular class has an AT&T Alliance teleconferencing bridge. Each location also has an electronic graphics system, called the Optel Telewriter 1 l-PC, a desktop device that is easily moved from student to student, The students gather around the computer, tablet, and speaker phone. The teacher or an y participant can then write on the tablet or type on the keyboard and their input shows up on all of the remote graphics system screens in the network simultaneously. 14 Broadcast Broadcast television also has the potential to disseminate computerized information. Experiments to broadcast software to schools have been conducted by the Software Communications Service, an organization of 17 State-licensed public broadcasting systems and 5 Canadian provinces. A demonstration program in Maryland showed broadcast televisions capacit y to carry computer information, along with pictures and sound. It will eventuall y be possible to distribute instructional software to thousands of schools at a fraction of the cost of conventional distribution. 15 An experimental project in Kentucky takes advantage of slack in the States enormousl y powerful Early Warning System network, a Department of Defense facility that provides advance notice of incoming missiles. A mainframe computer at Western Kentuck y University uses telephone lines and the emergenc y broadcast system to communicate with terminals at the 21 participating schools. One advantage of this communication link is its costeffectiveness: using long-distance calls to connect to companies following a massive electronic Ictter wrlt]ng campa]~n mounted by subscribers to popular information netuwrk wrxlccs. Su~ h fees uould significantly raise the costs of telephone data communications and could se~ercl, hinder schools abilities to use bullerin boards and other networks. +13cnson and Hlrschen, (>p. cit., fo~wnotc 8, p. 65. Fhan K. Callahan, dlrcctor, Learning Technology\, Central Educatlortal Network, personal communlcatlon, January 1988. PAGE 202 194 Table 8-2.-Examples of Electronic Networking Projects in Education Project Subject/activities Participants Sponsors Big Sky Teacher training and support 114 one-room rural schools in Western Montana College; Telegraph Montana Bread Net Writing project for English teachers and their students. (Teachers plan lessons via computer conference or electronic mail; students exchange compositions and information electronically y.) De Orilla a Bilingual education: communicaOrilla (from tion through writing to proShore to Shore) mote bilingual Iiteracy Kids Network Science activities on weather forecasting, acid rain, water pollution, etc. Students/classrooms collect data, make measurements, analyze results, and share them via the network PSI Network Technical assistance and information exchange in science education (People Sharing Information Network) SOURCE. Office of Technology Assessment, 1988. 1,023 students, 60 teachers in 45 classrooms in rural schools across the U.S. (2 sites in London and Lima) 20 classrooms in San Diego, New England, Puerto Rico, and Buenas Aires. 5 classrooms from Quebec Province to be added Students in grades 4-6 in 200 classrooms, participating in a national field test and evaluation Murdock Charitable Trust; Mountain Bell Foundation; Fund for the improvement of Post Secondary Education Bread Loaf School School of English; Middlebury College; Apple Education Foundation; private foundations New England Multi-Functional Resource Center, University of Hartford, and Quebec Ministry of Education Technical Education Research Centers/National Geographic Society; National Science Foundation the schools in remote areas would be prohibitively expensive. 16 Integration of Technology In the future, many benefits will flow from the implementation of digital integrated networks. These systems, such as the Integrated Systems Digital Network (ISDN), provide digital communications for voice, data, and video signals, and will make computer networks and related services much cheaper. National Science Foundation; IBM Interand intra-state computer conferencing system links State science supervisors and other science education policymakers 1 Electronic Learning, Kentuckys CAI Capabilltv, vol. 5, No. 5, February 1%6, p. [0. It may become possible for any home, office, or school to access any combination of computer programs and video, data, or audio information sources from anywhere in the world. Due to enormous capital costs and long-range planning necessary to install this kind of information infrastructure, most telephone companies target full implementation of ISDN for the beginning of the 21st century, at the earliest. 17 TFor a discussion of Integrated Systems Digital Network see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, lnrcrnational Comperitlon in Scmices (Washington, DC: U.S. Go~ernment Printing OffIce, July 198). ADVANCES IN MEMORY AND DATA STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES The advent of cheap and efficient microminiaturiadvanced technologies. Although todays typical zation in electronics has spawned new digital storclassroom computer (such as the Apple 11-e) has age media that dwarf their low-density floppy-disc much greater capacity than its forebears of 11 years predecessors (see figure 8-2). Schools lag behind ago (e.g., the Commodore PET), it is still extremely other sectors, including industrial and military trainlimited in the size of programs it can run (see table ing, in the acquisition and implementation of these 8-3). And although it is possible to link desktop com- PAGE 203 8 inch Floppy Disc SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment puters to high capacit y storage devices, the latter are still not found in most schools. Nevertheless, the capacity of interactive media to store entire libraries of information and to provide high resolution graphics, full-motion video, sound, and text has attracted a growin g communit y of scholars and educators. CD-ROM and programs. There are alread y some integrated instructional systems that use CD-ROM to house software. 18 Other examples include the General Post Office in Great Britain, which has placed 23.5 million addresses on one CD-ROM; the 31 volume Grolier Encyclopedia; and Standard and Poors Compustat PC Plus, a compilation of traded companies and annual report data. Only a handful of Compact disc-read only memory (CD-ROM) units can store over 500 megabytes of digitized data For onu cx~mp]c SCT c h. -1, PAGE 204 196 Table 8-3.Advances in Technical Capabilities of Computers Used in Schools, 1977-87 Computer Processor Memory Display b Commodore Pet Models 2001, 4016, 4032 (1977) discontinued Radio Shack TRS-80 (1977) discontinued Apple II+ (1977) discontinued Texas Instruments TI 99/4A (1979) discontinued Atari 400/800 (1979) discontinued Commodore Pet Models 8032, 8096, 9000 (1981) discontinued Radio Shack Color Computer (1981) IBM PC (1981) Commodore 64 (1982) IBM PC Jr. (1983) discontinued Apple Ile (1983) Macintosh (1984) Apple IIGS (1986) IBM PS2 Model 25 (1987) 6502 8 bit Z-80 8 bit 6502 8 bit 9900 16 bit 6502 8 bit 6502 8 bit 6809 8 bit 8088 16:8 bit 6510 8 bit 8088 16:8 bit 6502 8 bit 68000 32:16 bit 65816 16 bit 8086 16:8 bit 8K 16K 48K 64K 16K 64K 16K 64K 8K 4K 32K 64K 128K 64K 64K 128K 64K 128K 128K 512K 256K 1 Mb 640K + Black and white; 40 characters by 25 lines Black and white; 40 characters by 23 lines Color; 40 characters by 24 lines; 15 color low resolution at 40 by 48; 8 color high resolution at 280 by 192 Color; 32 characters by 24 lines; 16 colors at 256 by 192 Color; 40 characters by 24 lines; low resolution, 40 by 24, 16 colors; medium resolution, 160 by 96, 8 colors; high resolution, 320 by 192, 2 colors; (total available palate has 128 colors) Black and white; 80 characters by 25 lines 32 characters by 16 lines; 8 color low resolution at 32 by 16; black and white high resolution at 256 by 192 Black and white; 80 characters by 25 lines; color (optional) 16 foreground and 8 background colors; high resolution, 320 by 192, 4 colors 40 characters by 25 lines; 16 colors at 320 by 200 80 characters by 24 lines; 4 color high resolution at 640 by 200; 16 color, medium resolution at 320 by 200 40 to 80 characters by 24 lines; 7 color high resolution at 280 by 192; 16 color low resolution at 40 by 48 80 characters by 24 lines; black and white screen resolution at 512 by 342 40 to 80 characters by 24 lines; 4 color high resolution at 640 by 200; 16 color medium resolution at 320 by 200 80 characters by 24 lines; 256 color high resolution at 720 by 400 aThe~e ~pecification~ represent the most typical configurations found in the classroom and do not reflect the many variations that are possible with peripheral add-on memory and color cards, for example. bManufacturer,s specifications ar e not always consistent in the description of graphics resolution modes and display capabilities SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988 U.S. public schools, however, currently own CDROM units. [ Analog, Digital, and Optical Storage Media Phonograph records, audiotapes, and videotapes have long been used to store pictures and sound, and have become abundant in schools as the costs of consumer electronics have dropped. The videocassette recorder for example, is now found in most schools, and offers several important features: teachers can record and play back selected broadcasts, they can rent or purchase selected tapes, and they can ITAL,MIs, op. ~lt., footnote 5, reports between 2 and 5 percent of schools with CD-ROM, depending on grade Ietel. preview programs on their home VCRs. In addition, the VCR is a simple technology to install and use. Laser optical storage technologies such as the videodisc can be used to store both analog and digital information. (For an explanation of the differences between analog and digital, see box 8-C.) The storage density of the laser videodisc is astonishing: on one side of a 12-inch disc, 54,000 individual pictures can be stored along with stereo audio and digital data. 20 In the last 5 years, laser videodisc programs have been developed for military and industrial training, and for advertising and education. ~JBen Davis, Image Learning: Higher Education and Interacti~c Video Disc, Teachers College Record, vol. 89, No, 3, spring 1988. PAGE 205 197Box 8-C.--Analog v. DigitalThe difference between analog and digital technology is perhaps easiest to understand through a simplifieddescription of phonograph records and compact discs (CDs). With phonograph records, sound is picked up by a microphone that transforms sound waves into electronic waves. The electronic waves are impressed onthe record in the form of fluctuations in the amplitude of the groove. When the record is played, these vibrations are sensed by a stylus (or needle) that sets up similar vibrations in the amplifier and then in the cone of a loudspeaker. The loudspeaker pushes the air and transfers the same vibrations to the ear. With digital CD technology, the sound is taken from the microphone into a processor, broken up intominiscule entities of time, and analyzed and converted into on/off pulses. In computer terms, these on/off pulsesare ones and zeros that are encoded onto the CD. This is called analog-to-digital conversion. When a laser beam scans the tracks of the CD it sends these ones and zeros to another processor which interprets them asdiscrete increments of sound and creates a new wave form out of them. This is called digital to analog conver-sion, and the resulting signal drives the speaker to reproduce the sound.The trouble with analog signals is that they lose their strength and acquire noise as they pass through a medium (such as wire), just as sound does as it travels through the air. Moreover, each time a signal is copied it also loses fidelity. The advantage of digital technology is that after signals have been converted to on/off pulses, even though the strength of the signal may deteriorate, as long as the receiver of the information can distinguish on from off, it can reproduce the original information exactly. Therefore, no loss of fidelity will occur when digital messages are transmitted or copied. This means that each copy will be equal to the original and transmissions of information can be made with little or no degradation,Photo credit: Optical Data Corp.Computer-generated interactive videodiscs offer new ways to present information combining video, audio, text, and graphics,87-002 0 88 6 : QL 3 PAGE 206 198 They use a computer to control the playback of audio and video from the videodisc player, sometimes adding computer-generated text and graphic materials, so that sequences can be arranged to suit the input of the viewer/participant. Schools seem to be increasingly aware of videodisc technology, but it is unclear how many own and/or use videodisc players. 21 There are increasing numbers of videodiscs available for educational use. The Minnesota Educational Computing Corp. 1987 directory of educational videodiscs lists 360 discs, double the number entered in the 1986 edition. 22 Not all of these products were originally created for classroom use. Programs range from studies of outer space to visits to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. One product called THE BIO SCI VIDEODISC contains more than 6,000 still images, 2 motion sequences, maps, charts, and diagrams that can expand the typical information presented in biology textbooks. With documentation on biochemistry, cell biology, plant taxonomy, and zoology, the disc comes indexed by subject in hierarchical order and by numeric frame reference. 23 More comprehensive efforts to develop courses on videodisc are underway. For example, the Texas Learning Technology Group 24 is developing a 160hour, two semester, complete physical science curriculum that can be taught in grades 8, 9, or 10. The curriculum, using interactive videodisc technology, is in field test at participating district sites. 25 Computer/Video Convergence Compact disc video (CD-V), digital video interactive (DVI), and compact disc interactive (CD-I) are prototypes that combine computer technolog y and laser optical storage technology. The difference between them is the way data are encoded, accessed, ~lTALMIS reports approximately 6 percent of schools with videodisc; Quality Education Data, Inc., estimates 28 percent of the largest school districts with videodisc. ~zMinnesota Educational Computing Corp., Videodiscs for Educarion: A Directory (St. Paul, MN: 1988). ~]Ekctronic Learning, Videodisc Includes Visual Biology Library, vol. 7, No. 2, October 1987, p. 81. Whe Texas Learning Technology Group is a consortium of 12 Texas school districts, the National Science Center Foundation, Inc., and the Texas Association of School Boards. ~5Paula Hardy, director, Texas Learning Technology Group, personal communication, January 1988. and displayed. CD-V uses discs with 5 minutes of video and 20 minutes of music for viewing and listening on a home television set. (There are as yet no instructional applications of CD-V.) CD-I has no full motion video, but contains thousands of still pictures, plus graphics, sound, and data. It is also intended for the home market. Both CD-V and CD1 will eventually come in stand-alone units, much like VCRs, which can be connected and played on standard television sets. DVI, on the other hand, is used with an IBMAT personal computer or equivalent. It is a fully digital compact disc, but with capabilities similar to the analog laser videodisc described above. Most important, DVI ". fully realizes the notion of video becoming computer-compatible. 26 It can play up to 70 minutes of limited-resolution full motion color video on a computer screen, or it can play back picture, sound, and data (but with less video). With this new technology, video can be digitally stored and played back in real time. The fact that DVI stores images in digital form means that they can also be combined or edited. PAGE 207 199 ADVANCES IN SOFTWARE 27 The computers found in most schools have small memory capacity and slow processing times. At least 75 percent of the software titles listed in the Educational Productions Information Exchange were designed for the Apple-II line of computers, which still account for about 60 percent of the installed base in schools. The fact that these machines are sturdy, coupled with the constraints schools face in trading in and upgrading their inventories, means that software developers have been reticent to invest in sophisticated learning tools that require greater hardware capacities. Hypermedia Good examples of the kind of advanced software that could eventually make a difference in classroom teaching are hypertext and hypermedia. These systems represent an important breakthrough in making computers more compatible with human cognitive processes, because their storage of information is nonlinear, Just as human long-term memory consists of a complex web of associational links, hypermedia provides access to text, graphics, images, and in some cases, sound, without requiring users to specify in advance the order of access. 28 The INTERMEDIA project at Brown University is an illustration of hypermedia applied to education. 29 Users access an integrated set of text, graphics, editing, and scanning tools. Several different courses at Brown use these materials, which are linked via local area network. Hypermedia systems are substantially more complex than typical software programs, and require significantly greater computer memory capacity. Thus, while they represent a potential milestone in both the preparation of instructional materials and their application in classrooms, hardware requirements exceed the current capacity of most computers found in public schools. HyperCard, for example, Apples recent entry into hypermedia soft;See also ch. 6. ~Christopher Dede, Empowerin g Environments, Hypermedia, and Microworlds, The Computing Teacher, vol. 15, No. 3, November 1987. ~icole Yankelovich et al., Issues in Designing a Hypermedia Document System: The INTERMEDIA Case Study, Multimedia in Educarion: Learning Tomorrow (Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc., spring 1987); and NTicole Yankelcnich et al., Intermedia: The Concept and the Construction of a Seamless Information Environment, Computer, \ol. 21, No. 1, January 1988, pp. 81-96. ware, was originally designed for business and onl y runs on Macintosh computers with at least one megabyte of random access memory (RAM). Integrated Learning Systems Another trend is toward greater machine control of lesson sequencing and monitoring of individual student progress. Some integrated learning systems (ILSs) include simulations and tutorials that go considerably further than electronic equivalents of drill and practice, and many cover complete curricula. At Juan Linn School in Victoria, Texas, an ILS developed by Education Systems Corp., serves 500 students a week. The software contains about 1,500 lessons in language, mathematics, and problem solving. The system manages instruction to each individual student in the school and records the progress of each student from day to day. Every child finds his or her name on the screen of a computer when entering the classroom. Although the individual computers are capable of working independently, they are usually linked in a local area network. Videodisc Software, Compatibility, and Video Programming Some examples of videodisc software suggest the potential for applications in education. For instance, the National Air and Space Museum Archival Videodisc 2 contains 100,000 photographs of major air and space personalities, aircraft, balloons, airships, commercial airlines, air meets, trophies, military aviation aeronautical communications and equipment, museums, philatelic covers, and models. College USA shows more than 80 colleges and universities and describes their programs and facilities. The Image Disc archives 54,000 slides from a variety of sources, including 200 slides from the American Association of Physics Teachers repository. Not only are these databanks of images valuable for use in education and learning, they can also serve as raw materials for interactive programming. For many reasons, especially the complexities of instructional design, creating an effective computer software package can be ver y expensive, costin g from tens of thousands of dollars for individual programs PAGE 208 200 to more than a million dollars for full courses of computerized instruction. Another factor contributing to high development costs of educational software is the incompatibility of computers found in schools. Software developed for the Apple 11 family will not run on Commodore, Tandy, or IBM computers. But in this regard too, there is a tendency toward convergence: some higher level operating systems allow programming in a machine-independent environment, so that programs can be sent from one hardware type to another with little or no change. These systems are generally too large to run on the computers commonly found in schools today; but there is reason to believe that continued research will yield an affordable solution to this problem of system integration. 30 Creating effective video programming, especially interactive video production, is very expensive. It requires complex instructional design and software programming, and multiple forms of video production. 31 For this reason, the major markets for interactive videodisc are in industrial and military training and medical simulations. ]It has been estimated that the average cost of producing a single interactive video program for industrial or business applications is $150,000. James A. Lippke, Interactive Video Discs: Entering the Mainstream of Business, Educational and industrial Television, vol. 19, No. 8, 1987, p. 12. The Texas Learning Technology Group estimates that their physical science curriculum on interactive videodiscs will cost about $4 million to develop. Hardy, op. cit., footnote 25. %ee also ch. 6 for a brief description of the research program on system compatibility underway at the Institute for Defense Analyses. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Interactive technologies for processing, storing, and communicating information have made their place in American business, science, and the military, and stand now at the doorway of the American public school. More advanced computer logic and memory systems could allow students computers to run several programs at once, to move information from one application to another, to communicate ideas to classmates and pen pals around the world, and to integrate the content of one lesson into another. Improved graphics, animation, and sound, as well as real-time video, could make subjects of study come alive. On-line multimedia libraries could provide information for class research projects. Increased access to other children, not only within the United States but all over the world, could broaden students appreciation of different cultures. Experts from many disciplines, master teachers, and even community leaders and politicians could become available to inquiring classrooms. Telecommunications could allow students forced to remain home due to illness or weather conditions to connect with the teacher or with school programs to make up for lost time. Distance learning programs could support isolated populations of students who are underserved in certain subjects. These technologies could also serve many other purposes and could become the center of new services to schools, teachers, and adults across the Nation. Software could be delivered on television signals. Instruction in many specialized areas of the curriculum could be broadcast to teachers and students, with exercises, testing, and help available through the telephone by voice or modem. Inexpensive video technologysmall portable cameras that contain video recording devicescould be used by students to create audio/visual essays, or to gather images for use with computers. Students might combine pictures shot in their backyard with images received from databanks over the telephone, and written essays composed with word processors could incorporate graphs compiled using spreadsheet programs and computerized measurement devices. In the words of a leading computer scientist, The way computing has permeated the fabric of purposeful intellectual and economic activity has no parallel.] Information technologies have transformed the worlds of business, science, entertainment, the military, government, law, banking, travel, medicine, and agriculture. The question is whether they will make as deep a mark on classroom learning and how. ~Abraham Peled, The Next Computer Revolution, Scientific American, vol. 257, No. 4, October 1987, p. 57. PAGE 209 201 EPILOG Most historians of technolog y would agree with Nobel Laureate Simon that the computer is no ordinary innovation. Indeed, the most profound question facing American society today is whether its institutions can adapt to a world that has changed more dramaticall y in the last 30 years than in the preceding 30 decades. Our schools are assigned the monumental task of arming young people to compete in this changing world: they are societys potters entrusted with the clay of childrens minds. But there is abundant evidence that the potters tools are rusted, and almost unanimous consensus that things must change. Most educators believe that the new tools of the information age can be pivotal in shaping the American classroom to fit its ever-changing environment. For otherseducators, technologists, and historians alikethere is a gnawing sense of deja-vu, a fear that relying on new technology to upgrade classroom learning signifies the triumph of hope over experience. How will future historians judge the choices made today? Will their data consist mainly of teachers and students using new tools to push the frontiers of learning? Or will effective schools, in which computers and other technologies realize their full potential, always be the exception? To illustrate the critical crossroad at which we now stand, OTA has received permission to reprint the following excerpt from a recent paper b y Shirley Malcom, a prominent authority on schooling and technology in America: A Tale of Two Futures 33 Raul Gomez walked in the door of his inner cit y middle school classroom rather down in the dumps. Here we go again, he thinks. If it were not for the compulsory education laws and the possibility that his mother could be arrested if he were truant, he wouldnt bother to come at all. He spends a lot of his day sitting in front of the computer doing endless drill and practice. Shirley M. Malcom, Technology in 2020: Educating a Diverse Population, paper prepared for the Conference on Technology in Education In 2020: Thinking About the Not-Distant Future, Harvard Llniterslty, Educational Technology Center, Oct. 15-17, 1986, This conference was supported In part by OTA. This paper and others presented at the conference will bc published in Nickerson and Zodhlates, op. cit., footnote 3. To increase educational efficiency and to help Rauls teacher cope with 35 students, the district put computers in their classroom. Some of the children work on the computers while the teacher works directly with the others. For 14 students, English is not their native language. Among them, there are 7 different languages spoken. If he had to go through another set of practice problems and subject/verb agreements, hed go crazy. Occasionally, just for a change of pace hed deliberately answer a question incorrectly so he could see the funny little graphics built into motivate the user. If he didnt get it right after a couple of times, the solution was explained to him. He had figured out other ways to solve the problems, but for some reason the computer never explained it his way. They both got the same answer, but he knew there must be something wrong with his way because the computer never did it like that. Raul had thought computers were going to be a lot more fun. He first saw one at the Saltmans house, the family for whom his mother worked. He had gone with her during the summer to help with the yard work and had seen the games and the simulated science experiments. There was an electronic mail feature that had been set up to help team members keep in contact as they prepared for the international mathematics competition. But somehow, at his school it just wasnt the same. He asked Ms. Russell about those neat things he had seen at the Saltmans, but she had said that the students werent ready for that yet. Besides, doing those things required more time on the computer and there were not quite enough machines to go around. If only his family had the money to buy its own computer! But there was barely enough money to buy food and clothes and pay the rent for the four of themRaul, his younger sisters, and his Mom. There was so much that he wanted to know about how the world worked, but in his class they never seemed to get to any of the exciting stuff-the y always seemed to be getting ready for the next competency test, always having to cover more pages in the textbook. As soon as he could, he was going to quit school and go to work and hel p hi s mother with the girls. Maybe hed get back to school one day. If there were more here for him he wouldnt leave, but its just a waste of time. What good does it do his family if he knows the names of all the dead presidents? 8-002 O 88 7 : ~L 3 PAGE 210 202He had seen a TV program once about Mayanmathematics and about the sun dagger in the Southwest that native people developed to tell the arrival of the different seasons of the year. He asked his teacher about these things, but she said that they had to stay on schedule or they wouldnt cover the material in time for the science test. Sonia entered her inner city middle school classroom elated. She had just published her first book, complete with illustrations. As soon as it had been bound, it would be put in the media center. Imagine that, Sonia Ramirez, AUTHOR. And to think, just 3 years before when she and her older brother and sister had come from Puerto Rico, she couldnt speak, read, or write English, and now she had a book in English and Spanish. The speech synthesis and translation features on the computer had really helped her develop proficiency in both languages. There were enough computers to go around and enough textbooks so that everyone could use them. Her book was about rain shadows. It was fun when you could do science, geography, English, Spanish, and art at the same time. She had to do a lot of work on her book at home, but that was all right. Sonia had been taking home a loaned computer since she had first entered school here. Computers are a big part of Sonias life and the lives of her classmates. Her friend Hilda has a computer that speaks for her (and in a girls voice!): Hilda is nonvocal because of cerebral palsy. Hilda has to use her computer for writing, too. Sonia is learning to play the synthesizer in the school orchestra. The wide variety of software that she can borrow from the library (or that comes with the books) lets her look at all kinds of things that interest her. She and her classmates have developed software, too, which is included in the middle school computer network in their school system. Sonia and Hilda are interested in birds. TheirPetersons Field Guide has a videodisc that goes with it so that they can study the birds in flight, listen to the songs and learn more about their life histories. It really helps to be able to go back and forth between similar species and to have the differences between them highlighted. Raul and Sonia live in two very different futures. Rauls future was created by extrapolating from the present: the present trends in education, the present educational goals for poor, disadvantaged, and minority students, the present way the technology is used in educating these students. For Raul, overall trends in the technology matter very little when he has so few appropriate tools for his education, and when no concerted effort has been made to address his educational needs. Differences in the educational use of technology further separate the worlds of the Gomez and the Saltman families. On the other hand, Sonia Ramirez has been empowered by education, and the technology has made that education more meaningful and more accessible. At present, Rauls future is more probable though not very desirable. Achieving Sonias future will not be easy.Photo credit: Neldine Nichols, Wisconsin Department of Public InstructionWhat kind of future will we choose for our children? PAGE 211 Appendixes PAGE 212 Appendix A State Activities in Educational Technology Introduction Historically, States have shared responsibility for the education of Americas children with local communities. During the past 20 years, the State role in education has expanded. Many now establish broad curriculum objectives, set standards for teacher and student proficiencies, provide funding to schools and districts, support special projects, and monitor local performance. More recently, States have become key players in educational reform, initiating a range of policies and programs. Along with an expanded role in education overall, States have become more involved in educational technology. In the early 1980s, only a handful of States were actively involved in educational technology. Today nearly every State is. State activities vary, reflecting the diversity of educational traditions, priorities, resources, and needs. Some States have passed specific mandates or have imposed detailed controls on teachers, schools, and districts, while others have enacted a mixture of initiatives designed to build local capacity and encourage local decisionmaking. 1 In general, State technology policies and activities are concerned with four areas : 2 1) hardware acquisition; 2) software acquisition, evaluation, and distribution; 3) staff training and development; and 4) integrating technology with ongoing instruction. In October 1987, OTA sent a questionnaire to the agenc y or individual responsible for educational technolo g y in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. 3 B y February 1988 all States responded. OTA staff also contacted State technology directors by phone where clarification or elaboration was needed. In addition, OTA examined States written responses to Electronic Learnings 1987 Survey of the States and the 1986 State Technology Profile Survey conducted by the Council of Chief State School Officers. Additional information about State technology efforts, primarily in the area of software, was obtained from data collected in 1987 by the National Governors Association. 10TA State Educatlona[ Technology Survey, 1987. See aiso JanIce H. patterson, Center for POIICY Research In Education, Unlverslty of Wwonsln Madison, Computers In Schools: State Pohcy Objecnves and Policy Instrumerits, unpublished manuscnpt, December 1987. Patterson, op. cit., footnote 1. To s[mpllfy reporting, the Dlstrlct of Columbla will be counted as a State ]n the followlng discussion. Organizational Structure, Planning, and Funding for Technology Forty-one States have a technology division or staff position for educational technology. Twenty-four States have a long-range plan for educational technology and plans are under development in 13 other States (see figure A-l). Forty-four States allocate funds specifically for educational technology or make other State funds available (see figure A-2), 4 Forty-nine States use Federal funds for technology: Chapter 2 predominates, followed by Chapter 1 and Title II. At the local level, funds for technology are provided by the local district, State, and Chapter 2 (see figure A-3). The function, responsibility, and organization of State technolog y divisions or staff positions vary across the country. Most are part of the State Department of Education (SDE). In some States, a consultant provides workshops and technical assistance to teachers and districts. In others, the technology division works with other SDE units to offer curriculum consultation and software preview assistance to educators. And in some States, the technology unit awards grants, provides technical assistance, and administers several separate programs. Planning for technology is an important part of the State role. Most long-range plans and those being developed are initiated by SDEs. Others are initiated by the legislature, the State Board of Education, or in one case, a Governors Commission. The plans reflect each States approach to technology, educational policy and governance, and the relationship with local school districts. Some plans suggest curriculum approaches while others outline detailed strategies for implementation, or establish graduation and teacher certification requirements. While some States have made large investments in educational technology, in most States, Federal funding, particularl y Chapter 2, is an important source of support for educational technology at the State and local level. State funding for educational technolog y usually is mixed with finding from other sources including the Federal Government, business and industry, software publishers, hardware vendors, and private foundations. Funding is p endin g in two States. 20 5 PAGE 213 Figure A-1.State Long-Range Planning for Educational TechnologyHISOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, State Educational Technology Survey, 1987.Funding is by no means uniform or steady. Specificallocations for technology ranged from $41 million to lessthan $200,000.5 Several States provided one-time onlyallocations, while others have experienced serious bud-get reductions. Two-thirds of the States reported that insufficient funding hampered the implementation oftechnology. Needs mentioned were training, hardware, software, and long-term funding to allow time to imple-ment technology and address equity concerns. Although many States encourage wider use of newlearning tools, few have sufficient resources to deal with changing technology, and even less to support a significant increase in access. States are beginning to support development and demonstration projects, but the scopeof these efforts is limited. With a few exceptions, the masurvey results reflect Information provided by respondents. In some States, particularly larger ones, accurate funding data was not available and responses were jor focus of State pilot and demonstration projects is on finding better ways to fit technology into the existing curriculum.6Faced with competing priorities and financial limitations, States are taking a pragmatic approach to influ-ence and encourage the use of technology in the schools. Most States focus resources in one or a few areas training teachers, distributing hardware, supporting administrative uses of technology, evaluating software, and distance learning. National Governors made a similar conclusion about State educational technology efforts: National Governors Report to Time for Results: The Governors Report of Education DC: 1987), p. 25. Current state area of technology seem to be continuing earher the process IS characterized by adaptation and gradual growth rather than dramatic or Innovation. In effect, we do not have that states now rely on technology efforts to restructure their schools. PAGE 214 207Figure A-2.Sources of Funding for Educational Technology at the State LevelHI State aid is the source of State funding for technology in Idaho, lowa, Kansas, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. It is one of the sources of funding New Jersey and West Virginia. technology funding is pending in Connecticut and West c25 using Chapter I funds for technology; 34 report the use of Chapter 2 funds; and 23 report the of Title funds. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, State Educational Technology Survey, 1987.New Institutional Arrangements In Arkansas, for example, business and educationand Policiesleaders support the technology initiative. Indiana proInnovative policies and new institutional arrangements vides low interest loans to districts for hardware. And in Maine, Federal Chapter 2 funds were used to create can support the use of education] technology. Because a statewide computer consortium supported by member the size of the investment needed to implement and supdistricts.7port educational technology programs is large, there is a need to build State, regional, and local partnerships and to enlist the involvement of colleges, universities, efforts are business and industry.the report are In State PAGE 215 208 Figure A-3.State Estimates of Major Sources of Funding for Technology Used by School Districts a 50 40 30 20 10 0 State funds b Federal funds c Source of funding No State or Federal funds astate technology Coorrjinatorg were asked to SeleCt the top three sources of funding used ~y dlstrlcts. bstate funds used for technology by districts include: 1) funds for technology allocated to all districts; 2) grants for technology; and 3) grants that may be used for technology. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, State Educational Technology Survey, 1987. Many of these innovative policies and partnerships suggest alternative approaches to support the use of technology in education. Through dissemination and collaboration, these creative efforts and ideas could serve as models for other States. State Hardware and Software Activities Thirty-three States have developed procedures that allow school districts to purchase hardware at reduced prices. 8 Twenty-four States negotiate agreements with software publishers to purchase administrative or applications software at reduced prices. 9 ~N~tiO~~l GOvernorS Association, Technologys Role in Educational Reform, Cap/ra/ Meas, July 1, 1987. Results of an National Governors Association survey conducted in 1986-87. Ibid. Over 60 percent of the States support software evaluation activities. 10 Twenty States either fund or offer technical assistance for the operation or development of systems to distribute software electronically. 11 Thirty States are involved in curriculum development projects using commercial software. 12 Seventeen States fund or offer technical assistance for development of educational software. Expanding access to technology through acquisition, evaluation, and distribution of hardware and software is a State concern. In addition, some States are playing a key role in aggregating purchases of hardware and software, either by negotiating directly with hardware vendors and software publishers, or by supporting or facilitating regional and district efforts. States also help to provide information about software by supporting software preview, evaluation, and dissemination at the State and regional level. Some States also influence (either formally or informally) the types of software schools use through the development of curriculum guidelines or support for certain instructional approaches. With a few exceptions, the extent of State involvement in software development is limited to small scale projects. Duplication of Effort: Need for Collaboration and Information With each State deciding individually how to use technology, effort is being duplicated across the country. This may be especially true in regard to software evaluation and arrangements with hardware vendors and software publishers. The States share a need for more information about hardware, software, and about ways technology can be used to enhance learning in schools and classrooms. The Software Evaluation Exchange Dissemination Project (SEED) is a multistate collaborative project coordinated by the Southeastern Education Improvement Laboratory, one of the national education research laboratories. 14 SEED facilitates software evaluation for six OElecrronic Learning, Educational Technology 1987, A Report on ELs Seventh Annual Survey of the States, vol. 7, No. 2, October 1987. lloffice of Tmhno]ow &.5e5$ment, based on Electronic Learning, 1987 State Technology Survey. 121bld. Ibid. Iqprojwt SEED, jnltlated i n 1984, has passed through three phases of development, identified by changes in the projects name. The first phase, Software Evaluation Exchange and Design, involved conceptualization and acceptance of the evaluation process. The second phase, Sothvare Evaluation Exchange Development, was a period of training and refining procedures. The third and current phase, Software Eva[uatlon Exchange Dissemination, involves expanding to other States, increasing the number of evaluations performed, and disseminating results. A 1987 evaluation concluded that the human element is key to a successful collaborative effort like SEED and that sufficient ume and resources must be allocated to develop a successful process. PAGE 216 209 Southeastern States (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina). Over several years, SEED has trained educators and has helped participating States evaluate software and share information. Each State then distributes evaluations independent l y to local school districts. Several other States are interested in joining SEED and it is expected that a membership fee will be charged for States outside the southeast region. Another effort to bring States together was initiated by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) in 1983, CCSSOs National Technology Leadership Project, funded under a 2-year grant from the National Institute for Education (NIE), provided States on-line information about educational technology products, collected information about State activities and needs, conducted two national conferences, and began to establish links among States, Federal agencies, and other organizations involved in educational technology. Perhaps most importantly, the projects created a forum for State collaboration and discussion of major policy issues. The project ended in 1986 when the NIE grant ended. Equity and Access One of the main justifications for State involvement in education is to foster equal access to educational resources for all students. In some States, efforts to provide equal access to technology resulted in spreading technology thinly. For instance, one southern States goal is to put enough computers in the schools to provide 1 computer for every 50 students. Other States address equity concerns by allocating funding for technology to all school districts on a formula basis, or setting up computer laboratories in each school that students can use for a limited amount of time each day, month, or year. States report that these approaches do not necessarily result in equal access to technology; wealthier districts continue to have more resources to use for hardware, software, and teacher training. Several States are taking a somewhat different approach, concentrating resources and targeting specific needs of selected groups of students. Many of these States support using technology to teach basic skills to lowachieving students, or to provide instruction to disadvantaged and underserved students through, for example, distance learning. Other States implement instructional packages or integrated learning systems for certain grade levels or groups of students. Approaches such as these represent an acceptance that technology can be used for basic skills instruction with certain groups of students. They raise questions, however, about providing equal access not only to hardware, but to how technology is used with different groups of students, particular whether it is being used to enhance the higher order thinking abilities and academic performance of the disadvantaged. l l l l l l l Teacher Preparation, Training, and Professional Development Eighteen States require and eight recommend that teachers seeking certification take computer-related courses or become familiar with using technolog y i n instruction. Three States require and 17 States recommend some form of inservice professional development in the use of technology. Almost every State provides or supports inservice technology activities through a combination of ongoin g activities and periodic efforts. 16 Over three-quarters of the States sponsor technolog y conferences and half support training through regional education or technology centers. Twenty-two States now use or plan to use electronic networks, interactive television, videotape, or other technologies to provide inservice training and assistance in the use of technology. Thirty-four States allocate funds specifically for inservice technology training or make other funds available which may be used for technolog y training (see figure A-4). 17 Ten States use Federal funds for inservice technology training, primarily Title 11 and Chapter 2, but also Chapter 1, vocational education, and special education funds. Most teachers receive technology training through their district; however, the State is an important source of training programs and assistance in many States. Regional centers, often partially funded by the State, are playing a growing role in providing technology training to educators along with other education services. Funds for training, as for other educational technology efforts, vary by State and come from a mix of sources: State funds for technology training; professional development grants; funding that flows through regional centers or districts; general State aid used at local discretion; and Federal dollars (e.g., Title II, Chapter 2). Of the 20 States that allocate funds specifically for technolog y training, annual funding ranges from $15 million to less than $20,000. 17n ~lx states, these requirements applv only to teachers m ~ertaln area ~uc as huslnes,, computer, or media education. hSome States pro~lde tralnlng, in(ormarlon, ~onsultanr ser~vces, or fac-ll]ratc tralrung at the regional or local Ie\el, hut Jo not allocate funding for tec hnologv tralnlng, I TState fundLng for technology, tra]nlng In Utah IS pending study and re~~mmendat[ons. Nlnc of these States make other State or Federal funds atailable as well. PAGE 217 210 Figure A-4.State Estimates of Sources of Funding for Inservice Technology Training a I -1 astate technology coordinators were asked to select the top three Sources of funding for tec~-nology at the local level. bstate funds include: I ) funds for technology training; 2) Professional development funds or grants; 3) funds that flow through regional centers or districts; and 4) general State aid used at local discretion. cFederal funding includes Title 11, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and SPecial Education funds. SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, State Educational Technology Survey, 1987. State Research, Development, and Demonstration Activities Sixteen States fund or provide technical assistance to an educational technology project with a research or evaluation component. 19 In addition, some States report supporting demonstrations and pilot projects in the context of curriculum development or software activities. Overall, however, research and development supported by the States is limited. Most States do not have the means to fund scientific research on learning and educational technology or to develop advanced software. Yet, State research projects are important because, for the most part, the y focus on questions about implementing technology in schools and investigate the use of technology to serve defined educational needs. Some States qStates reporting research and development act]vmes: Alaska, Arkansas, Cahforma, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nflnnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New, York, Texas, Utah, Virglnla, and West Vlrgmia. Addmonal research pro]ects are pending In two States, Washington, DC and Florlda. support projects on a limited scale before a larger investment is considered, or work with vendors and the private sector to establish pilot projects. Others award grants to schools, districts, or teachers for innovative projects or school improvement which may involve technology. Some of these projects have an evaluation or research component while others do not, but in all projects technology is being used by teachers or students in a variety of real world settings. Some Examples In Minnesota, evaluations of teacher training efforts found that the most successful programs are those in which teachers work with technology-using peers. Large, one-time group training sessions conducted by vendors were found to be the least successful. Alaska sponsored two classroom-based research projects to study the use of technology in instruction. One project focused on using technology to teach writing and the other on increasing inquir y learning in science. Participating teachers were trained in classroom-based research techniques and kept journals describing their teaching experiences and observations in the classroom. JO Kentucky initiated Project Vision, a pilot project to develop a videodisc program to teach remedial mathematics skills in grades K-2, based on the Kentucky Essential Skills Test. The project was supported to a large extent by private donations and in-kind support from vendors. Recently, research has begun in five model school sites in California. The goal is to study long-term effects of using technology in instruction. Annual finding for the projects is contingent on the total funds approved by the Governor for the States educational technology activities. Technology, Curriculum, and Educational Reform Many States establish curriculum requirements or develop optional guidelines for districts. The current focus is integrating technology into the curriculum; however, interpretation of this concept varies. California, for example, supports the use of technology as an educational tool. It initiated the $2 million Technology in the Curriculum Project to help educators locate high-quality software and video programs and integrate them into the OA pubhcatlon, Hand ]n Hand: The Writing Process and rhe Mlcroccrmputer was pubhshed by the Alaska Department of Educat]on in 1985 as a result of the classroom-based, Computer/Writing Skills Project. Currently, there are no State funds to pubhsh a similar document about the tnquuy Science Project, which was funded b y the State during 1986-87. The State is looking Into using Federal or other funding sources. The Alaska Department of Education also hopes to use Federal funds to undertake slmllar classroom-based research In mathematics. PAGE 218 211 curriculum, In Delaware, on the other hand, a 1984 State plan mentions integrating technology into instruction, but is more specific about computer science and computer-assisted instruction, and the State has provided funding for these areas. In other States, integrating technology into instruction has been interpreted to mean matching software with basic skills competencies outlined by the State, or using technology to supplement the existing curriculum. In some States, activities and new initiatives involving technolog y are tied to educational reform. In Wisconsin, where there is a tradition of strong local control of education, legislation resulted in new standards and a series of curriculum guides requiring changes in both the content and delivery of instruction. SDE sees technolog y as an important component of overall school improvement and local districts are encouraged to integrate technology into the curriculum. At the same time, no State funds have been allocated specifically for technology; instead, the State funds regional educational service centers, and districts receive about 50 percent of their funding from the State. Beginning in fall 1988, the State will try to influence districts that do not comply with the State standards, includin g those regarding educational technology. Texas approach to technology also reflects the States approach to educational reform: the creation of specific requirements and regulations. Teachers seeking certification in Texas are required to take a course on educational computing and technology or demonstrate proficiency. All districts must teach computer competencies in elementar y schools. Curriculum guidelines under development are expected to include keyboarding, information processing, and using computers to develop problem solving skills. In addition, every student in Texas must complete at least one semester in computer literacy in seventh or eighth grade. This course specifies applications, awareness, and introductor y programming. There is also a separate advanced high school diploma that includes courses in computing. 22 Texas has not funded local implementation efforts but has funded several pilot projects with State and Federal dollars (primarily Chapter 2). State requirements for elementary computing and local planning have been proposed and are likely to be developed in 1 to 2 years. Technology is changing rapidly and States have many choices about how best to take advantage of the potential of technology in education. Curriculum requirements, instructional priorities, and institutional arrangements influence how technolog y resources are used. ] Delaware. Slate Plan fbr dre Use of Compurers In K-l Z fifucarmn currentlv IS bein g revised and the new version ma y glt,e greater attention to the use of computer applications In regular classrooms. ~~There are no educauonal technology requirements for a regular high schm,l diploma. States may find it difficult to change policies or encourage different instructional approaches after investin g money, people, and effort. Rigid, narrow, or outdated educational policies may make innovative and effective uses of technology difficult to implement in the future. More collaboration between States, educators, researchers, and developers could help States articulate needs, identif y newer technologies and instructional approaches, encourage flexibility, and influence further development. State Profiles Alabama State position/unit: Yes (1983) State plan: Being developed Key actors: State Advisor y Committee Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; 23 State education; 24 Federal Source of funding in most districts: State grants that may be used for technology State training policies: None State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: State 25 Most important State action: $8 million in 1984 for hardware/software Major changes in past year: Task Force to develop State plan Barriers: Cost; State plan The 1984 State educational improvement plan encouraged districts to include the use of technology in grades K-12. A $12 million appropriation allocated 70 percent of these funds for hardware and software purchase. Due to a revenue shortfall, only $5 million was made available in 1985-86. Federal Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 funds were also used to purchase hardware and software in 1986-87 and 1987-88. In 1986-87 $750,000 was allocated for a statewide telecommunications system to connect local districts and SDE. The network now connects the State and all 130 school districts. A $250,000 allocation in 1987-88 continues training and provides maintenance. Future plans include statewide implementation of a student management system to standardize scheduling and recordkeeping. Alabama participates in SEED, a multistate model for software evaluation and evaluation exchange. 26 : 3Srate technology funds can tnclude State funds earmarked for te~hnologk that go to all d]strlcts or State technology grants awarJed to speclftc Pro]ccts, districts, or schools. :+stare ~duc-ar,on finds can ]nclude State grants for educational lmro~ement or reform, general State aid, staff development funds, or State funds that flow, through regional centers or other entitles. ~A State may pro~lde tra[n{ng, lnformat,on, consultant ser,lces, or facilitate re~lonal act]vltles hut mav not allocate fundin g for technolog y training. &See discussion of SEED aho\,e, PAGE 219 21 2 Alaska State position/unit: Yes (1980) State plan: Being developed Key actors: Legislators; professional teacher associations Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; Federal Source offending inmost districts: District/general State aid State training policies: None State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Establishing computer and instructional television projects (1980) Next steps: Explore distance learning Major changes in past year: Most funding and staff reduced Barriers: Funding; staff; political support In 1986, the States satellite-based network for instructional television (ITV) (the Learn Alaska Network) was cut and staff for educational technology significantly reduced. The State now maintains an ITV support system and is planning for the use of distance delivery. An Alaska studies course is being developed for distance delivery. One pilot project uses audioconferencing and electronic mail in addition to video. The State also produces a phone call-in television series, Talk Back, using Title II funds. The State supports a project investigating the impact of computers in science education. In previous years, several classroom-based research projects trained teachers to assess the impact of technology in their classrooms. Arizona State position/unit: Yes (1981) State plan: No Key actors: State Advisory Committee; teacher organizations; parents; district computer coordinators Funds available through the State for technology activities: State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: None State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: School Most important State action: 1983 bill establishing State technology role and clearinghouse Major changes in past year: None Barriers: Lack of legislative awareness about technology Legislation passed in 1983 defined the State role in educational technology and created a clearinghouse for software and information, but as yet, no State funds have been allocated for technology through SDE. Three staff members assist schools with volume purchases for technology and provide training, support, and software evaluation services. General education funds are used to purchase software for evaluation and preview. The Arizona School Services Through Educational Technology Project (ASSET), operated out of the States public broadcasting stations, provides ITV programming and support services to schools. Several instructional packages that include software are available through ASSET. Funding for ASSET comes equally from member districts and the State. Federal Title II funds are also used by both districts and the State. As schools install satellite dishes the State expects to become more involved in distance learning. The State Computer Services Unit provides ongoing training to educators through a magnet school in Phoenix and in districts upon request. In 1987-88, $17,500 (Title II) will be used to train 200 mathematics and science educators from rural districts in the use of technology. Arkansas State position/unit: Yes (1983) State plan: Yes (1984; revised 1986-87) Key actors: Business community; Governor; Chief State School Officer Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; State education Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: Preservice (required for media teachers); inservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: Yes Most important State action: IMPAC; distance learning; vocational education guidelines; high school computer science requirements; defining levels of inservice Major changes in past year: Increased leadership by Governor and State Education Director Barriers: None In 1983, the Instructional Microcomputer Project for Arkansas Classrooms (IMPAC) was created through legislation. Supported by the State and the business community, IMPAC has developed software and implemented several models of computer-managed and computer-assisted instruction combined with classroom instruction to teach basic skills. Software and lessons are linked to the States basic skills list and costs are closely monitored. IMPAC projects have been implemented in 136 schools. Research on effectiveness identified successful models. The States goal is to establish IMPAC programs in every school and provide training and support. During 1986-87, nine experimental satellite education programs in secondary schools were funded and distance learning policies were developed. Nineteen districts currently offer courses by satellite with funding assistance from IMPAC. PAGE 220 213 California State position/unit: Yes (1982) State plan: Yes (1986) Key actors: Business community; legislators; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer; SDE Staff Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology Source of funding in most districts: Unknown State training policies: Preservice (required) State funding for technology training: Yes Way most teachers receive training: Unknown Most important State action: State level initiatives in software development, summer training institutes, and model schools Major changes in past year: Large funding cuts by Governor Barriers: Political consensus on definition of equity; States ability to fund categorical programs; lack of software which compels use of technology Legislation passed in 1982 and 1983 defined the States role in educational technology and authorized several large grant programs. Educators and schools were encouraged to integrate technology in the curriculum. Funding was provided for matching grants to schools and districts, statewide software acquisition and development, and for the Technology in the Curriculum Projects, an initiative to match software and ITV programs with curriculum objectives. There were also funds for Summer Institutes and videocassette recorder (VCR) distribution. Teacher Education and Computer (TEC) Centers, first established in 1982, offered information and training to educators. Fifteen million dollars was allocated for Californias technology efforts in 1984-85, $25.6 million in 1985-86, and about $25 million in 1986-87. The Governor cut the educational technolog y budget in half in 1987-88. Budget cuts eliminated the TEC Centers and the Summer Training Institutes. Over $1 million supported the development of six educational software programs in mathematics, science, and history/social studies in 1986-87. Under the terms of the agreement, publishers are responsible for marketing costs and will retain copyright. California will receive royalties and discounts for the software. Although less money is available for technology, there is continued interest in supporting software development in partnership with other States or educational organizations. State educational technology finding supports a model schools program in five sites. The goal is to study the use of technology by students over a 3 to 5 year period. Sites draw on a combination of State, Federal, and industr y support and universities provide assistance with research and evaluation. Annual State funding for the 2-Contingent on the de~elopment of a local plan program is contingent on the total funds for technolog y approved by the Governor. Beginning July 1988, all teachers who appl y for certification must meet new State requirements in computerrelated coursework. Colorado State position/unit: Yes (1982) State plan: Being developed Key actors: Legislators; local Boards of Education Funds available through the State for technology activities: Federal Source of funding in most districts: Mixed State training policies: None (beginning to consider) State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Creating staff positions in SDE; formation of telecommunications consortium Next steps: Legislative action Major changes in past year: None; funding remains a prime concern Barriers: Funding; statewide direction (local control makes it difficult) In Colorado, where there is a tradition of strong local control of education, State-level consultants provide guidelines and assistance to schools and districts. State technology activities are supported with Chapter 2 funds. Recently, a telecommunications consortium made up of educators, State staff, representatives from business, industry, and higher education was formed to address problems faced by small, isolated school districts. Connecticut State position/unit: Yes (1980) 28 State plan: Being developed Key actors: Business community; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer; teacher organizations; parents; SDE consultants Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technolog y (pending for 1987-88); State education Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: Preservice/inservice (recommended) / State funding for technology training: None 29 Way most teachers receive training: Regional center Most important State actions: Grants; training; establishing regional service centers with software preview centers; statewide electronic network; telecommunications projects Consultant posltmn was vacant from 1984 co 1987. %3ther State funds for professional development are aiallable In Connecticut. PAGE 221 214 Major changes in past year: Advisory council formed to develop State plan and funding proposals Barriers: No instructional standards for use of computers; no training requirements; incompatible systems in schools; strong local autonomy; no funds for hardware; inequities between districts Following the recommendations of a Joint Committee on Educational Technology, 1985 legislation created the Telecommunications Incentives Grants Program for distance learning, staff development, and on-line databases. Although $500,000 was requested for 1986-87, only $85,000 was appropriated. The State planned to request the same amount for 1987-88. Other grants are available to schools to enhance instruction and staff development involving technology, but no funds for hardware are available from the State. A State technology consultant advises schools and districts about technology and encourages the inclusion of technology in grant proposals. Technology training is available through regional Institutes for Teaching and Learning, a $2.5 million staff development effort. Connecticut has established a statewide electronic network that disseminates information about technology. Delaware State position/unit: Yes (1983) State plan: Yes (1983; being revised) Key actors: Legislators; State Advisory Committee; State Department of Public Instruction Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: None 30 State funding for technology training: Yes Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Creation of unit in SDE; statewide computer network; establishing statewide technology council; training Major changes in past year: None Barriers: Funding for hardware/software; lack of quality software that relates to existing curricula; proof that there is a need for and value to using computers in the schools Delaware has provided funding to school districts for computer education for 15 years. An electronic network, maintained by the State links school districts. The State has appropriated funds to all school districts on a per student basis since 1984 and districts must submit plans in order to receive State funds. A 1984 State plan emphasized computer literacy, computer science, administrative, and training needs, and gave some attention to A certification program for compurer science teachers is pend]ng approval. Teachers are currently tak]ng courses for certification. other instructional applications of computers and other technology. A new plan is being reviewed. Three centrally-located training laboratories, established in 1983, provided training on computer literacy; training has shifted to integration of technology into the curriculum. Districts can use State funds for training. Delaware also offers scholarships for training/retraining in computer science. A study of the use of CAI systems for basic skills was conducted in 1987-88. District of Columbia State position/unit: Yes (1983) State plan: Yes (1983) Key actors: State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer; school board; city council Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; Federal Source of funding in most districts: Mixed State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: Yes Way most teachers receive training: State/District Most important State action: Board policy authorizing first Five-Year Plan (1983) Next steps: Development of second Five-Year Plan Barriers: Additional funding and training to improve scope of use A Five-Year Plan specified certification and training requirements for educators, created a central training site, and set forth curriculum mandates for grades K-12. Funding for all technology-related instructional and administrative activities is included in the District of Columbia annual school budget. Yearly expenditures exceeded $3.3 million in 1986-87 and were about $3.5 million in 198788. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 funds are used to provide additional computer laboratories in elementary and junior high schools. A second Five-Year Plan for computer education is in the final stages of development. Florida State position/unit: Yes (1981) State plan: Yes (1987) Key actors: Legislators; Chief State School Officer Funds available through the State for technology activities: State education, 32 Federal Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: Preservice/inservice (recommended) ~iFunds for traltung In technology are Included In the overall budget for technology. :The State pro~lded funding for educational technology In 1983-84, but no funds have been allocated since. PAGE 222 215 State funding for technology training: Yes 33 Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Computer literacy requirement for all students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 11 Next steps: Certifying teachers in computer education Major changes in past year: None Barriers: Funding; legislative support; coordination between universities, community colleges, and school districts Legislation in 1981 stated that technology should be used to enhance the learning process and reduce administrative burdens on teachers. Attention to cost-effectiveness was emphasized. In 1983-84, a one-time $10 million appropriation was given to schools on a per student basis for hardware and software for mathematics and computer literacy. Several related programs in mathematics, science, and computer education for students and teachers were established 34 and $2 million in Federal funds were allocated for computers for vocational education schools. These programs and several additional projects have continued to receive funding, but for the past 3 years no State funds have been allocated for educational technology. Federal Job Training Partnership Act and Chapter 1 funds are used for technology. SDE proposed that the legislature provide $10 million in 198889 to assist districts with implementation. The State supports a statewide electronic network, the Florida Information Resources Network. The Florida Center for Instructional Computing at the University of South Florida places software evaluations on the network. Florida also participates in SEED. A 1987 plan calls for technology to support basic skills in grades K-8 and for computer-supported educational and career planning systems for secondary students. A new plan is being developed to direct funds toward a model schools project, statewide acquisition of hardware, and a comprehensive mathematics, science, and computer education program. Georgia State position/unit: Yes (1984) State plan: Yes (1985) Key actors: Business community; legislators; Governor; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer 1!3ummer [nsertlce Insututes have made funds avatlable for content area, noncredit traimng actlwtles. ) Posr-Secondary Programs of Excellence in mathematics, science, and computer education for teacher trainin g and cooperative actlwtles between unl~er. stt]es, college~, businesses and school d[stncts. 2 ) Two Reglonat Ctmter\ of Excellence In mathematics, $clence, and computer technology to dei elol~ Instructlonai techniques, tra]n teachers, and evaluate ]nstructlonal mater lal~. 3) Grants for summer camps for students and summer ]nser\lce programs for math. emattcs and science teachers. Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; 35 Federal Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: None State funding for technology training: No 36 Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Formation of Georgia Technology Council; creation of Technology Coordinator position in all schools; State grants program; specification of technology standards and program components Barriers: Competition for limited State funds Georgias Quality Basic Education Act became effective in 1985, establishing several grant programs and providing funds for instructional technology and the administrative networking of schools. In 1987, $500,000 was appropriated for hardware/software purchases and teacher training to use technolog y for recordkeeping and instructional management. Local districts must develop plans in order to receive grants. Other services (software evaluation and dissemination, training, and technical assistance) are provided by the State and regional education centers. Chapter 2 funds were used to pilot IBMs Writing to Read in five districts during 1987-88. Member districts may purchase software cooperativel y through the Georgia Software Consortium. The Consortium was initiated with State funding and is now supported by local districts. State staff select software and negotiate with publishers. Georgia also participates in SEED and distributes evaluations. A pilot study is attempting to align Georgias core curriculum for K-8 mathematics with standardized tests, State tests, software, video, and texts. Hawaii State position/unit: No State plan: Yes (1980; revised 1987) Key actors: Business community; legislators; Governor; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; Federal Source of funding in most districts: State State training policies: Preservice/inservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: Yes Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Providing resources to implement State plan Next steps: Development and expansion of plan Major changes in past year: None ~5Fund~ng for 1987-88. No funding was provided for educational technology In 1986.87. hStaff development funds may be used for technology tralnlng. PAGE 223 216 Barriers: Time and additional resources to catch up to and maintain pace with new developments Funds for technology are allocated on a per capita basis and distributed to all districts for computer literacy, CAI, computer-managed instruction, and computerbased information retrieval. Over $1 million was allocated in 1986-87 and $1.8 million in 1987-88. All schools can apply for Chapter 2 funds. In 1987, SDE developed a framework for continued planning and State activity. About $150,000 was allocated to seven districts for inservice training activities in 1987-88. General staff development funds also are available to all districts. Some training via telecommunications is being initiated. Software is evaluated through a Computer Review Center and Clearinghouse. Idaho State position/unit: Yes (1984) State plan: Yes (1985) Key actors: State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer Funds available through the State for technology activities: State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: None State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Slow approach has allowed users to develop necessary comfort level Next steps: Continue current efforts Major changes in past year: Increased legislative interest in distance learning Barriers: High costs; rapid change of technology State funding for technology is available indirectly through general State aid. Districts may also use Chapter 2 funds. SDE and Boise State University support a distance learning mathematics class for rural classrooms. Teacher training in technology is provided through university preservice and inservice activities and SDEsponsored workshops. Illinois State position/unit: No State plan: Yes (1985) Key actors: Legislators; Governor; business community; Chief State School Officer Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: State grants that may be used for technology State training policies: None 37 ~;lnstltutions of higher education recommend training/courses in technology. State funding for technology training: Yes Way most teachers receive training: Regional centers Most important State action: Creating computer consortia and incorporation into Educational Service Centers Major changes in past year: None Barriers: No particular barrier; remaining questions are not what can be done with technology, but what should be done In 1985, the Illinois legislature incorporated 20 existing State-funded computer consortiums into 18 Educational Service Centers (ESCs). As part of an effort to aggregate services, ESCs are required to offer technology support to districts, developing budget requests based on local needs and priorities. In 1986-87, $8.5 million was appropriated for 18 ESCs and $8.16 million in 1987-88. A Math/Science Equipment and Materials Loan Program was initiated by the State in 1987 with a one-time $20 million appropriation. Illinois does not provide direct support for distance learning but local districts may, and do, use State aid. An electronic network between SDE and regional centers is in place; some centers also have a network with local districts. Training in technology is offered through ESCs. Staff development funds also are available. A software evaluation database is available to each ESC. Indiana State position/unit: Yes (1980) State plan: Yes (1983) Key actors: Legislators; Governor; Chief State School Officer; Consortium for Computer and High Technology Education Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; Federal Source of funding in most districts: Capital Improvement Fund 38 State training policies: Preservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: Yes Way most teachers receive training: State Most important State action: Funding training rather than hardware/software; funding demonstration projects; change in laws to allow purchase of hardware via Capital Improvement Fund; creation of low-interest loan program. Major changes in past year: None Barriers: Curriculum In 1983 legislation created the Consortium for Computers and High Technology Education. The Consor~sA separate local tax levy funds buddmgs, replacements, and reno~atmn. The second primary source of funding for technology at the dlstrlct level IS the School Technology Advancement Account, a State Iow-interest loan program. PAGE 224 217 tium developed a plan addressing training, research, and demonstration, but not curriculum. Over $5 million was appropriated for training and demonstration projects for 1985-87 and again for 1987-89. Funds for districts are also available through a Low Interest Loan Program, the State Capital Improvement Fund, and Federal Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and Title II programs. The first round of State funding focused on teacher training. Initial efforts provided introductor y level training (with substitutes) through nine training centers and more advanced training through local funding and colleges/universities. The centers were closed and training is now conducted at school sites by regional consultants. Indiana now funds some local programs and teacher fellowships. With State funds, nine demonstration projects with a 2:1 ratio of students to computers were implemented in self-contained classrooms in 1985. Eight of the projects received sustaining levels of funding for a second year and competition was opened for additional sites. The next steps include replication, Iow a State position/unit: No 39 State plan: No Key actors: Intermediate service agencies Funds available through the State for technology activities: State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: State grants that may be used for technology State training policies: None State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: Regional centers Most important State action: Start-u p mone y for Instructional Software Clearinghouse Major changes in past year: State program was eliminated and funding cut; responsibility now at local and regional level Barriers: Completion of statewide electronic network Legislation in 1987 contained a provision for checking wasteful proliferation of computers and mandated that plans be approved by the State before any local funds could be spent on technology. A State unit was created in 1973 and, with State coordination, 13 regional computer centers were established with local funds. These centers have been phased out and regional education units now provide consultant and support services to schools and districts. In 1987, the State technology unit was also eliminated. General State aid and Federal funds are used at the discretion of local districts. An educational technology unit In the State Department of Education was created in 1973 and abollshed In 1987. In 1982,$100,000 from the legislature (to be paid back later) provided seed money for a software clearinghouse. Additional funds were appropriated in 1984 and 1985. The start-up money for the clearinghouse, which bought software at reduced rates and sold it to schools, was paid back and the clearinghouse functions were turned over to intermediate units, With Iowa Public Television, SDE helped coordinate five distance learning projects using local funding and business support. Districts interest in a tronic network that would use existing ing systems is under investigation. Kansas State position/unit: Yes (1984) State plan: No statewide elecdistance learnKey actors: Chief State School Officer Funds available through the State for technology activities: State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Creating position in SDE Major changes in past year: None Barriers: Funding; perceptions of need General State aid is available to districts for technology and Title II funds are available for training. Planning and curriculum development assistance is available as requested by the districts. Kentucky State position/unit: Yes (1984) State plan: Being developed Key actors: Business community; Governor; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer; Chair, State Board of Education Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: Parent-Teacher Association funds State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: State through district Most important State action: Created computer specialist position and similar positions in special education in SDE Next steps: Additional staffing and creation of State unit for instructional computing in SDE PAGE 225 218 Major changes in past year: Governors office worked with private vendor to create more involvement in educational technology; electronic network proposed Barriers: Lack of funding to equalize districts; lack of funding for ongoing inservice training In 1986, the legislature passed two grant programs to address educational priorities, particularly the Kentucky Essential Skills curriculum. Some projects receiving grants involve technology. Additional funding for educational technology is local or comes from Federal funds. In 1986-87, a statewide electronic network for administrative uses, the Kentucky Educational Networking System was proposed. The project will place a terminal on each teachers desk at no cost to the districts. Kentucky requires teachers to have at least one course in using technology for certification. Most inservice training is conducted by local colleges of education. The Kentucky Network for Educational Telecommunications, a cooperative effort of the Kentucky Association of School Administrators, SDE, Kentucky Educational Television, and the Kentucky School Boards Association provides networking and information to subscribing educators and administrators. Project Vision, a videodisc project in basic mathematics in grades K-2, was tested in eight sites and funded primarily through donations and private in-kind support. The program was designed with input from teachers and incorporates the Kentucky Essential Skills curriculum. Through an agreement with the vendor, hardware and software for the project are now available outside of Kentucky. A task force is investigating potential for ITV and inservice programs. The State will install a satellite dish on every school building by 1988-89. Louisiana State position/unit: No State plan: No Key actors: Teacher organizations; district superintendents Funds available through the State for technology activities: None Source of funding in most districts: Chapter l/Chapter 2 State training policies: Preservice (required) State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: District Major changes in past year: New Governor and superintendent in March 1988 Barriers: Funding Federal Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 funds are the main source of funding for technology in Louisiana at the local level. No State funds are provided for technology, and State involvement is limited. SDE offers information and assistance to schools and conducts an annual survey of computer use. A half-unit course in computer literacy is required for high school graduation (a computer science or data processing course may be substituted). Certification requirements for computer literacy and computer science teachers have been established. Maine State position/unit: Yes (1979) 40 State plan: Being developed Key actors: Legislators; Governor; Chief State School Officer; Maine Computer Consortium; State computer consultant Funds available through the State for technology activities: State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: Chapter 2 State training policies: None (being reviewed) State funding for technology training: None 41 Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: High school proficiency requirement; creating half-time computer coordinator position; use of Chapter 2 funds for Computer Consortium Next steps: Survey districts; develop State plan Major changes in past year: High school proficiency requirement Barriers: Lack of funds; proof of effectiveness; legislative support; local priorities As part of a 1984 reform act, high school students in Maine are required to demonstrate proficiency in the use of computers. Local districts define proficiency and must submit a plan for State approval. No State funds are earmarked for technology and no other technology-related initiatives have been proposed at the State level. Maines Innovative Grants program may award funds to programs with a technology component. Professional development funds are available for training in technology and the SDE staff provide training and assistance to educators, schools, and districts. Funding for the States educational technology activities and for technology in most districts comes from Chapter 2 money. New institutional relationships have been developed to facilitate the use of technology in Maines schools. The Maine Computer Consortium was created in 1983 using Chapter 2 funds. The Consortium, which provides training, software review and preview services, and technical assistance to member districts has continued to receive Chapter 2 funding from the State, but most support comes from member districts. In 1986-87, with a $20,000 State Chapter 2 grant and in-kind gifts from Apple, the 4c Half-time posltlon. ~lstaff development funds may be u Wuws on enhancing learning using educational technology and lays out broad educational goals with suggested instructional approaches. 44MlnneWta requires ~~la teachers to demonstrate famdiarity using technology In instruction at the preservice level and recommends that all preservice and inservice teachers take a computer-related course andlor show familiarity using technology in instruction. for software development. Over time, MECC has supported its activities by selling software outside of Minnesota and is now a separate nonprofit corporation. At present, Minnesotas strategy is to make the use of technology invisible-less separate from other educational initiatives and objectivesby encouraging the use of application software in subject areas. Minnesota has also supported distance learning to teach elective courses. Funding for model technology projects decreased from $5.3 million in 1983-85 and 1985-87 to $2.8 million in 1987-89. Instead, innovative projects involving technology are supported under State funds for instructional design. State funds for technology are available through general State aid and Federal dollars are used at local discretion. Sixty percent of all educational funding is provided by the State. Minnesota has continued to fund technology training at about $865,000 per year. An $8 million professional development program provides opportunities for teachers to learn how to use technology in instruction. Mississippi State position/unit: No State plan: Being developed Key actors: Chief State School Officer; local district administrators Funds available through the State for technology activities: Federal Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: None State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Pilot project assessing use of distance delivery using TI-IN Major changes in past year: A State plan will be developed Barriers: Funding; training State activities and funding for educational technology in Mississippi are limited and the SDE staff person responsible for technology has left and has not been replaced. The State evaluates administrative software and participates in SEED. Title II funds are being used for a distance learning pilot project in a rural school. The State superintendent has appointed a chairman and committee to begin work on a State plan for technology in the schools. Missouri State position/unit: No State plan: No Key actors: Business community; teacher organizations Funds available through the State for technology activities: State education; Federal PAGE 228 221 Source of funding in most districts: Chapter 2 State training policies: None State funding for technology training: Yes Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Onetime allocation of $3 million in 1985-86 Next steps: Dissemination of information unsuccessful projects followed b y incentives to adopt Major changes in past year: None Barriers: Diversity; funding; lack of training/commitment b y school staffs During 1985 -86,$2.5 million was provided by the Missouri legislature for hardware, software, and staff training. Most went to school districts on a formula basis and the rest was used for training provided by temporary State consultants. No State funds have been appropriated specifically for technology since; however, $4 million for innovative and exemplary programs was provided in 1986-87. These funds may be used for training. In addition, State textbook funds may be used for software. Federal Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and Title II funds may be used by districts for technology at local discretion. In 1987, the Missouri School Boards Association established the Educational Satellite Network (ESN) to provide interactive instructional programming, inservice education, and other programs. ESN owns and maintains all satellite receiving systems and schools pay for installation, local maintenance, and program guides. The State will approve curriculum and programs on the system and the President of the State Board of Education will serve on the ESN Board of Directors. Montana State position/unit: Yes (1981) State plan: No Key actors: Chief State School Officer; teacher organizations; parents Funds available through the State for technology activities: Federal Source of funding in most districts: Chapter 2 State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Active support of SDE in assisting schools and educators Major changes in past year: All State funding is frozen and local levies cannot pick up slack due to voted initiative Barriers: Funding; training; resistance to change There are no legislative mandates or State funds for technology in Montana. The Board of Public Education recommends that all students become computer literate and SDE provides training and assistance to schools and districts. Curriculum decisions are made locally and districts decide how to spend State general aid and Federal funds. Teachers are required to have familiarit y using technology in instruction at the preservice level. The Board of Education has begun to study accreditation standards for schools, and technolog y is a major concern for all subject areas. A National Science Foundation and Title 11 funded program, Project IMPACT (Integrating Mathematics Programs and Computer Technology) is operated through the Montana Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the University of Montana, Montana State University, and the Montana Office of Public Instruction. Mathematics teachers in grades 7 to 12 will receive training to integrate technolog y into instruction durin g 1988-89 Nebraska State position/unit: Yes (1985) State plan: Yes (1986) Key actors: Chief State School Officer; Educational Telecommunications Commission Funds available through the State for technology activities: None Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: None State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: Mixed Most important State action: None Next steps: Do a realistic long-term plan Major changes in past year: None Barriers: Funding; politics; vision/understanding Legislation in 1984 created the Educational Technology Consortium which developed a set of recommendations for instructional technolog y in Nebraska. No funding was appropriated for implementation, however, and activity varies depending on local priorities. The State provides technical assistance and training on a limited basis. Nevada State position/unit: Yes (1985) State plan: Yes (elementary 1986; secondary 1988) Key actors: District computer coordinators Funds available through the State for technology activities: State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: Preservice/inservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: For-credit course paid for by teacher PAGE 229 22 2 Most important State action: State funding for technology appropriated in 1985 Major changes in past year: None Barriers: Continued State funding In 1985, the legislature appropriated $10 million on a one-time basis for educational technology; $7 million was used for K-1 2 program improvement and $3 million was earmarked for vocational/occupational education. Additional discretionary funds were provided in 1985-86 and 1986-87 for overall program improvement but were not designated for technology. These State funds and Federal Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 funds are used at local discretion. Some Chapter 2 grants awarded by the State include a technology component. An elementary course of study was adopted which includes computer literacy and use. A secondary course of study with a computer component is being developed. The State funded a distance learning pilot project within one district for 2 years. The project is now funded locally. There is concern that distance learning efforts are duplicated and a new task force will develop recommendations regarding educational telecommunications for the 1989 legislative session. The State technology consultant provides assistance and training by request. Training grants are provided with Title II funds, New Hampshire State position/unit: No State plan: Yes (1986) Key actors: Business community; legislators; Governor; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; Federal Source of funding in most districts: State grants for technology State training policies: None State funding for technology training: Yes Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Providing 1,950 teachers with computers for 3 years; interactive videodisc pilot project Major changes in past year: Continued and increased funding for initiatives in place Barriers: Changes in economy that may restrict spending Under a 1985 Governors Initiative Program, $5 million was awarded for education of the gifted and talented, computers for teachers, and technology in the classroom. An additional $2.5 million was appropriated for educational technology in 1987. With these funds, 1,950 teachers were provided with a computer for 3 years and offered training and networking assistance. In addition, grants were awarded to six teachers to develop model instructional lessons using videodisc. Empirical data was collected, but it is too early to assess effects on student outcomes. Other State grants are available for videodisc hardware, training, model projects, and distance learning. All grants require a training component. Federal Chapter 2 and Title 11 funds maybe used for technologyrelated activities at local discretion. New Jersey State position/unit: Yes (1983) State plan: Yes (1986) Key actors: Governor; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: None State funding for technology training: Yes Way most teachers receive training: State Most important State action: Creation of State technology unit; funding training centers; school improvement project for urban districts; implementing State plan; developing educational technology network Next steps: Product development; training on integration of technology into classrooms Major changes in past year: On a plateau now with no significant changes in sight Barriers: Training; quantity of hardware still low in many districts A State plan for educational technology was issued by SDE in 1986. Three regional training centers were established and provide free, ongoing services to educators. Each center consists of a training laboratory and a software/hardware library. A statewide telecommunications system, the Educational Technology Network, was created and provides free access to districts that have the right equipment. Technology is included as part of a comprehensive effort to improve educational services in three urban districts, called Operation School Renewal (OSR). Over $1 million supported these three programs in 198687 and $278,000 was provided in 1987-88. Funds for technology are also available through general State aid, Federal special education funding, and a portion of Chapter 1 funds. A pilot project to transmit software electronically was implemented in Trenton in 1987 using OSR funds and vendor contributions. Other districts are expected to have similar capabilities soon. Three other pilot projects are looking at any changes in mathematics and writing skills of eighth grade students due to computer use and evaluating teachers uses of computers. The technology component of OSR also is being evaluated and reports PAGE 230 223 are pending. SDE has developed and used interactive videodisc technology and ITV for teacher support and training. New Mexico State position/unit: Yes (1980) 45 State plan: No Key actors: State Advisory Committee Funds available through the State for technology activities: State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: State capital outlay funds State training policies: None State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: District; for-credit course; teacher to teacher Major changes in past year: State Board of Education approved guide for computer literacy in grades 1-8 Barriers: Training; research on effects of technolog y in instruction and how best to implement what exists in schools In 1986, legislation mandated the inclusion of computer literacy and computer use in the instructional program for grades four through six, a computer literacy elective in grades seven through eight, and an elective course in computer science at the high school level. During 198586, over $1 million was appropriated to help schools purchase hardware and software. The funds were distributed on a competitive basis. Approximately half of the districts received funds; most received only partial funding for projects. The State has not provided additional funding for educational technology. Districts typically use State capital outlay funds for hardware and Federal funding is used for technolog y at local discretion. School districts provide for their own training needs. New York State position/unit: Yes State plan: Yes (1985) 4 Key actors: Legislators; teacher organizations (1982) Chief State School Officer; Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: State funds for technology received by all districts State training policies: None State funding for technology training: Yes Most important State action: Creating technology unit in SDE; plan approved by Regents A Lomputtvs In Eilucarlon C~mmlctee has been established In the State Department of Education but, Its Influence on State action has been m]ntmal. +~~~ew. York$ plan (or educat]onai technology IS strategic, not operatlona[. Some legdatlon proposed In the plan has been passed. Next steps: Remove regulatory and funding barriers; study potential policy barriers Major changes in past year: A reconsideration of policy issues Barriers: Regulations and fundin g mechanisms that make it difficult to use technology for instruction across institutional boundaries The 1983 Regents Action Plan to Improve Elementary and Secondary Education required curriculum revisions and the integration of technology into all content areas, and initiated a range of State efforts to support the use of technolog y in education. The Center for Learning Technologies developed a plan of action in 1985 that included research and development (R&D), professional development, instructional materials, telecommunications, and technological integration. State funds support hardware and software purchase, the Technology Network Program (to link schools electronically), and 91 Teacher Resource and Computer Training Centers. About $36 million funded technolog y initiatives in 198687 and $41.2 million in 1987-88. In addition, the State provides partial funding for cooperative projects, many of which are technology related. Federal funds are used by districts and within the guidelines of specific programs, but specific figures are not available. A Technology Planning Program for local districts was developed by the Center for Learning Technologies; replication is planned if the project is funded again. Training for educators is available through the Teacher Resource and Computer Centers. Several projects targeted to specific populations, including the use of distance learning for rural schools, are also supported by the State. A proposal to study New Yorks educational policies is under consideration. North Carolina State position/unit: Yes (1984) State plan: Yes (1983) 47 Key actors: Legislators; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer; district computer coordinators Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; Federal Source of funding in most districts: State technology funds received by all districts State training policies: Preservice/inservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: Yes Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: State plan; guidelines; funding for statewide computer education program 4; North Carollnas State plan addresses the use of computers in schools PAGE 231 22 4 Next steps: Implementation of distance learning by satellite in all districts and 54 small schools Major changes in past year: Computer legislation and funding completed; slowdown in growth and training expected; increased activity in telecommunications Barriers: Time and funds for local school systems to implement State initiatives and directives A State plan for computers in education was approved in 1983 and $28.5 million was appropriated for hardware, software, maintenance, and staff development over a 3Year period (1984-87). The goal of State action was to provide at least 1 computer for every 50 students for at least 30 minutes of hands-on use per week. Districts were required to submit a plan for funds. In addition, Title 11 funds are used for innovative technology projects and to support the use of technology by underserved students. During 1986, SDE issued computer competencies for all students in K-12 and made recommendations on media center automation and computer facilities. In 1986-87 a distance learning by satellite pilot project was undertaken using a Federal Title 11 grant. Following a positive evaluation, $3 million in State funds was allocated in 1987-88 to implement distance learning by satellite in 54 small, mostly rural high schools. Three levels of technology competencies for educators have been defined by the State. A new title and increase in salary is awarded to teachers who reach an advanced level of training in technolog y and wish to take on a supervisory role. During 1985-87,$2 million was allocated to school districts on a per certified position basis for technology training. The State also appropriates $100 per teacher for staff development each year. North Carolina participates in SEED. North Dakota State position/unit: No State plan: Being developed Key actors: Legislators; Governor; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology (1987-88); Federal Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: None State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: For-credit course paid for by teacher Most important State action: Appropriating funds for 1987-89 Next steps: Complete State plan; expand funding and implement plan Major changes in past year: Reduced enrollment and financial resources and lack of upper level courses in certain areas may encourage greater use of technology, especially in rural schools Barriers: Funding; attitude of administration; lack of training Two pieces of legislation in 1987 provided funds for educational technology. No State funds were appropriated prior to this action. For 1987-89, a $500,000 appropriation enabled local school districts to purchase equipment and programming. The State allocated $100,000 to develop software on North Dakota history and geography with Broderbund Software and $50,000 for a foreign language distance learning program. Districts may use Chapter 2 funds for hardware. The State has provided funding to a public television station which provides some training in the use of instructional technology, primarily ITV. A State plan for technology is being developed. Ohio State position/unit: Yes (1984) State plan: Being developed Key actors: State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer; teacher organizations; other professional organizations Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: Chapter 2 State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: Yes Way most teachers receive training: Regional centers Most important State action: Educational Technology Center; curriculum and planning publications; Classroom of the Future project; annual statewide computer fair; ITV network which provides services through regional centers Major changes in past year: Classroom of the Future projects expected to have a positive effect on State efforts Barriers: Funding; unequal funding at local level; questions about extent of State role The Educational Technology Center was established in 1984 to disseminate information, provide hardware and software preview, and offer technical assistance. Since 1979, the State has also supported the Ohio Education Computer Network, an effort to link all school districts for administrative purposes. SDE encourages the use of technology to promote learning skills and has developed guidelines in the area of industrial arts/technology education at the junior high and high school level, Approximately $4 million in Chapter 2 funds were used for instructional technology at the local level in 1986-87 and it is expected that a similar amount will be used in 1987-88. In 1987-88, $200,000 was allocated to one school district to begin development of a curriculum that includes PAGE 232 225 the use of technology. The district, which is working with local communit y colleges and businesses, has focused on training first and is seeking additional funds to continue. Ohio also has provided some fundin g (mostly Federal discretionary funds) for the Classroom of the Future, an effort to develop a model curriculum which includes technology and provides demonstration sites throughout the State. Recommendations will be produced in the summer of 1988 and additional State funds probably will be requested to implement demonstration projects, Ohio requires preservice familiarity with the use of computers in instruction for certification. Inservice training is primaril y the responsibilit y of districts and the ITV network. State funds for inservice training are available through a professional development program and categorical funds from lottery proceeds may be used for technology training. Federal funds are available through Title II and Chapter 2. The State has allocated $150,000 for planning for a Teacher Technolog y Center Oklahoma State position/unit: Yes State plan: No Key actors: Business community; legislators; Chief State School Officer Funds available through the State for technolog y activities: State technology; Federal Source of funding in most districts: State grants for technolog y to a limited number of schools or districts State training policies: Preservice (required) 48 State funding for technology training: None Most important State action: Satellite instruction regulations; establishing certificate of endorsement in computer science; State grants for technolog y Next steps: Develop State plan Major changes in past year: Decreased funding for education due to crises in oil and agriculture industries Barriers: Funding; awareness, understanding, and support of decisionmakers Since 1983, Oklahoma has funded a competitive technology grant program for school districts for equipment, software, and for administrative support for instructional programs. The State appropriated $1,5 million in 198687 and $1.9 million in 1987-88, Additionally, $50,000 was granted to Stillwater Public Schools for a PLATOWICAT Computer Program in 1986-87. Computer science is a recommended elective for students preparing for admission to Oklahoma colleges and universities and schools are encouraged to use technology in ways to help meet the needs of students and faculty. A curriculum hPreservlce courwwork In computer hteracy IS required ]n Oklahoma for earl} ch]ldhood and elementary certlflcatlon. At the secondarv level, computer-related courses are required for teachers of business, mathematics, computer science, and for media/l[brarv specialist certlflcatlon, guide and recommendations for keyboarding have been developed. The State supports a variety of distance learning and rural education activities: $330,000 for competitive Rural Technology Education Grants for Satellite Instruction in 1986-87 and again in 1987-88; $185,000 for Telecommunications in Education Grants; and a $212,000 grant to Oklahoma State Universit y for satellite instruction course development in 1987-88, including a German-by-Satellite course. In 1987, the State Board of Education adopted regulations governing satellite instruction. Computer-related courses at the preservice level are required for some teachers. The State provides no funding for training but offers workshops on site and through the SDE Computer Laboratory. SDE also maintains a software preview library and provides information and technical assistance to educators. Oregon State position/unit: Yes (1960s) State plan: No Key actors: Business community; Chief State School Officer Funds available through the State for technolog y activities: State technology (1986-87); State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: Chapter 2 State training policies: None State funding for technology training: Yes 49 Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Providing curriculum materials for video (for over 20 years) and for computers (over 5 years) Major changes in past year: Large decrease in State support for technology instructional materials Barriers: State technology funding has been reduced each year since 1978 Oregon has supported instructional video since the 1960s. In the early 1980s, State and Federal funds helped to establish the Oregon Educational Computer Consortium (OECC). With dues from districts, OECC hired a staff person within SDE. In 1985-86, $25,000 in State funds was provided to support the Consortium. In 198687, $23,500 was provided to assist in a contract for software. No State funds were provided in 1987-88. General State aid and Federal fundin g may be used for technology at local discretion. A State plan was drafted but was not implemented. Training, software preview, and technical assistance are provided to districts through OECC. The State also supWoregon Prot,ldes finding for technology training Indirectly through SuPPort for Oregon Publlc Broadcasting and the Oregon Educational Computer Consortium. Both prowde teacher development activities. PAGE 233 226 ports Oregon Public Broadcasting which provides some staff development to teachers. Training is coordinated at the district level. Pennsylvania State position/unit: No State plan: No 50 Key actors: Legislators; Governor; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: Chapter 2 State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice (recommended informally) State funding for technology training: Yes Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Focusing Chapter 2 funds on technology; providing funding for training through regional centers and grants to schools; creating an electronic network; establishing a program to provide for joint purchase of computers by schools Next steps: Establishing computer science certification Major changes in past year: State funding requested for the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, a public corporation, and for the Science Teacher Education Program Barriers: Diversity of districts; keeping up with changing technolog y State Chapter 2 allocations have been used for competitive grants for technology and for inservice training, including PENN* LINK, an electronic network that is planned to link all schools and LIN-TEL, a statewide electronic network for libraries. Districts also use Chapter 2 funds for technology: in 1986-87, 29 percent of local Chapter 2 funds were used for computer hardware. Federal vocational education, special education, and Title 11 funds are also used for educational technology by the State and districts. In response to unequal distribution of computers, the State targeted Chapter 2 funds to rural districts in 1987-88. Technology training and support services are provided by 15 Regional Computer Resource Centers (RCRC). The RCRCs are located at colleges, universities, and intermediate units and are administered by the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), a public corporation which receives State funding. PHEAA also administers technolog y grants to schools and districts, in addition to the grants awarded at the State level. Over $5 million was provided by the State in 1986-87 and again in 1987-88 for the educational tech5oTh~r~ is ~0 sr~t~ ~l~n for educational technology In Pennsylvania, A ode technology utilization plan is being developed for special education and the State has a 3-year plan to link all schools m the State electronically. nology programs administered by PHEAA and for other State initiatives, including a program which provides for joint purchasing of computers by schools. In 1986, the legislature approved a line item in the State budget for a videodisc database of school library holdings. In addition, $27 million in State funds were distributed to districts for 1984-87 to update vocational/technical programs in the State. The use of computers to support the learning process is encouraged through the States Goals of Quality Education, New regulations require that computer science be offered to all secondary students. Teacher certification in computer science is being considered. Rhode Island State position/unit: No State plan: No Funds available through the State for technology activities: State education Source of funding in most districts: District; Chapter 1; Title 11 State training policies: None State funding for technology training: None 51 Way most teachers receive training: Unknown Major changes in past year: Planning initiative and considering creating technology centers Barriers: No State level staff person A half-unit computer literacy requirement for high school students was established in 1983. Over a 3-year period (1983-86), $4 million was appropriated for educational technology: $1 million was allocated for vocational facilities and $3 million for elementary and secondary schools. Districts are required to repay 40 percent of the funds over a 5-year period. The State completed a $300,000 inservice education program in 1986 which provided training for 5,000-6,000 of the States 8,000 teachers. Teachers now may receive inservice training in technolog y under the Rhode Island School Staff Institute. A State initiative in educational technology is in the planning stages, South Carolina State position/unit: Yes (1983) 5 State plan: No Key actors: Legislators; Chief State School Officer Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology Source of funding in most districts: State grants for technology 51 Professional development funds may be used for technology tralmng. 5Z1n 19g3 an exl~tlng Offlce of Instructional Telewslon was renamed the Of fice of Instructional Technology. South Carolina IS revolved m a number of activities relatlng to instructional television. PAGE 234 227 State training policies: Preservice (required for business education) State funding for technology training: Yes Way most teachers receive training: For-credit course paid for by teacher Most important State action: Pathways Project to reduce teacher paperwork; creation of State instructional technology unit; participation in curriculum mapping project through SEED 53 Major changes in past year: None Barriers: Need for more hardware and software; insufficient opportunity to preview software; training; questions about relating technology to the curriculum and teaching Legislation enacted in 1984 established the Pathways Project, an effort to reduce teacher paperwork and create an electronic network for administrative uses. The project received $5.4 million in 1986-87. Approximatel y $300,000 was provided to districts for computer education courses over the past 3 years. Funds are allocated to provide at least one course per district and trainin g is primarily a district responsibility. Inservice computer courses can be applied to renewal of certification in all fields. The State publishes a recommended list of software for basic skills instruction in language arts, mathematics, and science, and operates six basic skills software regional laboratories. Staff development programs are broadcast over the South Carolina Educational Television Network. South Carolina participates in SEED. South Dakota State position/unit: Yes (1982) 54 State plan: No Key actors: State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer; local districts Funds available through the State for technology activities: State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: District; Chapter 2 State training policies: Preservice/inservice (informally recommended) State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: Mixed Most important State action: Creating technolog y position in SDE; creating statewide consortium Next steps: Establish a permanent funding base for the technolog y consortium Major changes in past year: None; hope that distance learning projects will generate more interest +The SEED curriculum mapping project IS in the planning stages. For more Information, contact the Southeastern Educational Improvement Laboratory,. +A State-le\el educational technology posltlon was created In 1982 in South Dakota. In 1985, responslblllty for implementation and support was transferred to a statewtde educational technology consortium (TIE). An asslsrant State superintendent malntalns administrative res~nslbllity for educational technology Barriers: Funding; local leadership; training A State position for educational technolog y was created in 1982 and a 5-year plan (1982-86) was developed. In 1985, a statewide educational technology consortium (TIE) was established with State support. TIE is funded by districts, which may use general State aid and Federal funds for membership or other technology-related activities. South Dakota requires a half credit of computer studies, a hands-on course, for high school graduation. The development of computer-related skills (keyboarding, CAI, integrated tool software, and programming) is encouraged at all grade levels. Three schools were selected by the State for distance learning pilot sites using the TI-IN Network in 1986. Tennessee State position/unit: Yes (1984) State plan: Yes (1984) Key actors: Legislators; Governor; State Advisory Committee Funds available through the State for technology activities: Federal Source of finding in most districts: Chapter 2 State training policies: Preservice (required) State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: State Most important State action: Implementation of Comprehensive Education Reform Act Major changes in past year: None Barriers: Availability of additional funding A mandate requiring computer literacy instruction for all seventh and eighth grade students was approved in 1983 and one-time funding of $9 million was provided to districts for hardware. Under the mandate, all students receive 15 computer literacy lessons in the seventh and eighth grade. Each instructor received an initial 5 days of training. Suggested curriculum guides have been developed to encourage the use of technology throughout the K-6 curriculum and to encourage computer science at the secondary level. No State funds currently are available for educational technology. The State set aside $25,000 in Chapter 2 funds for a technolog y conference (1986-88) and $10,000 in Title 11 funds for technolog y in education. Tennessee continues to train teachers for the required computer literacy instruction and provides inservice training and technical assistance to other educators. Texas State position/unit: Yes (1983) State plan: Being developed PAGE 235 228 Key actors: Legislators; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer; professional associations Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; Federal Source of funding inmost districts: District State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: None 55 Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Computer literacy requirement for seventh or eighth grade and computer course requirement for advanced high school diploma; distance learning courses; electronic network Next steps: Elementary computing guidelines; State plan; further implementation of distance learning and electronic network; further research and demonstration Major changes in past year: State plan being developed Barriers: No State plan; training; funding (for R&D, training, and equipment) Legislation in 1981 requires that all students in Texas take at least one semester in computer literacy in seventh or eighth grade (beginning in 1985-86). The required course specifies applications, awareness, and programming. All districts are required to teach computer competencies, including keyboarding, in the elementary schools beginning in 1987. Guidelines are being developed. Texas also awards an advanced high school diploma which includes courses in computing. The State has not funded local implementation efforts, but has funded several pilot projects with State and Federal dollars. In 1986-87 the State provided on-line expenses to 14 school districts to study their use of electronic communications. Minimal on-line expenses and money for software were provided to two model districts to study the potential of a statewide electronic network. In addition, Chapter 2 discretionary funds were used for 10 pilot districts to study the use of technology for basic skills instruction in 1986-87 and for 8 more projects in 1987-88. Preservice teachers are required to take a computer course or demonstrate proficiency using computers in instruction. The States long-term strategy for both preservice and inservice involves moving training for technology into universities and regional centers. Currently, the State technology unit initiates training efforts, provides technical and curriculum assistance, and is involved in long-range planning. Utah State position/unit: Yes (1985) State plan: Being developed The State prowdes additional funds to school districts to use In placing teachers on a career ladder. Technology workshops and courses may be applied toward credit for the career ladder. Key actors: Business; legislators; Governor; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer; parents; State staff Funds available through the State for technology activities: State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: State grants that may be used for technology State training policies: Preservice/inservice (required) State funding for technology training: None (pending study) Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State Action: Educational Technology Study conducted in conjunction with IBM Major changes in past year: Positivecompletion and implementation of study Barriers: Funding Core curriculum standards for information technolog y are in place in Utah for grades K-12. These standards may be taught either by infusing them into other areas of the curriculum or in a specific course. An Application Transfer Study, conducted in conjunction with IBM, was completed in 1987. The study assessed the current status of educational technolog y in Utah and made recommendations for future directions. No State funding is provided specifically for educational technology, but a recommendation is pending for the 1988 legislative session. State productivity grants have been used for technology by local districts. Federal funds are used to support the Information Technology Demonstration Center which serves as a clearinghouse for State efforts. The center also works with regional education service centers. Teachers at the preservice and inservice level are required to take technology courses or demonstrate familiarity using technology in instruction. No State funds are provided for technology training, but a recommendation is under consideration. In 1985, the development of a distance learning accelerated pilot project to teach Spanish was funded by the State with support from IBM and Bonneville International Corp., a private satellite company. The course is now available to schools in other States. Vermont State position/unit: Yes (1987) State plan: Being developed Key actors: Legislators; Chief State School Officer; teachers; parents; superintendents Funds available through the State for technology activities: Federal Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: None % 56A pending State plan will recommend that all teachers demonstrate competency In using technology in InstructIon by 1990. PAGE 236 229 State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: For-credit course paid for by teacher Most important State action: Flexibility at local level Major changes in past year: Creation opposition in SDE Barriers: Funding Vermont provides no funding for educational technology and only limited technical assistance and support. Federal funds are used for technology if proposals from districts include technology. Suggested curriculum guidelines have been developed and the State uses the term technology capable to encourage teachers and students to use technology as tools. A technology staff position was established in 1987 and a State plan is being developed by SDE. The plan will encourage the implementation of a range of technologies in the early grades. Virginia State position/unit: Yes (1987) 57 State plan: Being developed Key actors: Business community; legislators; Governor; State Board of Education Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; Federal Source of funding in most districts: Unknown State training policies: Inservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Governors Commission issued Plan for Action Next steps: Get legislative support; develop 5-year plan; implement plan Major changes in past year: Potential legislation; development of plan; interest of Governor and some legislators Barriers: Cost and rapid obsolescence of equipment; awareness of value among top educators; mobilize teachers to use technology over the long-term; stable funding commitment All Virginia high school graduates must demonstrate computer competency. The State provides a training laboratory, information, and technical assistance to educators. An electronic classroom, offering advanced courses and Latin instruction to some schools through the public broadcasting network in Virginia, was established in 1985 to address educational disparities across the State. A second electronic classroom was implemented in 1987 and half of Virginia schools have been 5;A Department of Media and Technology has offered seriices to \[rglnla schools for seieral years under different departments w]thln the State Department of Education. In August 1987, an Assistant Super] ntencfent for Instruc tlonal Technology was hired, mowng the department to dlwslon status. involved. State costs for the electronic classrooms were $275,000 in 1986-87 and $600,000 in 1987-88. The State hopes to implement additional sites and plans to transmit courses using a combination of public television and satellite technology. No additional State funds are currently provided for educational technology. Federal funds may be awarded through grants for technology-related projects. Over $65,000 in Federal funds was approved for technology-based projects in 1987-88. The Governors Commission on Excellence in Education has issued a plan that includes a section about the use of technology. An Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Technology was created in 1987 and a State plan for educational technology is being developed. Over $20 million has been requested in the legislature for electronic classrooms, an electronic network, and computer purchases to address disparities in distribution of technology across the State. Training is included in the request. This is the first time a budget of this type has been proposed in Virginia. A 2-year demonstration project, funded b y th e Potomac Edison Co., in cooperation with SDE in 1987, has 10 networked classrooms for mathematics and science. Proposals for evaluation are bein g developed. 58 Washington State position/unit: Yes (1983) State plan: Being developed Key actors: Business community; legislators; Chief State School Officer; teacher organizations Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; Federal Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: Preservice (required) State funding for technology training: Yes Way most teachers receive training: Regional centers Most important State action: Established Educational Technology Center Program and provided continued funding Next steps: Collaboration between education, business, and industry Major changes in past year: Telecommunications legislation passed in 1987; anticipated to have major impact Barriers: Funding; release time for training; lack of coordination of resources between districts; lack of highquality software; difficulty matching software with student learning objectives A network of Educational Technolog y Centers was established through legislation in 1983. The centers provide inservice classes and workshops, technical assistance, software/hardware preview, and curriculum development 5flPotomac Edmm IS also suppormng pro)ects In West Vlrglrwa and hlarvlancl. PAGE 237 230 assistance. The program is administered through the Superintendent of Public Instruction and currently has an operating budget of $2.3 million per year. Staff development grants are also available on a competitive basis t o school districts. No other State or Federal funds are currently earmarked for technology. State grants for school improvement and research were used for som e technology-related projects from 1985-87, but this program was not refunded. Federal Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 may be used for technology by local districts. Preservice teachers are required to have familiarity with technology use in instruction, and high schools are required to offer computer-related courses. The State does not evaluate software, but has developed suggested curriculum guidelines to help educators match software to defined student outcomes. An act passed in 1987 required SDE and the Higher Education Coordinating Board to develop a plan for a statewide telecommunications network. The plan will be submitted by the 1989 session. A separate proposal was submitted to the legislature which requested over $2 million for a number of initiatives, including technology project development, more staff for the Educational Technology Centers, grants for demonstration sites, and dissemination of information. The proposal was initiated through a cooperative effort between educators; business and industry, and the State superintendent. West Virginia State position/unit: Yes (1984) State plan: No Key actors: Business community; legislators; State Advisory Committee; SDE Funds available through the State for technology activities: State technology; 59 State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: State grants that may be used for technology State training policies: Preservice (required for certain areas); inservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: None 60 Way most teachers receive training: State Most important State action: Providing some direction and funding Next steps: Implement more laboratories and evaluate the use and place of technology within the curriculum; support development and use of instructional management software Major changes in past year: Two studies being conducted by commissions on finance and education which may lead to more funding )State funchng for technology IS pending for 1987-88. Professional development funds may be used for technology tralmng. Barriers: Funding; training; time to implement Following a plan formulated in 1982-83, a statewide electronic network was installed in local school districts in 1984. The project was supported by the State with assistance from the Appalachian Regional Commission and the Federal Job Training Partnership Act. Computer laboratories were first implemented in high schools and are now being put into junior high schools. Training is provided at schools, through summer institutes, and occasionally via the electronic network. Originally intended for administrative and teacher use, the laboratories are now also used for instruction. In 1986-87, $200,000 was provided for laboratories and to cover the operational costs for toll-free access to the network b y schools. Funding for 1987-88 is uncertain due to State budget cuts. School districts ma y also use grants for professional development, general State aid, and Federal funds for technology-related activities. The State is evaluating distance learning projects to assess costs and educational outcomes. Statewide learning outcomes for specific curriculum areas have been developed. Proficiency using technolog y to solve problems and enhance job skills is included in the learning outcomes for vocational education (word processing, spreadsheets, database management, and telecommunications). A 6-week pilot project supported jointly by the State, the U.S. Department of Labor, and IBM used computers and hands-on activities to provide practice in basic skills, career exploration, and improve students attitudes toward school. Wisconsin State position/unit: Yes (1983) State plan: Yes (1987) Key actors: Legislators; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer Funds available through the State for technology activities: State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: District State Training Policies: Preservice (required); inservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: Regional centers Most important State action: Establishing State educational standards; publishing series of curriculum guides Next steps: Assist districts in planning and implementation; continued staff development Major changes in past year: New standards have increased interest in using technology for instruction Barriers: Reluctance to change and fear of technology; funding; local priorities and understanding Reform legislation passed in 1986 resulted in State standards for curriculum and professional development. PAGE 238 231 A series of curriculum guides were published requiring changes in both the content and delivery of instruction. Technology is seen as an important component of school improvement and the State encourages local districts to integrate technology into the new curriculum. Local school boards are required to develop curriculum plans that specify objectives, course content, resources, and assessment. No State funds are provided specifically for technology or technology training. However, Wisconsin provides half of the funding for education statewide which may be used for technology at local discretion. Twelve regional agencies, forming the Wisconsin Instructional Computing Consortium, provide educational technology services to members (such as training and technical assistance). State staff provide leadership and consultation to the regional units and districts. The State recognizes a need for additional training to integrate technology more fully into the curriculum. Beginning in 1988, the State will work with districts that are not complying with State standards, including those that are not using technology. Wyoming State position/unit: Yes (1985) State plan: No Key actors: District curriculum committees Funds available through the State for technology activities: State education; Federal Source of funding in most districts: District State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice (recommended) State funding for technology training: None Way most teachers receive training: District Most important State action: Technology position in SDE; center to provide software preview/evaluation Major changes in past year: Oil prices have negatively affected school funds Barriers: Isolation/small size of most schools in State; questions about how to encourage teachers to incorporate technology in instruction, especially in high schools Almost all State funding for education in Wyoming goes directl y to districts. Chapter 2 is used heavily by districts for technology, but districts are discouraged from using Chapter 1 funds for technology because it is difficult to monitor use. Districts are encouraged to develop their own plans for educational technolog y and a State consultant is available to offer assistance. The State maintains the Center for Educational Technology, where software is available for preview. The center also publishes software reviews. Preservice teachers are required to demonstrate familiarity using technology in instruction. A State policy on distance learning was recently adopted and a project is expected to be implemented in one district in 1988-89. PAGE 239 Appendix B Characteristics Considered in Evaluating Educational Software 1 Instructional Quality General l l l l l l l Program is useful in a school-based, instructional setting (i.e., in a classroom, computer laboratory, media center, or school library). Program avoids potentially controversial, nonstandard teaching methodologies. Program allows completion of a lesson in one class period (approximately 30 minutes). Instruction is integrated with previous student experience. Program is likely to save time for the student when compared to other means of presenting this topic. Program is likely to save time for the teacher when compared to other means of presenting this topic. An on-disk tutorial concerning the programs command structure is provided when appropriate (e.g., for a word processing program). Content l l l l l l l l l l l Content is appropriate for intended student population. Content is accurate. Content is current. Content breadth is reasonable (does not focus on too few or too many different concepts or content topics within one session). The processes and information learned are useful in domains other than the subject area of the program. Content is free of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and usage errors. Content is free of any bias or stereotyping. Content supports the school curriculum. Content is relevant to the subject field. Definitions are provided when necessary. There is continuity between the information presented and prerequisite skills required. !Bawd on ,tem$ ~ed by ~~ ~ubllc ~r,vate, and g~vernmen[al software eValUatmn agencies, and addltmnal ~tems ccmxdered Important by selected teachers, software publishers, uniierslty professors, and private consultants. Many of the educational software experts consulted In the compdlng of this list felt that sub]ectspeclflc and population-speclflc characteristics would have to be considered for a thorough evaluation. See Ellen Blalo and Jay Swm, An Analysls of the Scope and Quallty of the Current Supply of Educational Software and of the Available Sources of [nformatlon on EduLatmna[ Software, ~TA contract report, Sept. 30, 1987. 232 l Content avoids taking a side on potentially controversial moral or social issues. There is a need for better than the standard treatment of this topic in the curriculum. Appropriateness l l l l l l l l l l Application is well suited to computer use. The pedagogic approach used is superior to what is available elsewhere. Readability level is appropriate for the intended student population. Tone of address is appropriate for the intended student population. The means of response (e.g., single keystroke, manipulating graphics) is appropriate to the intended student population. Prerequisite skills required are appropriate for the intended student population. Time required for use by a typical student does not exceed the attention span of that student. Multiple levels of instruction are available. Difficulty levels are based on discernible logic (e.g., reading ability, complexity of problems). Sufficient exposure and practice are provided to master skills. Sufficient information is presented for intended learning to occur. Questioning Techniques l Questions are appropriate to the content and effectivel y measure student mastery of the content. l Questions incorrectly answered can be repeated later in the lesson/exercise. The number of trials are reasonable and appropriate (e.g., student receives the correct answer after no more than three or four trials, and after at least two trials). Calculation can be accomplished easily on-screen when appropriate. Approach/Motivation Approach is appropriate for the intended student population. Format is varied. PAGE 240 233 Feedback l Overall tenor of interaction is helpful. l Student is an active participant in the learning process. Evaluators Field Test Results l l l l l l Student understands the on-screen presentation, and can proceed without confusion or frustration. Student enjoys using the program. Student retains a positive attitude about using the program. Student retains the desire to use the program again, or to pursue the topic in other ways. Program involves students in competition in a positive way. Program fosters cooperation among students. Creativity Program challenges and stimulates creativity. Pedagogy is innovative. Program allows the student as many decisions as possible. Program provides opportunities to answer openended questions and provides evaluative criteria to assess responses. Program demonstrates a creative way of using knowledge. Program challenges the student to alter an underlying model, or design an alternative model. Learner Control l Learner can alter program sequence and pace. l Learner can review instructions and previous frames. l Learner can end activity any time and return to main menu. l Learner can enter program at different points. l Learner can stop in the midst of an activity, and at a later session begin at that stopping point with the previous record of progress intact. l Help is available at likely points of need. Learning Objectives, Goals, and Outcomes l l l Learner objectives are stated and purpose is well defined. Steps are taken to make learning generalizable to other situations. For programs requiring use over several days, learning outcomes are worth the time invested. l l l l l l l l l l l Feedback is positive. Feedback is appropriate to the intended student population and does not threaten or inadvertently reward incorrect responses. Feedback is relevant to student responses. Feedback is timely. Feedback is informative. Feedback is corrective when appropriate. Feedback remediates and/or explains when appropriate. Feedback employs a variety of responses to student input, and avoids being boring or unnecessaril y detailed. Feedback remains on the screen for an appropriate amount of time. Branching is used effectively to remediate. Program uses branching to automaticall y adjust difficulty levels or sequence according to student performance. Simulations l l l l l l l Simulation model is valid and neither too complex nor too simple for intended student population. Variables used in the simulation are the most relevant. Variables in the simulation interact and produce results approximately as they would in real life. Assumptions are adequately identified. Program simulates activities that can be too difficult, dangerous, or expensive to demonstrate in reality. The time needed to complete both a step and the entire simulation is reasonable and effective. Encourages decisionmaking or calculation rather than guessing. Teacher Modifiability l Teacher can easily change or add content. l Teacher can easily regulate parameters (e. g., number of problems, rate of presentation, percentage correct needed for mastery) for each class using the program, l Teacher can easily regulate parameters (e. g., number of problems, rate of presentation, percentage correct needed for mastery) for each student. Parameter set-ups can be bypassed (e. g., default settings are available). PAGE 241 234 Evaluation and Recordkeeping Program provides an adequate means of evaluating student mastery of the content. If tests are included, criteria for success are appropriate for the ability/skills of the intended student population. [f tests are included, content accurately reflects the material presented. Scorekeeping and performance reports are provided for the student when appropriate (e.g., summary of problems correct/number attempted, running point totals). Useful information about student performance is stored for future retrieval. Useful diagnostic pre-test or placement test is provided, where appropriate. Useful diagnostic or prescriptive analysis of student performance is available to the teacher, when appropriate. Student performance information is easily accessible to the teacher. Management system includes adequate security. Program allows printout and screen display of student records. Program can hold multiple performance records of a single class (e.g., 35 to 50 students). Program can hold multiple performance records of several classes (e.g., up to 5 classes) arranged by class. Documentation and Support Materials Quality of packaging is durable and appropriate for student use (e.g., not too large to be used at a computer station). Student, parent, or teacher guides and materials are clearly identified as such. Technical and operational explanations for implementation are clear and complete. If appropriate, quick start-up section is included. Useful reproducible student worksheets are provided. Other valuable support materials are provided (e.g., wall charts). Sample screen-by-screen printouts of the program are provided. Teacher support materials can be separated from student materials. Useful suggestions are provided for introductory classroom activities. Useful suggestions are provided for classroom activities during the use of the program, where necessary or helpful. Useful suggestions are provided for followup activities. l l l l l l l l l l l l l Useful suggestions are given for classroom logistics in a variety of hardware situations (e.g., single or multiple machines) and student groupings. Useful suggestions are provided on how to integrate program with the regular curriculum. If the program is open-ended, subject-specific suggestions are included. Clear explanations of the differences between the various difficulty levels are provided. Prerequisite skills are clearly stated. Accurate and clear description of instructional activities are provided. Accurate and clear descriptions of content topics are provided. Where appropriate, a description of how material correlates to standard textbook series is provided. Necessary information can be found quickly and easily (e.g., contains index, table of contents). Quick reference card for program use is included, where appropriate. Printed text is clear and readable. Printed graphics are clear and readable. Printed text is free of errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, and usage. Technical Quality General l l l l l l l l Audio can be adjusted (i.e., turned down or off). Audio is clear and used effectively. Character sets used in text display are clear, appropriate, and visually interesting. Graphics are acceptable on a monochrome monitor. Graphics are clear and can be easily interpreted. Program is crash-proof. Program runs consistently under all normal conditions and is bug-free. Program runs without undue delays (e.g., graphics fill in a timely manner, does not excessively access disc drive). The transitions between screen display are effective (e.g., text changes). Program guards against multiple key presses advancing the student past the next screen (e. g., leaning on return key and thereby missing several screens as they flash by). Program avoids unnecessary or inappropriate moving back and forth between screens (e.g., from page to feedback or data pages). Special features (e.g., flash, inverse, scrolling, split screen) are used appropriately and effectively. Program requires a minimal amount of typing (except typing programs). PAGE 242 235 l l l l l l l l l l l l Random generation or selection is used when appropriate (e.g., to allow repeated use by varying the problems or data presented). Program judges responses accurately and accounts for minor variations in the format of the input (e.g., accepts either the correct word or letter choice in a multiple choice item). Program allows user to correct answer before bein g accepted by the program. Program accepts partial answers as correct whenever appropriate. Where students must input responses, inappropriate keys are disabled. Control keys are used consistently. Students require a minimum amount of teacher supervision while using the program, when appropriate. Computer (and peripherals) operation does not interfere with concentration on activity. Program makes effective use of peripheral devices (e.g., joysticks) for alternate input modes while still allowing keyboard input. Program considers a previously unexplored potential of the computer or greatly expands an existing capabilit y (e.g., new animation techniques, digitized speech). Program uses other technologies (e.g., audio cassette, videodisc, videotape) to enhance learning, when appropriate. Printing is easy and simple to accomplish with a variety of popular printers. Clarity l l l l l l l l l l Procedural and instructional statements are clear. On-screen prompts clearly indicate where user should focus attention. Frame formatting is clear, uncluttered, and consistent from screen to screen (e. g., screen input is restricted to a consistent location), Presentation of each discrete content topic is logical. Sequence of content topics and instruction is logical and in appropriate steps. Sequence of menu items is logical. Prompts and cues are clear and consistentl y and logically applied. Hints are clear and not misleading (e.g., length of spaces in fill-in blanks matches number of letters needed). Demonstrations and examples are clear and available when appropriate. Interface is simple enough to be used with little or no reading of the documentation. l l l Program makes clear where the user is in the program (e.g., question number, page headings). User-computer communication is consistent and logical. Prompts to save work are given when appropriate. Start-up and Implementation l l l l l Teacher: Software code modifications or unusual manipulations of discs are not required to use program effectively. Start-up time for teacher implementation is not excessive. Teacher needs a minimum of computer competencies to operate program (e. g., does not require installing add-on boards). Student: Start-up time for student implementation is brief enough to permit completion of a lesson. Students need a minimum of computer competencies to operate program (e.g., does not require use of control-ke y combinations). Graphics and Audio l Graphics and audio are used to motivate. l Graphics and audio are appropriate for the intended student population. l Graphics, audio, and color enhance the instructional process. Graphics help focus attention to appropriate content and are not distracting. Probeware and Peripherals Included l l l l l l l l l l in the Software Package Probes or peripherals are durable. Probes or peripherals are sensitive. Audio and/or graphic quality are effective. Probes or peripherals are easy to install. Calibration is accurate and easy. Data displays are flexible (e.g., can be scaled, redrawn). Data analysis is useful. Hardware and Marketing Issues Potential usefulness of the program justifies its price in comparison to other similar products. Peripherals (not included in the package) that are difficult to acquire or inappropriately expensive are not required. Producer field test data are available. PAGE 243 236 l Field test data indicate that students learned more l Telephone support is available. or better, or had a better attitude toward the sub. If allowable, multiple loading is possible. ject matter, as a result of using the program. l Site license is available. Preview copies are available. l Network versions are available. l Back-up copies are provided. l Multiple copies discount available. l Adequate warranty is provided. PAGE 244 Appendix C U.S. Department of Education Principal Programs Providing Funds for Technology in Education Funding for educational technology is available through various programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education. In a few cases, funds are appropriated specifically for educational technology. Other funds are obligated for technolog y projects through existing program areas. And some funds are used for technolog y activities by recipients of grants and awards that are not designated specifically for educational technology (e.g., grants to States, districts, educational research laboratories and centers). Federal block grants and other grants to States and school districts, such as those for compensatory education for the disadvantaged, mathematics and science education, bilingual education, special education, vocational and adult education, and teacher training, support use of technology at the discretion of States and school districts. Under some programs, grants are awarded and budget decisions are made based on priorities of the Secretary of Education and department administrators. The following table provides an estimate of levels of funding and support for educational technology within programs administered by the Department of Education. 1 Because funding for educational technolog y is not closely monitored and data on local use of Federal grants is limited, most figures are estimated. Where Federal grants to States, districts, schools, or individuals are sources of funding for technology and may be used for technology at local discretion, total appropriations are given (e.g., Chapter 2 block grants, magnet schools assistance), A question mark (?) indicates that OTA was not able to estimate the amount of funding for technology. Since outlays for technology are often not known until several years after the original appropriation, most figures are estimates of obligations or expenditures for educational technolog y for the designated fiscal year. The figures for fiscal year 1989 are department appropriation requests or program estimates based on pending legislation and awards. 1988 Technolog y Appropriation Estimate (in millions) 101.20 ? 13.10 ? (mnonued on next page) Ahbrevlatmns: OB = Obligation; EO = Esnrnated Obhgatlon IThls table M based on re;lew of budget documents, Ilst; of grants and awards, publlshed research and documents, conversarlons with program staff at the U.S. Department O( Education, and estimates provided bv various programs In the Department of Education. ~Flgures are appropriations or budget requests as lndlcated unless otherwuse noted. OTA estimates based on a study flndlng 30 percent of all local Chapter 2 expenditures In the 1984-85 school year were used for technology-related actlt,ltles. SRI international and Policy Studies Associates, The Educational Block Grant at the Local Level: The Implementation of Chapter 2 of the Ecfucatlon Consolldatlon and Improvement Act in Districts and Schools, prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, January 1986, p. 45. Stxcn projects were funded In 1987 and several are In their final year. OTA estimates that awards for technology-related projects wdl decrease in 1989, Educatmnal te~hnology could be a pr[orlty area but currently is not. Prlorioes for 1989 Include teacher cert]flcatlon and recruitment and early childhood education, ~Of the 628 grants awarded ro dlsrrlcts in 198?, 228 (or 36 percent) Included a te~ hnology component. 237 PAGE 245 238 1987 Technology Appropriation Estimate (in millions) Education for Economic Security Act: Title 117Mathematics and Science Programs State Grants . . . . . Secretarys Discretionary Fund: Technology Competition . . Mathematics, Science and Critical Foreign Language Competitions s . . . . . Educational TV . . . . Title VIIMagnet Schools Assistance Continuing Resolution Star Schools . . . . . Small Business Innovation Research ll . . . . . . Higher Education Act: Title V-CLeadership in Educational Administration . Title V-DChrista McAuliffe Fellowships for Outstanding Teachers . . . . . . Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education . . Education for the Handicapped Act: State Grants. . . . . . Special Purpose Programs: Technology for Special Education . . . . . Early Childhood Education . Media and Captioning Services . . . . . Personnel Development . . Vocational Education Act (Perkins Act): Title IIState Grants . . . Vocational Education Research Center . . . . . . High Technology Demonstrations . . . . Job Skills Education Program . . 72.80 0 3.70 3.25 75.00 0 1.70 7.20 2.00 12.20 1,568.00 4.67 24.50 13.80 67.70 802.90 6.00 0 0 ? o 0.53 (OB) 3.25 (OB) ? o 1.70 (OB) ? ? ? 12 ? 4.67 0 13.80 2.29 (OB) ? 0.19 (EO) o 0 1988 Technology Appropriation Estimate (in millions) 108.90 1.00 6.60 2.25 71.80 19.10 1.70 8.20 1.90 11.60 1,699.80 4.79 23.40 13.20 66.40 791.80 6.00 9.60 0.13 ? 1.00 (EO) 0.97 (EO) 2.25 9 (EO) ? 19.10 1.70 (EO) ? ? ? ? 4.79 0 13.20 1.81 (EO) o ? 9.60 (EO) 0.13 (EO) 1989 Technology Request Estimate (in millions) 108.90 ? ? ? 115.00 0 1.70 4.40 1,90 13.60 1747.70 4.79 23.40 13.20 66.40 835.20 6.00 9.60 ? ? ? ? ? o 1.70 (EO) ? ? ? ? 4.79 0.30 (EO) 13.20 1.2? (EO) ? ? 9.60 (EO) ~The Elementary and Secondarv School Improvement Amendments of 1988 (Public Law 100-297) revises Title 11, authorizes a new protzram for forewm lanstua~e education, and ehminates the restriction on the use of Title 11 funds for computer education only after mathematics and science needs have been met. Now, in addition .to using Title 11 funds for preservice training, mservice training, teacher retraining, and mlnorlty recruitment, Local Education Agencies (LEAs) may use Title 11 funds for teacher training In technology as part of a mathematics and science program. LEAs may also use Tide 11 funds to purchase computers and other telecommunications equipment and to provide grants to individual teachers for Innovative projects in mathematics and science. In addition, States may use their share of Title 11 funds for demonstrations and exemplary programs for instructional materials and equipment in mathematics and science, as well as to provide technical assistance. Grants for programs of national significance in mathematics, science, computer education, and critical foreign languages are also appropriated under Title IL The new law gives the Secretary of Educanon discretion to award grants to support foreign language education separately and focuses the programs of national significance on mathematics and science. Budget figures reflect Title 11 as originally enacted. The Department of Education estimates that 18 to 20 percent of funds for field-initiated competition and 10 percent of funds for critical foreign language are used for app[icat;ons of technology. ncludes $1 million for Square One TV, currently under review. I(NO data on the percent of magnet Schm[ funds ~s,ed for technology is available, although a recent OTA estimate Suggests that 25 percent IS used for mathematics and science magnet schools. Technology could be a component in these and other magnet school programs. See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Educat~ng %~enrists and Engineers: Grade .SChod to Grad School, OTA-SET-377 (Washington, DC: LJ.s. Government priming Office, June 1988). I IFundlng is based o n a percentage of the U.S. Department of Educations external research budget. I?some aw,ard5 Supwrt Currlcu[um development and teacher trainin g activities that could be applied to elementary and secondary education. While educational technology was one of the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Educations (FIPSE) priorines from 1981 to 1985, it is no longer a priority area. Of 176 new and connnulng projects funded by FJ.PSE in 1987, 41 (23 percent) revolved technology. PAGE 246 239 1987 Technology Appropriation Estimate (in millions) o Adult Education Act: Grants to States . . 106.00 ? State Grants to Local Education Agencies 13 . . 2.86 State Discretionary Grants 13 . 1.51 Field Initiated Research . 0 Office of Educational Research and Improvement: Field Initiated Research . . 0.60 0.06 (OB) National Research and Development Center s 1 4 . 17.50 All Centers excluding Educational Technology Center 15 . . . . 1.00 (EO) Educational Technology Center . . Regional Educational Laboratories 17.00 1.8 Technology Conference and What Works 0 Educational Resources Information Network 2.00 (EO) o (ERIC) 17 . 5.70 0.29 (OB) Center for Statistics . . . . 9.10 ? 1988 Technology Appropriation Estimate (in millions) 115.40 1.90 0.50 17.50 17.00 0 5.70 13.40 ? 3.11 1.65 0.90-1.25 (EO) 1.00 (EO) 0.90 (EO) 1,23 (EO) o 0.30 ? 1989 Technology Request Estimate (in millions) 148.20 ? 3.99 2.11 2.00 .90-1 .25 (EO) 1.00 (EO) 17.50 16 17.00 0.10 5.70 1.00 .00 (EO) .15 (EO) 0.10 20.00 ? 1A minimum ,,f 10 percent of the grants aw arcled to States must be set awie for tralnlng, research, demonstration, and evaluation. The remaln]ng State ~rant goe to LEAs, p(lw-secondarv Instltutlons, and commumtv organizations. IJThe au,ard for the Educ atlonal T e c h n o l og y }, Center IS Included In the total center ap~r~prlatlon of $17.5 mllllon. I fE~tlmate, ~ ere pro~,)de, b}. [he research ~enter~ ~rld th e cl ,S, Department of Education, Amounts do not reflect other research In ]earnlng that mav relate t{> the use of tec hm]logy In the future. ]hTl~,(, ~eu ~ enter~ are ~)ropo~ed in the secretar~.~ 1999 budget, One center WII1 stud}, the needs of at-risk students. A second smaller center VIII ~tudv a range of educ attonal I<\ues ]n~ludl ng the teac hlng and Icarnlng of CIVICS and cltuenshlp, exam] nation< and assessment of educ atron reform lnltlatl~es, research Into student motli arlorr, and studies of costs and productliltv i n education. ] ~~nt. ,lf the ] ~ ERIC c[earlnghc)uw~ fcx u~e< (In ~~ucatlclna[ technc)[og},, It [s ba~ed at S},racuw ~lnl~,er~rt}. and Its budget IS reflected In the technology estlmare ~olumn. PAGE 247 Appendix D List of Acronyms ACOT Apple Classroom of Tomorrow AI artificial intelligence ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange ASSET Arizona School Services Through Educational Technology Project AT&T American Telephone and Telegraph CA D computer-aided design CA I computer-assisted instruction C-AIM computer-assisted instructional management CA M computer-aided manufacture ccc Computer Curriculum Corp. CCSSO Council of Chief State School Officers CD-I compact disc interactive CD-ROMcompact disc-read only memory CD-V compact disc video CD C Computer Data Corp. CM I computer-managed instruction CTBS Canadian Test of Basic Skills DISE Development in Science Education DV I digital video interactive ECIA Education Consolidation and Improvement Act EESA Education for Economic Security Act EPIE Educational Products Information Exchange ERIC Educational Resources Information Center ESA A Emergency School Aid Act ESC Education Service Center ESC Education Systems Corp. ESOL English for Speakers of Other Languages fax facsimile transmission HOT S Higher Order Thinking Skills Program ICAI intelligent computer-assisted instruction ILS integrated learning system IMPAC Instructional Microcomputer Project for Arkansas Classrooms ISDN Integrated Services Digital Network ITV instructional television JTPA Job Training Partnership Act K LAN LD LRDC MBLs MEC C MET N NCT I NIE OC A OEC C OERI OS R PHEA A PROM PT A PT O R& D RA M RCR C RISE RO M SAGE SBIR SDE SEE SEED SES TE C TE C TERC TIC VC R WA N kilobyte local area network learning disabled Learning Research and Development Center microcomputer-based laboratories Minnesota Educational Computing Corp. Maryland Education Technology Network National Computer Training Institute National Institute of Education Office of Computing Activities Oregon Educational Computer Consortium Office of Educational Research and Improvement Operation School Renewal Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency programmable read only memory Parent-Teacher Association Parent-Teacher Organization research and development random access memory Regional Computer Resource Centers Research in Science Education read only memory Semi-Automatic Ground Environment for Air Defense System Small Business Innovation Research State Department of Education Science and Engineering Education Software Evaluation Exchange Dissemination Project socioeconomic status Technology Education Center Teacher Education and Computer Center Technical Education Research Centers Technology in the Curriculum Projects videocassette recorder wide area network 240 PAGE 248 Appendix E Contractor Reports Copies of contractor reports done for this project are available through the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4650. 1. An Analysis of the Scope and Quality of the Current Supply of Educational Software, and of the Available Sources of Information on Educational Software, Ellen R. Bialo and Jay P. Sivin, Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc. (NTIS order number PB 88-194 667/AS) 2. Support for Educational Technology R&D: The Federal Role, Charles Blaschke, Beverly Hunter, and Andrew Zucker, Educational Turnkey Systems, Inc. (NTIS order number PB 88-194 626/AS) 3. Influences on Development and Innovation in Educational Technology, Dean Brown, Ted M. Kahn, and Marvin M. Zauderer, Picodyne Corp. (NTIS order number PB 88-194 642/AS) 4. Computers and Learning: Do They Work? A Review of Research, Joanne Capper, Center for Research Into Practice (NTIS order number PB 88-194 683/AS) 5. Computer Networks in Elementary and Secondary Education, Earl Dowdy, University of Illinois, Urbana (NTIS order number PB 88-194 675/AS) 6. A Review of the Status of Technology Training for 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Teachers, Allen D. Glenn and Carol A. Carrier (NTIS order number PB 88-194 766) Mechanisms for Facilitating a Vital and Dynamic Education System: Fundamental Roles for Education Science and Technology, Roy D. Pea and Elliot Soloway, Cognitive Systems, Inc. (NTIS order number PB 88-194 634/AS) Educational Technology: Information Networks, Markets and Innovation, W. Curtiss Priest, Center for Information Technology and Society (NTIS order number PB 88-292 836/AS) Assessing Cost-Effectiveness of Computer-Based Technology in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, David Stern and Guy Cox, Universit y o f California, Berkeley (NTIS order number PB 88-194 659/AS) Alternative Approaches to Developing a Cadre of Teacher Technologists, J.H. Strange, S.A. Tucker, G.E. Uhlig, and P. Feldman, Acadia Educational Enterprises, Inc. (NTIS order number PB 88-194 774/AS) How Technology Affects Teaching, Martha Stone Wiske and Philip Zodhiates, Harvard University, Educational Technology Center (NTIS order number PB 88-202 622/AS) 241 PAGE 249 Appendix F Workshop Participants and Reviewers and Contributors Cost-Effectiveness of Educational Technology Workshop, Dec. 9, 1986 Henry Becker The Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD Edward Cavin Center for Naval Analyses Alexandria, VA Richard Clark University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA Sheila Cory Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Chapel Hill, NC James Kulik University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI David Cohen, Workshop Chairman Michigan State University East Lansing, MI Henry Levin Stanford University Stanford, CA Cecil McDermott Instructional Microcomputer Project in Arkansas Classrooms Arkansas Department of Education Little Rock, AR Stanley Pogrow University of Arizona Tucson, AZ W. Curtiss Priest Center for information Technology and Society Lexington, MA David Stern University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA Herbert Walberg University of Illinois Chicago, IL The Educational Software Market Workshop, Aug. 6, 1987 Marc Tucker, Workshop Chairman Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy Washington, DC Ellen Bialo Kathleen Hurley W. Curtiss Priest interactive Educational Systems Mindscape, Inc. Center for Information Technology Design, Inc. Northbrook, IL and Society New York, NY Dwight Johnson Lexington, MA William Gattis The Home School Paul Reese Radio Shack Education Division San Diego, C A Ralph Bunche Elementary School Tandy Corp. Walter Koetke New York, NY Wendy Harris Scholastic, Inc. Allan L. Rogers Department of Education New York, NY San Diego County Office of State of California Howard Merriman Education Sacramento, CA Columbus Public Schools San Diego, CA Brian Hawkins Columbus, OH Judy Salpeter Brown University Charles Philipp Classroom Computer Learning Providence, RI Montgomery County Public Schools San Rafael, CA Rockville, MD 242 PAGE 250 243 Jay Sivin Julie Vargas Anne Wujcik Interactive Educational System West Virginia University TALMIS, Inc. Design, Inc. Morgantown, WV New York, NY New York, NY Judy Wilson Tom Snyder Microcomputer Information Tom Snyder Productions Coordination Center Cambridge, MA Kansas City, KS Economics of Educational Software Workshop, Sept. 14, 1987 Richard Murnane, Workshop Chairman Harvard University, Cambridge, MA John Kasdan Ian Novos W. Curtiss Priest Columbia University Universit y of Southern California Center for Information Technology New York, NY Los Angeles, CA and Societ y Lexington, MA The Teacher and Technology Workshop, Sept. 29, 1987 Karen Sheingold, Workshop Chair Bank Street College of Education, New York, NY Barbara Bayha Stevens Creek Elementary School Cupertino, CA Jennifer Better Hewlett Packard Palo Alto, CA Gary Bitter Arizona State University Tempe, AZ Rosemary Bradbury Columbus School Bridgeport, CT Bill Davey Closing the Gap Henderson, MN Allen Glenn University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN Herbert Kehrl Patrick Henry Middle School Woodhaven, MI Robert Pearlman Boston Latin High School Cambridge, MA Don Rawitsch Minnesota Educational Computer Corp. St. Paul, MN Nancy Roberts Lesley College Cambridge, MA Kjell-Jon Rye Bellevue High School Bellevue, W-A Stanley Silverman New York Institute Central Islip, NY John H. Strange Acadia Educational Boston, MA of Technology Enterprises Patricia Sturdivant Houston Independent School District Houston, TX Sue Talley Apple Computer, Inc. Cupertino, CA Susan Tucker George Mason University Alexandria, VA Martha Stone Wiske Harvard University Cambridge, MA Philip Zodhiates Education Development Center Newton, MA PAGE 251 244 Research and Development in Educational Technology Workshop, Oct. 20, 1987 Thomas Anderson Open Court Publishing Co. Peru, IL Dean Brown Picodyne Corp. Portola Valley, CA John Seely Brown Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Palo Alto, CA Allan Collins Bolt, Beranek & Newman Cambridge, MA Dexter Fletcher Institute for Defense Analyses Alexandria, VA Alan Lesgold, Workshop Chair University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA Henry Hertzfeld Bethesda, MD Ted Kahn Picodyne Corp. Portola Valley, CA Arthur S. Melmed New York University New York, NY George Miller Princeton University Princeton, NJ Raymond Nickerson Bolt, Beranek & Newman Cambridge, MA Roy D. Pea New York University New York, NY Karen Sheingold Bank Street College of Education New York, NY Elliot Soloway Yale University New Haven, CT Frederick Weingarten Office of Technology Assessment Washington, DC Other Reviewers and Contributors Marvin Aaron Community School District 27 New York City Gordon Ambach Council of Chief State School Officers Gregg Benson New York State Center for Learning Technologies Karen Billings Logo Computer Systems, Inc. Holly Brady Classroom Computer Learning Jeffrey Branzburg New York City Public Schools Ludwig Braun New York University Jim Brewington Education Systems Corp. Philip J. Brody St. Louis Public Schools Cornelia Brunner Bank Street College of Education Red Burns New York University Henry Cauthen South Carolina Educational Television Sylvia Charp T-H-E Journal Susan Chipman Office of Naval Research David Cordray U.S. General Accounting Office Christopher Dede University of Houston, Clear Lake Stephen Diaz California State University San Bernardino Pierre Duguet Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development David Dwyer Apple Computer, Inc. Susan Elting Council for Exceptional Children Richard Erdmann Wasatch Education Systems Beatrice Farr Army Research Institute LeRoy Finkel San Mateo County Office of Education Leslie Flanders Kentucky Educational Television Raymond Fox Society for Applied Learning Technology Walter Freas New Jersey Public Broadcasting Authority Samuel Gibbon Bank Street College of Education Shirley Gillete WNET/THIRTEEN New York City Kay Gilliland EQUALS in Computer Technology University of California, Berkeley PAGE 252 245 Albert Goldberg Wayne County Intermediate School District Bobby Goodson Sunnyvale, California Henry Halff Halff and Associates Helen Hartle New York State Teacher Resource and Computer Training Centers Jan Hawkins Bank Street College of Education Jeanne Hayes Quality Education Data, Inc. John Hood Market Data Retrieval, Inc. Kristina Hooper Apple Computer, Inc. Glenn Hoptman Smithsonian Institution Charles Houghey National Governors Association David Imig American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education Holly Jobe Montgomery County Pennsylvania Intermediate Unit Martha Jones Juan Linn Elementary School, Victoria, Texas Brian Kahin Cambridge, Massachusetts Irwin Kaufman New York City Public Schools Alan Kay Apple Computer, Inc. Sally Kilgore U.S. Department of Education Will Kitchen Tele-Systems Associates, Inc. Anne Knight International Council on Computers in Education Kenneth Komoski EPIE Institute Marge Kosel Sunburst Communications Ann Lathrop San Mateo Count y Education Robert W. Lawler Purdue University Charlotte LeGates Office of Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association Marsha Levine American Federation of Teachers Marcia Linn University of California, Berkeley Harvey Long IBM Corp. Beth Lewd Lexington Massachusetts Public Schools Chalmers Marquis National Association Television Stations Karen Mathiasen Office of Technology Ann McCormick VPL James Mecklenburger of Public Assessment National School Boards Association Andrew Molnar National Science Foundation Mort Mondale National Education Association David Moursund International Council on Computers in Education Dennis Newman Bank Street College of Education Judith Orasanu Army Research Institute Seymour Papert Massachusetts Institute of Technolog y Janice Patterson Universit y of Wisconsin, Madison Richard Pollack Minnesota Educational Computin g Corp. Doris Ray Maine Computer Education Consortium Paul Resta Albuquerque Public Schools Donna Rhodes NEA Foundation for the Improvement of Education Jack Roberts Scholastic, Inc. Sherman Rosenfeld Weizmann Institute of Science George Rush Council of the Chief State School Officers Beverly Sangston Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland Dennis Sayers University of Hartford Jeff Schneider National Education Association Mark Schubin New York City Arthur Sheekey U.S. Department of Education Bruce Sherwood Carnegie-Mellon Universit y Glenn Snelbecker Temple Universit y Software Publishers Association Kendall Starkweather International Technology Education Association Brian Stecher Educational Testin g Service James Stedman Congressional Research Service PAGE 253 246 Michael Sullivan UNISYS Corp. Robert Taylor Teachers College Columbia University Robert Tinker Technical Education Resource Centers George Tressel Thomas Valenti WVIZ-TV Cleveland, Ohio Wendy Weingarten Office of Technology Mary Alice White Teachers College Columbia University Sharon Williamson Frank Withrow U.S. Department of Education Fred Wood Office of Technology Assessment Assessment Tse-Sung Wu Office of Technology Assessment Karl L. Zinn University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning National Science Foundation Quality Education Data, Inc. and Teaching Harriet Tyson-Bernstein Kathleen Wilson Washington, DC Bank Street College of Education NOTE: Special thanks go to all the State Technology Coordinators for taking the time to complete the OTA Survey of State Technology Activities.