This is the html version of the file http://www.wasd.org:8080/docushare/dsweb/Get/Version-168/classroom.pdf. G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web. To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:wGcL0U2PQPMJ:www.wasd.org:8080/docushare/dsweb/Get/Version-168/classroom.pdf+grammar+%26+web-based+%26+achievement+%26+impact&hl=en Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. These search terms have been highlighted:  grammar  web  based  achievement  impact

---

Page 1

Technology and the Classroom:

Current Practices in the Pennsylvania School System

James G. Williams

University of Pittsburgh

Kenneth M. Sochats

University of Pittsburgh

Sandy Kyrish

Temple University

Edward Kiely

University of Pittsburgh

---

Page 2

Introduction

Assumptions

Methodology

Design Factors

Chapter 1: The Educational Environment

Introduction

Classroom Environment

What Should a Classroom Be?

Technology Available

Software Utilized

Internet Audio and Video Applications

Location of Information Technology in Schools

Classroom Student Composition

Technology at Home for Students, Teachers, and Principals

Summary

Chapter 2: Availability and Access

Introduction

Availability and Access

Software

Link-To-Learn Funding

Student Use of Technology

Summary

Chapter 3: Attitudes, Motivations, Benefits, and Barriers

Introduction

Response to Technology

Motivation to Use Technology by Teachers

Summary

Chapter 4: Support for the Use of Technology in the Classroom and the Curriculum

Introduction

Integration Support

Administrative Support

Summary

Chapter 5: Teacher Training and Experience in Technology

Introduction

Teacher Technology Training

Teacher Experience in Using Technology

Summary

Chapter 6: Integration of Technology in Instruction, Administration and Home Use

Introduction

Administration

---

Page 3

Instruction

Conclusions

Bibliography

Appendices

A: Teacher Survey Instrument

B: Principal Survey Instrument

C: Observer Instrument

D: Observers’ Guidebook

---

Page 4

Introduction

Over the last three years Pennsylvania has invested over $137 million in building a

technological infrastructure in the Pennsylvania public school system through the Link-

To-Learn initiative. Technological infrastructure is defined as including hardware,

software, telecommunications, and professional preparedness. In 1998, 36 million was

allocated to school districts and vocational area technical schools in the following way:

$12.5 million for Local area Networks (LANs),

$8.2 million for Wide Area networks (WANs),

$4.2 million for Internet access,

$3.2 million for technology training,

$2.5 million for educational content (CD-ROMs, software, distance-learning),

$2.0 million for distance learning equipment, and

$2.0 million for Y2K preparedness

Such a significant investment in technology and training necessitates a classroom level

study to evaluate the perceived impact of the Link-To-Learn initiative. Our investigation

determines whether and how information technology is being used in our schools.

Our study randomly selected 250 classrooms from the approximately 112,000

Pennsylvania classrooms with 50 each from grades 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11 with separate

questionnaires for the building principal, the classroom teacher, and the observer (see

Appendices A, B, C). We also prepared a guidebook for the observers, which contained

definitions and advice for asking survey questions (see Appendix D). The observer

visited a class being taught as part of the regular curriculum and recorded information

about the physical characteristics of the classroom, the technology being used, how the

technology was used, what the technology aimed to accomplish, how involved and

accomplished the students and teachers were in using the technology and how the teacher

and principal perceived information technology in terms of administrative, instructional

and personal activities. A check was made to ensure that the class being observed was

part of the regular curriculum and specially prepared for the observation. Observers

visited the school from 1 to 3 times as deemed necessary by the principal, the teacher and

the observer. In most cases, several telephone calls were necessary to schedule and

prepare for the classroom visit, which included interviews with the principal and teacher

and a walking tour of the school building. Observers were asked to take pictures of the

school and the classroom, when permitted. In cases where this was not possible,

diagrams were drawn and comments were made about the school environment. All

participating schools were guaranteed anonymity and given $300.00 for their

participation. There was no requirement that computer-based, web-based, or Link-To-

---

Page 5

Learn purchased technology was actually being used in the school or class being

observed.

The study was not intended to measure the impact of technology on academic

achievement nor was it an audit of the use of Link-To-Learn funds. It was a discovery

mode study designed to detect what was happening in the classroom related to

information technology and to discern the perceptions of principals, teachers, and

students regarding information technology after three years of the Link-to-Learn

investment. The goal of the Link-To-Learn initiative was to increase the quality and

quantity of education in Pennsylvania through the use of information technology. Three

implicit assumptions lie behind the Link-To-Learn initiative. First, students graduating

from high school need basic information technology concepts and skills, regardless of

whether they are continuing their education or entering the job market. Secondly,

information technology bridges the digital divide by providing poor and rural schools

access to the same educational opportunities as those of more affluent and suburban

schools. Thirdly, information technology can help improve academic outcomes and

support new methods of teaching and learning as well as reduce the administrative

activities associated with classroom management, and thus provide more time for

teaching and learning.

The model for our study, based on a study conducted by Wyld (1996), includes the six

components illustrated in Figure 1:

• The environment includes the physical aspects of the classroom, the building, and

the surrounding area.

• Availability and access examines how accessible technology is in the classroom,

in the school, and at home.

• Attitudes, motivations, benefits and barriers encompass the personal acceptance

of technology for instructional, administrative or recreational activities on the part

of the principal, teachers, students, and parents.

• Support encompasses technical as well as administrative and parental support for

the use of technology in the classroom.

Environment

Availability

and Access

Attitudes,

Motivations,

Benefits & Barriers

Support

Integration

Training &

Experience

Study Model

---

Page 6

• Integration investigates the degree to which technology has been applied across

various instructional, administrative, and recreational activities of the school.

• Training and experience tests the degree to which teachers, administrators, and

students are involved with technology, how recent such involvement is and the

degree to which such involvement is self-taught.

According to Wyld’s investigation (1996), schools which successfully integrate the

WWW into classroom learning meet the following criteria:

• Teachers are enthusiastic in their desire to use technology in their classes. They

already have some background in computer technology and are novices mostly

only with regard to the Internet and the WWW.

• Schools have allocated adequate resources to enable them to purchase the

equipment needed.

• Through training courses (for a limited number of teachers) and time spent in

working on the WWW, teachers have developed skills for using web technology

in teaching.

• Teachers are aware of the importance of integrating this technology into the

curriculum and use it as a tool for learning, rather than view it as a distinct entity

in its own right.

• Teachers have established contacts with other users, who help them and with

whom they share ideas and discoveries.

• Experienced teachers help train other teachers to use web technology in their

classrooms.

• Students use the web technology appropriately.

These criteria, which were conceived with WWW technology in mind, are also

appropriate for other technologies used in education. Although we did not have the

resources or the time to study each of these six areas in detail, we addressed each area

through carefully designed questions and observations. In addition, observers were

encouraged to note anything they saw or heard relating to these six components,

regardless of whether it was officially part of the survey or not. Observers were also

asked to summarize in writing their impressions of what they saw and heard during their

school visit. Our report encompasses all of this data.

In the 1970s and 1980s technical innovation brought relatively powerful technological

tools to the classroom. Early studies usually sought to show how these technologies

impacted student learning in the specific subject area where the computer was used for

instruction. Several “use of technology in schools” studies attempt to measure the impact

of technology on academic outcomes, changes in teaching methods, and related areas of

attendance, dropout rates, and behavioral problems. Apple’s Classroom of Tomorrow

(Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer, 1966) and the Studies Across the US (Means and

Olson, 1995) conclude that technology has great potential for supporting new ways of

teaching; these studies provide information about classroom activities as technology

initiatives are implemented in the schools. The results of Becker’s 1999 survey of

teaching practices and technology show that fewer than 1/3 of teachers had students

---

Page 7

conduct research using the Web. ETS has established that students attain better

achievement scores in mathematics, when teachers are knowledgeable about computers

and have their students use computers to apply higher-level concepts. As technology

advanced in the 1990s to include multi-media, graphics-rich, animated, networked

environments with tools useful in nearly every subject area, some core issues such as

teacher isolation, integration of technology, access to rich and substantial resources,

parent involvement in schooling, and learning outside the classroom have also been

studied (e.g., Glennan, 1998; Hawkins, 1996; and Koschmann, 1996).

These studies fail in two regards: they do not view the use of technology as an integrated

part of all aspects of a school, including its social context, and they do not focus on how

technologies aid critical or creative problem-solving. Many studies view education as a

‘black box” (Tally 1998) in which everything but the effect of the technology has to be

controlled or eliminated. The type of study, which focuses on the outcomes on standard

achievement tests, reduces the world to a student, a computer and associated software and

information content, and a test score. It ignores the effects of school, family, and

community environment on the learning process. The result has been that a given study

can state that a specific technology used in a specific way, in a specific setting, could or

could not improve student scores in a specific subject matter such as mathematics, or

spelling. These studies could not tell an educator whether technology made any

difference in producing students who can engage in critical, higher-order, problem-

solving inquiry. Our study evaluates the use of technology in a completely different

manner. We are concerned with how technology impacts critical thinking skills. We

focus on the combined effects of design, learning, and the school culture and practices

that shape the impact of technology in education. Our research here is based on the

following assumptions, methodology, and design characteristics:

Assumptions:

• Technologies rarely bring about substantial changes in teaching and learning by and

of themselves.

• The impact of technology on specific aspects of teaching and learning can only be

understood in the context of the social and physical aspects of the school.

Methodology:

• Our study is process-oriented with the goal of understanding how innovation occurs

and not just with the outcomes correlated with innovation.

• It aims to initiate global change rather than doing things better within old

frameworks.

• Teachers and researchers play an active role in interpreting technologies as tools for

reforming schools and in supporting change.

• It draws on multidisciplinary research from such fields as:

• anthropology (studies of school and community culture)

• developmental and cognitive psychology (as related to learning)

• sociology (in its view of the school as an institution and as a source of change)

---

Page 8

Design factors:

• Our study draws on collaboration from teachers, administrators, students, and parents.

• It attempts an integrated, broad view beyond mere classroom observation.

Today, nearly 90 percent of schools have an Internet connection and nearly 60 percent of

classrooms use Internet connections frequently. There are teachers who use spreadsheets,

word processing, database management systems, statistical software, programming

languages, simulation, CAD software, multimedia software, video conferencing, and give

students web-based research assignments. These are the exemplar of technology

utilization. Whether a teacher uses technology effectively or at all is determined by

numerous factors such as access at school and home, level and amount of training,

teaching philosophy, willingness to collaborate with other teachers, availability of content

in the subject area, and acceptance of change.

Research (Goldman, Cole, and Syer, 1999) indicates that while infusing technology into

schools is useful, such exemplary use of technology will not become a reality for a long

time for the following reasons:

1. Large-scale content integration takes time. Initially teacher-generated projects

using technology have little learning content. Only after a few years do teachers

learn to view the learning process in concert with the technology and see the ways

in which content interactions take place.

2. Becoming technologically competent entails large amounts of time, effort and

frustration. The technology initially appears to get in the way of learning until

teacher and student competence improves and student work habits change as they

are required to become accountable for their own learning.

3. Initially flashy presentations take precedence over academic content. Only after a

while do students and teachers concentrate on the content and not on the special

effects and animation characteristics of software packages.

As the adoption of technology proceeds, teachers become concerned about the content

and the quality of their teaching. Knowing what is missing and what is poor quality, they

typically react in one of the following ways:

1. stop or reduce the use of technology, which, in turn, reduces its importance and

impact

2. use only tried-and-true technologies with which they feel comfortable. The result

is less exploration and experimentation.

---

Page 9

3. make a determined effort to learn the technology along with the students so that

teaching with technology meet their standards

The Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project reported that teachers experienced the following

frustrations:

• Insufficient resources make scheduling computer time in labs or classrooms a major

problem.

• Pressure to cover the curriculum causes teachers to terminate good projects, in which

students are learning.

• Insufficient research skills do not allow students to find the information they need for

their projects.

• When students and teachers lack skills and concepts for using technology, they use it

inefficiently.

Regardless of the overall benefits of technology in education, many parents, school

boards, legislators, administrators, and teachers want technology to have a significant

impact on academic outcomes. In plain and simple terms, does it help improve Johnny or

Jane’s reading, writing, and arithmetic. Numerous studies show that technology has this

impact. For example, West Virginia’s “Basic Skills/Computer Education” (BS/CE)

program started in 1989-1990 studies achievement among 950 fifth-graders in 18

elementary schools. The BS/CE program accounted for 11 percent of the variance in gain

scores in the Stanford-9 Achievement Test. Since the James Coleman study of 1965

showed that schools only account for 30 percent of the variation in test scores (the family,

home and background factors account for 70 percent of the variation), the West Virginia

study concluded that the BS/CE program accounted for 11 percent of the 30 percent

variation in test scores (see Mann, p. 12). Children with no computers at home exhibited

the largest gain scores in most achievement areas. The West Virginia study reported that

children who had access to computers in the classroom did significantly better than those

who used computers in laboratory settings. Teachers who had computers in classrooms

reported higher skill-levels in delivering instruction, planning lessons, managing

paperwork, and word processing. These same teachers reported using computers more

often for reading, math, and writing instruction. 61 percent of teachers who had

computers in the classroom felt confident in their use while only 43 percent of teachers

who used labs felt confident in their use. The West Virginia study used a model called

“Access/Attitude/Training” for their evaluation. In addition to gathering data about

students they also collected data from 290 teachers in the study schools.

Idaho’s Technology Initiative – Accountability Report (State Division of Vocational

Education, 1999), a study similar to that of West Virginia, reaches the following

conclusions:

• There is a positive relationship between academic performance in core studies,

language, math, and reading and the integration of technology in Idaho’s K-12

schools based on performance on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.

---

Page 10

• Both 8

th

and 11

th

grade students increased their perceived technology literacy as a

result of exposure to technology.

• The combined consistent high loading factors for 8

th

and 11

th

grade students were:

• ability to select the appropriate software tool for completing a project

• amount of computer use at school

• amount of computer use at home

• exposure to the Internet and email use

Our classroom study completed for the state of Pennsylvania does not replicate the

studies discussed above and many other studies like them but attempts to answer

questions such as:

• Are teachers and principals involved and committed to the use of technology in

instruction, administration, and other school and community activities?

• Is technology being integrated across multiple levels of functions and activities in

the school?

• What are the motivations for using technology in the classroom?

• What are the barriers to using technology in the classroom?

• Have the physical aspects of the classrooms been altered to accommodate the new

technologies?

• How is technology being used in the classroom?

• How much time is technology being used in a typical lesson?

• What aspects of technology and its use are emphasized?

• Do students have access to computers and the internet at home, in the classroom

as well as in libraries and laboratories?

• Are teachers being trained to effectively utilize technology in the classroom?

• Is there technical support available to make the technology useful and reliable?

• How do students and teachers react to the technology during classroom use?

• What is the range of attitudes towards the use of technology in instruction?

Even though our study is not outcomes-based, we were confident that we would find the

same results that others have found in terms of the relationship between technology and

the outcomes on standard achievement tests under the same study conditions. Our study,

however, is more interested in the learning environments, access to technology, use of

technology, attitudes towards technology, support of technology, training and experience,

and how the integration of technology is progressing.

Policymakers, evaluators, and practitioners have varying responses to the fundamental

questions about the effectiveness of technology in education. Policymakers often take a

cost-benefit model approach with increases in norm-referenced and criterion-referenced

achievement test scores as the only measure of success. An alternative view believes in

the importance of preparing students for jobs and continuing education, of increasing

student interest in learning and access to information, and making learning an active

experience. These goals are all rated higher than academic test score outcomes in the

1998 Milken Exchange Public Opinion Survey. In accord with these goals, we aim to

---

Page 11

measure the right things and not be driven by politics. We are convinced that technology

in education works for some kids, in some topics, and under certain conditions in exactly

the same manner as every other pedagogy and system, including the teacher. We envision

computer technology becoming ubiquitous and integrated in education, allowing learning

to take place in school, at home and in the community. Students will use multimedia,

graphics, animation, Internet access, hand-held and remote devices in all subject areas in

the same way as they now use pencils, paper, books, or lab equipment. Learning will

mean not just acquiring facts but also developing critical thinking and problem-solving

skills. The world is the classroom and information technologies the great enablers of all

facets of learning. Our goal is to make sure that technology is available, usable,

affordable, reliable, sharable, and to ensure that it is applied at the right time, for the right

purpose, for the right audience, and by trained and experienced people.

References

Becker, Henry Jay. (1999). Internet Use by Teachers: Conditions of Professional Use

and Teacher-directed Student Use. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

“The Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project: Project-Based Learning with Multimedia.”

http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/topics_main.htm

Coleman, James S. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: US

Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 77.

Glennan, Thomas Keith. (1998). New American Schools After 6 Years. Santa Monica,

CA: RAND.

Goldman, Shelley, Cole, Karen, and Syer Christina. (1999) “The Technology/Content

Dilemma.” http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TechConf/1999/whitepapers/paper4.html

Hawkins, Otha. (1996). Leadership, Quality and Education: Managing Change in the

Workplace. Final Project: North Carolina State University, 1996.

“The Idaho Technology Initiative: An Accountability Report to the Idaho Legislature.”

(1999). http://www.pte.state.id.us/document/public.htm

Koschmann, Timothy D. (1996). CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm.

Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Link-to-Learn Initiative. http://www.l2l.org/index.html or

http://www.sis.pitt.edu/ltolearn/

Mann, Dale, et al. (March, 1999). “West Virginia Story: Achievement gains from a

statewide comprehensive instructional technology program.”

http://access.k12.wv.us/bsce/march23.htm

---

Page 12

Means, Barbara and Olson, Kerry. (1995). Technology and Education Reform. Vol. 1:

Findings and Conclusions: Studies of Education Reform. Menlo Park, CA: SRI

International.

“Milken Exchange Public Opinion Survey 1998.”

http://www.milkenexchange.org/project/poll/ME162_98.pdf

Sandholtz, Judith, Ringstaff, Cathy, and Dwyer, David C. (1997). Teaching with

Technology: Creating Student-Centered Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Tally, B. (Sept., 1996). “History goes digital: Teaching when the Web is in the

classroom.” D-Lib Magazine (special issue on digital libraries and education).

http://www.dlib.org/maga-zine.html

West Virginia Department of Education: Independent Study of BS/CE Program. (March,

1999). http://access.k12.wv.us/bsce/march23.htm

Wyld, Seryn. (1996). “Success Models for Integration of the WWW in Primary

Education,” Faculty of Education, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.

http://www.elmo.scu.edu.au/sponsored/ausweb/ausweb96/educn/wyld

Wyld, Seryn and Eklund, John. (1997). “A case study of communication technology

within the elementary school.” Australian Journal of Educational Technology 13.2, 144-

164. http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet13/su97pl44.html

---

Page 13

Chapter 1. The Educational Environment

Introduction

The school environment helps shape the learning experience in much the same way that

the home and community environment shapes educational behaviors. Observers were

asked to evaluate a series of factors related to the physical environment inside the school

and the classroom as well as the area surrounding the school. They took photographs of

the school, surrounding community as well as the classroom and laboratories they visited,

when the principal, teachers, and students had no objections. They also collected

inventory type of data related to the educational environment being observed, such as the

number of computers and types of software. A diagram of the classroom being observed

was required even if a photograph was not permitted. The diagrams and photographs

helped establish the importance of technology for the school and classroom indirectly.

For if a resource is important and valued, it will be center-stage, easily accessible, in

good repair, integrated into the environment and utilized extensively. Chart 1.1 shows

that on a 7 point scale the average classrooms and schools are in above average condition

in terms of physical environment.

School Environment

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Outside

In

s

i

d

e

Li

gh

ti

ng

Te

m

p.

Wi

rin

g

Wa

ll

s

/

F

lo

o

r

s

Bo

a

rd

s

Se

a

ts

Ta

b

le

s

Sc

r

ee

ns

Facilities

Condition Scor

e

1st Grade

3rd Grade

5th Grade

8th Grade

11th Grade

---

Page 14

Chart 1.1 Physical Condition

Interestingly, the classrooms for grades 3, 5 and 11 are generally in better shape than

those for grades 1 and 8. The worst physical factor found in all schools is the wiring

required for electrical and communication requirements, making integration of

technology very difficult. Chart 1 also demonstrates that on the whole the higher the

grade level, the better the facilities, a trend observable across all aspects of technology in

schools.

Classroom Environment

Where computers are located is a function of the perceived importance of computers in

the educational process as well as of innovative or traditional paradigms of teaching. The

location may also be due to the difficulty of introducing technology into structures not

built to accommodate it. In such cases the infrastructure dictates the arrangement of

equipment, tables, and desks. The diagrams of the typical classrooms observed (see

diagram 1) illustrate the two most common classroom layouts observed across 250

different classrooms. Technology is either relegated to the back of the room, similar to

the way a set of encyclopedias are kept in the reserve section of a library and used for

special purposes by special permission, or to the front of the room with other important

educational support tools, such as writing boards, teacher’s desk, video equipment, and

overhead projectors. Important for our observations is the fact that almost no classrooms

had a projection system for a computer and few had a computer on the teacher’s desk or

on a cart beside it, making demonstrations of computer and Internet use very difficult.

Few classrooms had the capability to have computers away from the walls and scattered

throughout the student seating area. The classroom diagrams gathered by the field

observers also indicated where individual types of equipment, electrical outlets, and

communication wiring outlets were located in the room. These classrooms had been

renovated with conduit either in wiring poles in the ceiling or in the floor with receptacles

for both electrical and communication terminators. There never seems to be an electrical

or communications outlet where it is needed. An alternative is to have power strips and

wiring running around the room like spaghetti. In several cases the class being observed

was held in a computer lab, laid out in an arrangement like a classroom with workstations

replacing desktops. Not having flexibility in placing technology in the classroom

provides one more obstacle that a teacher must overcome in using technology. The fact

that most teachers did not complain about the location of computers suggests that

technology is not fully integrated into the curriculum. Rather computers are considered

special education support tools that can be in any location, where students can be sent for

special assignments or as a reward for doing well. These observations lead us to conclude

that attention must be paid to the electrical and communication infrastructure so that

technology can assume a central role in the educational process.

---

Page 15

What Should a Classroom Be?

Kathryn Conway in her web page article “Master Classrooms: Classroom Design with

Technology in Mind” conceives of the ideal classroom design for using technology in

this way:

“The design of a teaching/learning environment (Classroom) is based on assumptions

about the teaching and learning process. When you enter a classroom with only the basic

blackboard and an overhead projector, the assumption is that the teacher can teach

whatever concepts, skills and information is necessary with the lecture, chalkboard, some

overheads, and discussion. An electronic classroom begins with the assumption that

different teachers may prefer different teaching styles, that different concepts may require

different media and methods of communication, and that different learners have different

cognitive styles. The fact that technology provides these different communication modes

does not, however, mean the ‘live and real-time’ teacher is not the driving force in the

classroom. Indeed, the teacher determines the course content and strategy, and is the most

spontaneous and valuable instrument in the learner assessment process. Technology in

the classroom should not hinder, but help, teachers who "rely heavily on improvisation,

on freedom to follow up ideas that excite interest, and on unexpected happenings that

illustrate the problems we discuss . . . .Learning technologies should be designed to

increase and not reduce the amount of personal contact between faculty and students on

intellectual issues."

Milton Glick argues along similar lines: "Everything we are used to -- books, lectures,

television -- is one-way, focused on what the teacher, writer or actor does. It is hard for us

to remember that it is not what the teacher does but what he or she gets students to do that

results in learning" (Glick, 1990). For this reason, "interactive computing . . . a new

teaching medium, combining visual values of television and instructional ideas" (Hale,

1989) needs to take its place in the classroom. An interactive teaching process connotes

process. But most of our teaching communication and technology up to now relies more

on information products than on information process. It is information technology's

ability to bring process into the classroom that is most promising. Garrett, Dominguez

and Noblitt illustrate the importance of process in teaching foreign languages: "Our

exploration of the role of technology in teaching such courses suggested that one of the

most significant innovations is the presentation to the learner of the authentic data of the

discipline . . . .The computer and interactive technologies can bring the primary and

supporting data of the discipline within the grasp of the researcher and the learner alike . .

. .They can also make the primary data directly available to students, give them the

opportunity to browse and explore, and structure an environment within which they can

organize and interpret the data for themselves. Knowledge so acquired is not a set of

items or facts but is a process, a way of thinking or making connections, a dynamic

flexible structure of relationships" (Garrett, Dominguez and Noblitt, 1989). Clearly, these

capabilities so central to the teaching and learning process belong in the classroom, and

can be easily manipulated by the teacher.

---

Page 16

The classroom, then, should be a very flexible environment, with the means to present

information in a variety of ways, with access to varied information sources, and with

maximum flexibility for interaction between and among teacher, student and information.

In short, classrooms should be designed to provide interactive teaching and learning

environments. To achieve maximum flexibility, these facilities must combine computing,

display and networking elements. Because of the range of technologies included, they can

also provide a technological bridge between traditional analog/one-way technologies and

evolving digital/interactive technologies for classroom instruction.

---

Page 17

Diagram 1.1 Typical Classroom Layouts

Typical Classrooms

Door

Student Desks

Small Group Area

Computers

Student Desks

Door

c

o

m

p

u

Group Area

t

e

r

s

Language Arts

Teacher’s Desk Chalkboard

Teacher's Desk

---

Page 18

The observers asked questions about whether the classroom being observed had been

constructed to accommodate computer and network technology, whether it had been

retrofitted to accommodate technology or whether no changes had been made to

accommodate technology. Chart1.2 illustrates the responses based on grade level.

Chart 1. 2. Room Infrastructure Design

Clearly, a majority of rooms have been retrofitted to accommodate the technology with

3

rd

and 8

th

grades being the farthest behind in terms of retrofitting and no changes made

for technology. The 8

th

grades, however, are ahead in terms of being built to

accommodate technology. Overall, approximately 80 percent of the 5th grade classrooms

visited can accommodate information and networking technology. Contrary to the

evidence here, we predicted on the basis of all other indicators that the 11

th

grade would

have been the best in this category, not the 5

th

grade. The 11

th

grade is practically the

same as the fifth grade based on the least number of rooms with no changes for

technology.

Technology Availability

One indicator of whether technology has the potential for making an impact is its

availability in the school and in the classroom. It is quite evident from Chart 1.3 that

there has been a tendency to equip the higher grades first and then work towards

equipping the lower grades. This makes sense in terms of ensuring high school graduates

success in the highly computerized job market and in higher education, where they will

Environment - Room Infrastructure

Design

0

20

40

60

80

!st

Grade

3rd

Grade

5th

Grade

8th

Grade

11th

Grade

Grades

Percent

For Tech

Retrofitted

No Changes

---

Page 19

also need to utilize computer and information technology. Of course, ignoring the lower

grades can jeopardize their success over time. Chart 1.3 shows a significant difference

between the upper grades and the lower grades in terms of everything except modems.

The reason modem technology is lower in the upper grades is because they have direct

connections to the Internet and do not require dial-up access. It should be noted that a

number of the higher grades were observed in a special electronic classroom with 1

computer for every 2 or 3 students thereby pushing the average number of computers per

room higher than it actually is in the average 11

th

grade classroom.

Chart 1.3. Equipment Inventory

Software Utilized

As can be seen in Chart 1.4, software for word processing (WP), graphics and browsers

for the World Wide Web (WWW) are the most popular software tools being utilized by

all grade levels. Special application software (not curriculum specific) and Spreadsheets

(SS) follow these.

Equipment Available

0

5

10

15

20

!st Grade 3rd Grade 5th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade

Grades

Volume

Computers in Room

Printers

Modems in Room

---

Page 20

Chart 1. 4. Software Utilized in the Classroom

It is somewhat surprising that email and Electronic Bulletin Boards (EBB) are not

utilized more in the instructional process. Chart 1.5 shows the percent of classrooms

observed using curriculum special software. Although there is a spike at the 3

rd

grade

level, curriculum specific software use declines with grade level. This may be because of

availability or simply using the technology for more exploratory types of learning

situations. This would seem to be the case based on the observers’ comments and the

data regarding how the technology is used at the various grade levels, i.e. lower grades

use technology more for drill and practice while the higher grades use it for higher level

problem-solving and project-oriented problems.

Chart 1.5 Software Utilized in the Classroom

Internet Audio and Video Applications

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent

1st

Grade

3rd

Grade

5th

Grade

8th

Grade

11th

Grade

Grade

Percent Using Curriculum Specific Software

Software Utilized

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

W

P

SS

D

BM

S

G

r

a

p

h

ics

Br

o

w

se

r

Sp

e

c

ia

l

Ap

p

lic

a

tio

n

Em

ai

l

EBB

Types of Software

% Using

1st Grade

3rd Grade

5th Grade

8th Grade

11th Grade

---

Page 21

Only one classroom was observed using any Internet audio or video as part of the

instructional process. The basic reason given for not using it is the slow bandwidth

(speed), which makes it ineffective in teaching applications. The other reason was that

the teacher was not aware that such applications could be used over the Internet.

Location of Information Technology in Schools

Chart 1.6 shows that nearly 100 percent of classrooms have at least 1 computer located in

the room and over 90 percent of the schools have computer labs for students and teachers

to use. Also, over 90 percent of the schools have computers located in the library.

Nearly all the schools had information technology in the administrative offices. Slightly

over 80 percent of the schools have computers located in other locations such as the

teacher’s lounge, cafeteria, gymnasium, and reading center. The conclusion is that

technology has penetrated the classroom, library, administrative offices, and other

locations in the schools visited.

Chart 1.6 Location of Technology

Classroom Student Composition

Table 1.1 below shows the average students per classroom observed and the average

school enrollment by grade level. The number of students per class was lowest for the

11

th

grade and highest for the 8

th

grade. The average was 21.9 students per class with

49.9 percent male and 50.1 percent female. This matches well with statewide averages.

The fact that the 8

th

grade has a significantly larger average class size than the others may

reflect why the 8

th

grade data presented elsewhere in this report is typically not consistent

with expected values.

Location of Technology

0

20

40

60

80 100 120

Classrooms

Labs

Library

Administrative Offices

Other Locations

Percent with Technology

---

Page 22

Grad

e

School

Enrollment

Students Per Class

1

st

409

20.46

3

rd

454

21.15

5

th

511

23.23

8

th

835

25.24

11th

1032

19.02

Table 1.1 Class Size

Technology at Home for Students, Teachers and Principals

The fact that over 60 percent of the students have computer technology at home (see

Chart 1. 7) is a significant aspect of the environment data. Chart 1.7 also shows that

nearly 50 percent of students also have Internet access at home. 85 percent of the

teachers have computers at home and over 70 percent of the teachers have Internet access

at home as well (Chart 1.7). Nearly 100 percent of principals use computer technology in

the schools and 90 percent use computer technology at home (Chart 1.9). Chart 1.10

shows the uses made of computers at home by teachers. According to Chart 1.11,

administrators make heavy use of information technology. More than 50 percent of the

schools are using technology for some administrative purposes and 90 percent use

specific ones, such as for keeping attendance.

Chart 1.7 Student Technology at Home

Students Home Technology

0

20

40

60

80

Students with Computers at Home

Students wth Internet at Home

---

Page 23

Chart 1.8 Teacher Technology at Home

Chart 1.9 School Principal Use of Technology

Teacher Home Technology

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Computer at Home

Internet at Home

Technology

Principal's Use of Technology

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Use

Technology at

School

Use

Technology at

Home

Use E-Mail at

School

Use Email at

Home

Percent Using

---

Page 24

Chart 1.10 Teacher Use of Technology at Home

Chart 1.11 Administrative Uses of Technology

Ad m in is tra tiv e U s e o f T e c h n o lo g y

0

2 0

4 0

60

8 0

1 0 0

A tte ndanc e

E n ro llm en t

In ventory

P a y roll

P u rc ha sin g

Re c e iva ble s

P a y a ble s

G e ne ral Ledger

Reportin g

P ercen t U s in g

Teacher Home Computer Use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Uses

---

Page 25

Summary

Based on the data reported by the teachers and principals and the data acquired by the

observers, it is clear that the school and classroom environment has adopted technology

for instructional, administrative, and professional purposes. School buildings, classrooms,

and school properties appear to be maintained in very good condition. The non-school

areas surrounding the schools also appear to be kept in good order, even when the

community as a whole may not be maintained at the same level as the school and its

immediate surrounding area. Most classrooms have been retrofitted to meet the needs of

technology by adding additional electrical wiring, outlets, communication wiring and

outlets, workstation space, and lighting. Very few rooms have been designed to

accommodate technology and far too many (15 – 20 percent) have had no changes made.

Room accommodation for technology appears as an item many teachers would desire if

they had additional resources. The number of computers and printers available for

student use in the room for the class being observed was usually adequate when the class

took place in a lab but typically inadequate when the class was taught in the classroom.

Obviously a “trickle down” approach is deployed with the higher grades obtaining a

larger number of computers and more up-to-date ones and the lower grades getting fewer

and older equipment. Word processing, web browsers, special applications (not

curriculum specific) and spreadsheets account for the majority of the software used in

class projects. Curriculum-specific software use ranges from over 30 percent in grade 11

to over 65 percent in grade 3. Technology has been distributed widely in school

classrooms, libraries, labs, and administrative offices as well as in other useful locations.

It also seems apparent that technology has become a part of home life for most teachers

and principals and a majority of students. 80 percent of students and over 85 percent of

teachers and principals have computers at home. In addition, a significant percent of

students, teachers, and principals have Internet access at home. Principals and teachers

use technology for a wide range of administrative tasks both in school and at home.

Teachers use computers for information gathering, learning, planning lessons, and

communicating via e-mail. While this is encouraging, it does create a disparity, the so-

called “digital divide,” between those who have technology at home and those who do

not. Technology in the school helps level the playing field, when adequate technology is

available and time is allocated to use it in productive ways. Most importantly, however,

there is still not enough technology to satisfy the demand for its use by students and

teachers.

References

Callendar, J. (1990). "Electronic Display Devices for High-Powered Presentations."

Presentation Products Magazine, 3, no. 6, 22-34.

---

Page 26

Conway, Kathryn. (1997). “Master Classrooms: Classroom Design with Technology in

Mind.” http://www.iat.unc.edu/publications/conway/conway1.html

Garrett, N., Dominguez, F. and Noblitt, J. (1989). "Computers in Foreign Language

Teaching and Research: A 'New Humanism.'" In Graves, W. H. (ed.) Computing across

the Curriculum: Academic Perspectives. McKinney, Tex.: EDUCOM/Academic

Computing Publications.

Glick, M. (1990). "Integrating Computing into Higher Education: An Administrator's

View." Educom Review, 25, no. 2, 35-38.

Hale, M. (1989). Faculty Support Centers. Research Triangle Park, N. C.: Institute for

Academic Technology.

Hallett, J. (1992). LCD Projection Panel Selection Guide. Fairfax, Va.: International

Communications Industries Association.

Hazen, M. and Parker, A. (1989). "The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:

Instructional Computing." In Graves, W. H. (ed.) Computing across the Curriculum:

Academic Perspectives. McKinney, Tex.: EDUCOM/Academic Computing Publications.

Jafari, A. (1992). "Issues in Multimedia." Technology and Teacher Education, Annual

1992 issue, Society for Technology and Teacher Education, 289-294.

Link-to-Learn Initiative. http://www.l2l.org/index.html or

http://www.sis.pitt.edu/ltolearn/

Moldstad, J. "Facilities Design Factors for Effective Media Utilization." (Unpublished.)

Ripp, D. (1990). "Face to Face: Video Projector Shoot-Out." AV Video, 12, no. 4, 53-65.

Smith, C. and McGahan, M. (1988). "Byte-ing into Video." AV Video, 10, no. 6, 44-50.

---

Page 27

Chapter 2. Availability and Access

Introduction

Availability and access of computer technology are the most important factors

determining use, according to all reports. Availability simply means that technology is

located where it is needed most and access means that one can get at it during the times,

when it is most useful. Since learning, according to educational research, often takes

place outside the classroom, technology must be available at home, in libraries, and

laboratories, and not just in the room used for instruction, and be accessible, when it is

most needed.

Increasing availability and accessibility is in accord with President Clinton’s educational

technology initiative. In his 1999 State of the Union Address he set the following goals:

“Every classroom in America must be connected to the information superhighway, with

computers and good software, and well trained teachers. We are working with the

telecommunications industry, educators, and parents to connect 20 percent of California’s

classrooms this Spring, and every classroom and library in the entire United States by the

year 2000.” Pennsylvania must keep pace with such national trends by improving

availability and accessibility of computer technology.

Availability and Accessibility

Pennsylvania is well ahead of the majority of states in Internet connections for

classrooms and local area networks with approximately 16.6 students per Internet

connected computer (Education Week on the Web). But Pennsylvania needs to provide

students with greater access to computers resources. Using sample data, it ranks in the

middle of most national surveys, averaging slightly over 5.5 students per computer (The

Pennsylvania Technology Atlas and Education Week) but higher (9.7) for instructional

multimedia computers (Education Week, Milken Survey, and Market Data Retrieval).

Charts 2.1 and 2.2 illustrate the availability of computer technology as reported by

teachers, principals, observers and the annual survey of technology in Pennsylvania.

Availability of computers for teachers is not a serious problem although keeping them

up-to-date is somewhat of a problem and keeping them ready for access is more of a

problem. Approximately 85 percent of teachers in the classroom survey have a computer

at home and over 70 percent have a home Internet connection. Teachers do not have the

most recent models of computers but most have ones capable of multimedia applications.

In addition, teachers have access to computers in the classroom, library, laboratories,

administrative offices, and in many cases to a computer in the teachers’ lounge. The

public libraries in most of the municipalities where teachers reside also have computers

and Internet access. Teachers need help in two related areas: They need a laptop or other

type of computer equipment that they can take home for use in preparing lessons or

---

Page 28

practicing computer based skills. This capability is likely to have a significant impact on

a teacher’s motivation for using technology. According to a study conducted in Nova

Scotia, teachers with computers and Internet access from their homes had a more positive

attitude towards technology and its integration into the curriculum than those without

computers and Internet access at home (Timmons, 1997, and Liu, 1997). Likewise,

teachers need to be able to use the Internet access, to which the school or school district

subscribes, rather than having to pay for Internet access personally from an ISP.

Scheduling access to technology is a major difficulty teachers face in using technology

effectively for learning. Not only is there not enough laboratory time, there are not

enough computers in the classroom and not enough computers in working condition.

Furthermore, the lack of projection systems for the classroom reduces the ability of the

teacher to demonstrate the use of the technology or to use it to demonstrate concepts

using the technology. Chart 1.3 illustrates that the availability of computer equipment is

directly proportional to grade level; the higher the grade, the more available is the

equipment. Teachers reported as a problem not having enough computers and not having

ready access to technology. They explained that having 5 computers in a classroom for

25 students made scheduling their use a time-consuming and management headache.

Many schools have developed laboratories equipped with 20-30 workstations where

students are provided instruction in the use of the hardware and software and are

permitted in many cases to use the technology for classroom projects or even personal

use at specified times during the day. Unfortunately, this cost-effective approach reduces

the availability and accessibility of the technology for the teacher’s purposes. They

reported that scheduling laboratory time where there were enough computers was

complicated and difficult. They also commented that technical support was not very

good and equipment, networks or software too frequently do not work or do not work

correctly.

As far as we are concerned, the rule of thumb that a school needs 1 computer for every 5

students should be revised. We recommend that a classroom should have a computer for

every three students, and preferably for every 2. Since this measure is costly, computers

may need to replace textbooks and other resources. When asked, principals and teachers

have no problem with such an arrangement. If more funds were made available, both

principals and teachers affirm that they choose purchasing computers over other

resources. One might also accomplish this objective by helping students acquire

computers for home use or by increasing the combination of home and classroom

computer availability.

Table 2.1 summarizes the barriers and difficulties expressed by teachers, many of which

relate to the availability and accessibility of technology (see Chart 1.6 about the location

of technologies within the school building and Chart1.8 about teachers’ use of technology

at home).

---

Page 29

Barriers/Difficulties

Percent Number

Not Enough Computers, Printers, Internet Connections, Software,

Supplies, etc.

17.76

81

Limited Time and Scheduling to Use Computers and Labs

17.11

78

Inadequate technical support

14.69

67

Outdated or inadequate capabilities for hardware, software, internet

connections, networking, etc.

12.72

58

Not enough training and experience for teachers

12.72

58

Technology use is not integrated with the curriculum

5.04

23

Funding is inadequate to make technology have an impact

4.39

20

Building/room/lab is not adequate for technology (space, outlets,

wiring, lighting, etc.)

3.95

18

Can not demonstrate to class – no projection system

3.51

16

No Technology at home for some students resulting in varied skill and

knowledge levels

3.51

16

Use of technology doesn’t help with acquiring higher order skills and

concepts

1.54

7

Computers hinder student communication skills and foster unrealistic

expectations

1.32

6

Web information is not validated or verified

1.32

6

Fear of technology

0.44

2

TOTALS

100.02

456

Table 2.1. Barriers and Difficulties in Using Technology in the Curriculum

Software

Nearly all the classrooms and laboratories visited had a suite of office applications such

as word processing, spreadsheet, database management system, and presentation or

graphics. A smaller number of classroom computers had email, web browser, electronic

bulletin board (EBB), and special curriculum specific applications available. Chart 1.4

about the utilization of software by grade level demonstrates that word processing is the

most widely used application followed by web browsers and graphics. This is generally

true across all grade levels. However, two negative trends are revealed by this data.

Curriculum-specific software is not widely utilized and available nor is the use of email

integrated within the curriculum, despite the fact that 70 percent of teachers use email at

home or school.

Chart 2.5 shows the use of different software technologies for personal, instructional or

administrative functions by teachers. Word processing is by far the most popular

application and this correlates well with the use of word processing in the classroom.

Using a web browser a great deal also correlates highly with web browser use in the

classroom but teacher use of email correlates poorly with classroom use. One reason is

---

Page 30

that email is not available widely at the classroom level and teachers use it at home.

Teachers reported using spreadsheet and database technologies for classroom

management functions such as maintaining grades and attendance. Chart 2.6 shows the

use of technology made by principals at home and at school. Nearly 80 percent of

principals have access to email at the school and approximately 70 percent use email at

home. The presence of technology for administrative functions in the school is evident

by the fact that nearly all principals regardless of grade level use computer technology to

perform administrative and management functions.

Teacher Use of Technology

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Chart 2.5. Teacher Use of Technology

Principal's Use of Technology

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Use

Technology at

School

Use

Technology at

Home

Use E-Mail at

School

Use Email at

Home

Chart 2.6. Principal’s Use of Information Technology

Link-To-Learn Funding

---

Page 31

Table 2.2 summarizes how principals use Link-To-Learn funds. The three primary

categories are: LAN networking, additional computer hardware, and WAN networking.

These are followed by software and curriculum content databases, library automation,

and computing laboratories, all areas that the Link-To-Learn initiative stressed. What is

disturbing about the data in Table 2.2 is the relatively large number of principals who did

not even know Link-To-Learn monies were available or did not obtain any funding.

Type of Acquisition

Percent

Frequency of

Response

LAN Networking Hardware and

Software

27.18

112

Computers, Printers, Scanners, Other

Hardware

24.27

100

WAN Networking Hardware and

Software

18.69

77

Don’t Know or None

11.17

46

Software and Electronic Subject

Content

8.25

34

Library Automation Hardware and

Software

5.1

21

Computer Laboratory Facilities

2.43

10

Protection and Security

1.46

6

Video Conferencing

0.73

3

Y2K Compliance

0.73

3

TOTAL RESPONSES

100.01

412

Table 2.2 Utilization of Link to Learn Funds

Student Use of Technology

We asked both teachers and students about what technology students had at home. The

results summarized in Chart 1.7 show that over 60 percent of students have a computer at

home and over 45 are connected to the Internet from home. Discussions with students

about their use of technology revealed several facts that coincide with the study

conducted in Nova Scotia mentioned earlier (Timmons, 1997). The four main points are:

1. Students with computers at home felt they had a distinct advantage over those

who did not because they could type assignments with spell checking and

grammar checking, get access to additional information on the Internet, and chat

on-line with people who had special knowledge.

2. Students with computers at home but no web access used them less frequently

than those with home computers and web access.

3. Students with computers at home have little difficulty in knowing what to do

when attempting to use the computer for a class assignment or activity in strong

---

Page 32

contrast to those without computers at home. The latter have much more difficulty

manipulating hardware, software and information.

4. Students with computers at home and Internet access have more positive attitudes

towards technology as it positively impacts learning and teaching.

Summary

It is evident from the data that, in general, teachers and principals have available to them

adequate information technology at school and at home. It is also clear that they use this

technology for professional and personal reasons. The data suggests that teachers and

students do not have timely access to technology, when it would be most appropriate to

support a learning activity. The data also indicates that many teachers and principals

have been trained in only a limited range of applications. In the school environment,

classroom use of computers is inhibited by a lack of an adequate number of devices and

devices with adequate capabilities. This is more prevalent in the lower grades than in the

upper grades. There is also not enough support for keeping computers and networks in

working condition. The use of computing laboratories is seen as a cost-effective method

of providing computer and Internet access for students but teachers see laboratories as

difficult to schedule and disconnected from the day-to-day activities associated with a

lesson plan. Teachers use those applications for which they feel adequately trained, e.g.

word processing, and avoid using applications for which they feel they are marginally

competent. They are also not aware of all the appropriate applications available.

Relegating the use of technology to a laboratory environment and a technology specialist

with little or no integration into the classroom is not the best use of technology for

teaching and learning.

Interviews and questionnaires of principals as well as first-hand observations indicate that

Link-To-Learn money was used for building the infrastructure for computers, software,

and local and wide area networks. Unfortunately, Link-To-Learn money was not used as

widely or as in-depth for teaching training as it should have been.

Link-to-Learn has been a catalyst in integrating technology into education and motivated

teachers, students, and principals to become familiar with its use and its implications for

teaching, learning, and management. It appears that the high schools and middle schools

have benefited the most from the Link-to-Learn initiative, while elementary schools have

had a lower priority. This is not an unusual situation and is reasonable when limited

resources are available. High school students need technology skills, concepts, and

knowledge to compete in the job market and in higher education almost immediately. As

long as the lower grades are included to a greater degree in future infrastructure

development, curriculum integration, and teacher training, the goals of Link-to-Learn will

have been satisfied.

References

---

Page 33

Education Week on the Web: Pennsylvania Data: Report (September 23, 1999)

http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/updates/states/pa-t.htm#access

Market Data Retrieval: Technology in Education 1999 (Research Report).

http://www.schooldata.com/publications.html#tech99

Milken Exchange Public Opinion Survey. (1998).

http://www.milkenexchange.org/project/poll/ME162_98.pdf

The Pennsylvania Technology Atlas http://www.technology.state.pa.us/atlas/Pa

Timmons, Vianne, et al. (Sept., 1997) “Integration of Technology into the Secondary

School Curriculum.” http://www.stfx.ca/people/xliu/finalrp4.html

Xiufeng, Liu, Macmillan, Robert, and Timmons, Vianne. (1 Nov. 1997) “Assessing the

Impact of Computer Integration on Students.” Seventh Conference of Atlantic Educators

http://iago.stfx.ca/people/xliu/cae.html

---

Page 34

Chapter 3. Attitudes, Motivations, Benefits, and Barriers

Introduction

Educational studies consistently report how important motivation is in the educational

use of technology. Motivation appears to be particularly high in the Pennsylvania. The

annual technology survey for schools in Pennsylvania, the Link-To-Learn initiative,

illustrates how high the teachers’ hopes are for technology. Pennsylvania teachers were

asked whether they believed technology was just another fad (a score of 1) or a powerful

tool for improving student learning (a score of 5). 68.7 percent of schools which

responded to the survey reported a value of 4 or 5. This correlates well with the results

from the same survey reporting that over 50 percent of Pennsylvania schools use

technology to enhance the curriculum for project–based learning or learning taking place

in small groups. Traditionally, schools have not used technology to foster such

cooperative learning. Rather computers have usually been used to for drill-and-practice

of basic skills or to promote individual or entire class learning experiences but not as a

tool for group projects or student-designed projects. Schools have traditionally promoted

learning with technology through the use of stand-alone devices or software. This stems

from a view that knowledge and opportunities are centered in the computer, rather than in

the individual. This has been changing with the advent of networked computers, better-

trained teachers, better software and the use of the World Wide Web. Contemporary

pedagogy views the computer as a tool for empowering the student. Teachers, principals

and parents are beginning to realize that today’s technology has the power to aid students

obtain, organize, manipulate, and display information in ways that support their

understanding and add to their knowledge.

Several questions in our study aimed to appraise the motivation of teachers,

administrators and students for using technology in the classroom, since a positive

attitude is essential for its successful implementation. Whenever possible we attempted to

access attitudes by means of indirect questions about uses, benefits and difficulties and by

having our observers judge several aspects of attitude on a seven-point scale.

Response to Technology

Chart 3.1 represents the observer’s judgment about the attitudes on the part of teachers

and students for using technology in the classes they observed. Generally, the attitudes of

both teachers and students become more positive at higher grades. But students are more

motivated to use technology than teachers in all cases, except in the 8

th

grade, where

teachers were more positive than students. Most surprising about this chart is that 11

th

grade teachers are far less positive than 5

th

and 8

th

grade teachers.

---

Page 35

Chart 3.1. Response to Technology

1st Grade

3rd Grade

5th Grade

8th Grade

11th Grade

Teacher

Response

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

ResponsetoTechnology

Teacher Response

Student Response

---

Page 36

Chart 3.2. Teacher and Students Preference for Technology

This may stem from 11th graders’ high level of technological competence, which may, in

turn, dampen the instructors’ enthusiasm for using technology. The 8

th

grade teachers

were very positive about using technology in the classroom. When teachers and students

were asked if they liked technology they responded as shown in Chart 3.2. As indicated,

teachers at higher grade levels like technology more than teachers at the lower grades.

Although student responses show the same pattern, students at the lower grades prefer

technology more than their teachers. This is not surprising based on other data collected

during the study that shows teachers in the lower grades have less technology, less

training, and fewer non-drill-and-practice applications than teachers in the higher grades.

Students

5.5

6

6.5

7

LikeTechnology

Students

Teachers

---

Page 37

Chart 3.3. Teacher Enthusiasm for and Impact of Using Technology

Chart 3.3 shows the observers’ rating on a 7-point scale of the teachers’ enthusiasm for

using technology and the responses of teachers to questions regarding the degree to

which they think technology affects the teaching and learning process. The results show

that teachers demonstrate an above average enthusiasm, which is even greater at the

upper grades. Most significantly, technology is perceived to have a much lower impact

on teaching and learning than indicated by the level of enthusiasm. Teachers in the lower

grades perceive technology as having a less significant impact than teachers in the higher

grades. Here again, this is probably due to the lack of technology resources, the lack of

training, and the less frequent use of home computers.

According to Chart 1.10, which is based on teachers’ comments about their use of

technology at home, teachers rate email, information seeking and entertainment quite

high. Chart 1.8 shows that 85 percent of teachers have a computer at home and over 70

percent use the Internet from home. This data indicates that teachers have access to

information technology at home and utilize it for personal as well as for teaching-related

purposes. Thus teachers appear committed to using technology and have the learning

skills necessary for using technology for instructional purposes. Charts 3.6 and 3.7

indicate that teachers have been using technology on average for several years and spend

over 80 minutes per day using computers at home or at school.

Enthusiam and Impact

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

st

g

ra

d

e

3

r

d G

r

ad

e

5

t

h

G

ra

de

8

t

h

G

ra

d

e

11

th

Gr

a

d

e

Teacher

Enthusiam

Affect Teaching

Affect Learning

---

Page 38

Chart 3.6 Teacher Years of Using Computers

Chart 3.7. Teacher Use of Computers per Day

Motivation to Use Technology by Teachers

Teachers were asked what motivated them to use technology in the classroom

environment. They were free to respond in any manner they felt appropriate and were

not forced to choose from a list. Teachers could provide multiple motivations and some

teachers chose not to respond at all. These responses are categorized in Table 3.1 with

their respective percentages.

Teacher Years of Computer use

0

2

4

6

1

Years of Use

Minutes Used Per Day

0

20

40

60

80

100

1

Minutes Used

---

Page 39

Motivation to Use Technology

Percent

Number

Stimulate and Motivate Student Interest in learning

22.40

82

Prepare students for future career and education

17.49

64

Provide up-to-date information and knowledge

12.57

46

Tool to learn and enhance a subject

11.75

43

Improve student skills via drill and practice

6.56

24

Improve student analysis and problem solving skills

6.01

22

Improve management of classroom activities

5.46

20

Improve presentation of lessons

5.19

19

Heighten student self-esteem via individualization

3.55

13

Enhance student and teacher creativity

3.28

12

Improves the quality (form and format) of student

assignment

3.28

12

Catalyst to integrate the curriculum

1.64

6

Teach students how to collaborate with others

0.82

3

Total

100

366

Table 3.1. Teacher Motivation to Use Technology in the Classroom

According to this table, teachers use technology primarily to “stimulate and motivate

student interest in learning” followed closely by a desire to “prepare students for future

careers and education.” The first is an immediate need and the second is a future

concern. The next most frequently stated motivations are to provide “up-to-date

information and knowledge” and “a tool to learn and enhance a subject.” Both of these

are immediate motivations. Five (5) of the last six (6) items in the list are directed

towards using the technology to benefit teachers and the curriculum directly with indirect

benefits for the students.

Coupled with the question about motivation was a question about what teachers see as the

benefit of using technology in the classroom. The teachers were free to respond in any

manner they felt appropriate and to provide multiple benefits. The results are categorized

in Table 3.2. The most highly rated benefit by teachers is that it provides a means to teach

students new information- seeking, problem-solving, and analytical concepts and skills.

This is followed by providing a stimulating environment, understanding computers and

the Internet, providing a means for students to practice and learn on an individual basis,

reinforcing concepts in books, worksheets, and lessons, and preparing students for

continuing education and a career. Supporting alternate teaching and learning approaches

and aiding the teacher’s classroom management and lesson preparation is also important.

The following four items related to individualization of student learning are the most

frequently cited benefits, if we aggregate them into one category: technology

“accommodates a variety of levels of student abilities”, “provides ways for some students

to be successful and heightens self-esteem”, “provides students with the capability to

practice and learn on an individual basis” and “provides a creative and risk-oriented

environment.” Only a very small percentage (1.83) sees no benefits for technology in

education and very few stated increases in academic outcomes as a benefit, which is to be

---

Page 40

expected, since it is too early to see increases in academic achievement as measured on

standard achievement tests.

Table 2.1 is a categorized list of the barriers and difficulties teachers see as hindering the

use of technology in the teaching and learning process. The most frequently cited

reasons are “not enough or outdated and inadequate hardware, software, and internet

connections”, “not enough time and scheduling difficulties in using equipment and labs”,

“inadequate technical support”, and “not enough training.” These are all related, since

there are no time and scheduling problems, if an adequate number of computers, up-to-

date hardware, software, and internet connections are available. And training issues have

to do with inadequate technical support. Of course, increased funding is necessary to

resolve many of these barriers.

Benefit

Percent

Number

Teaches students new information seeking, problem solving, and

analytical concepts and skills

17.28

85

Provides and exciting, motivating, and participatory learning

environment

11.59

57

Help students understand Computers and the Internet

11.18

55

Provides students the capability to practice and learn on an

individual basis

10.37

51

Reinforce and extend book, worksheet, and lesson concepts

9.35

46

Prepares students for continuing education and a career

8.74

43

Supports classroom and other teaching and management tasks

6.10

30

Provides a multi-sensory learning environment

5.28

26

Utilizes alternate approaches to teaching and learning

4.67

23

Provides some students with ways to be successful and heighten

self-esteem

3.66

18

Can accommodate a variety of levels of student abilities

3.46

17

Provides a creative, risk-oriented outlet for students

2.64

13

Increases achievement in writing, mathematics, science, etc.

3.05

15

Have not seen any benefits

1.83

9

Integrate the curriculum

0.81

4

TOTALS

100.01

492

Table 3.2. Benefits of Technology as Reported by Teachers

Teachers were asked to identify what they would acquire, if funds were available to

purchase whatever they needed. The responses shown in Table 3.4 correlate well with

the barriers identified by teaches. Nearly one-third wanted more and upgraded computers.

If we aggregate new and upgraded computers, Internet connections, and printers into one

category, we can account for nearly 50 percent of the responses. Surprisingly, many

teachers wanted digital cameras. Very few teachers wanted training, although a

---

Page 41

significant number of teachers indicated that a lack of training was a barrier to using

technology. The request for projection systems for the classroom or labs is also

significant enough to warrant attention.

Desired Acquisition

Percen

t

Number

More new or updated computers for classrooms &

labs

32.07

144

Digital camera in classroom or labs

14.03

63

More new or upgraded Internet connections

10.02

45

Projection system for classrooms

8.24

37

More new or upgraded printers for classrooms &

labs

6.24

28

Scanner in classrooms and labs

4.90

22

Training on computers, email, Internet, software

4.45

20

CD players/recorders/applications for computers

4.23

19

Video conferencing capabilities

4.23

19

Technical support for hardware, software, networks

2.90

13

Computer learning center and labs

2.67

12

TV/VCR for classroom

1.34

6

Modify classroom to accommodate technology

1.11

5

Networking to the classroom

1.11

5

Electronic white board

1.11

5

Digital audio recording capability

0.67

3

Digitizing tablet

0.45

2

Wide area network

0.22

1

TOTAL

99.99

449

Table 3.4. Acquisitions Desired by Teachers

Summary

Students, teachers, and principals show a high degree of enthusiasm and express a

positive attitude towards technology. Teachers at the lower grades (1 and 3) demonstrate

a lower level of enthusiasm about technology than those at the higher grades. Over 85

percent of teachers have computers at home and use them on a regular basis for personal

and professional tasks. Teachers have been using computers on average for over 4 years

and use them about 80 minutes each day. Teachers are motivated to use technology

because it stimulates and motivates students to learn, enhances a subject, provides more

recent information than a textbook, and prepares them with skills that will be useful for a

career or higher education. Teachers see the benefits of using technology as providing

new information-seeking methods and stimulating analytical and synthesis types of

problem solving, creating an interesting learning environment, providing skills and

---

Page 42

concepts useful for life preparation, and providing the capability for individualized

learning styles as well as reinforcing and extending textbook and lecture content. Of

course there are drawbacks to using technology, such as not enough devices, lab

scheduling difficulties, equipment and networks that are not in working condition, out-of-

date devices, and inadequate training and experience by teachers on the hardware,

network and application software. A barrier perceived to be less significant was that

technology was not integrated closely enough into the curriculum. Teachers reported that

in order to make technology more effective they needed more hardware, software, and

network connections, better Internet access, projection systems for demonstration and

teaching purposes, and surprisingly, digital cameras. They considered additional training

to be less important than the above listed items. It was obvious from observation that

students feel very enthusiastic about technology and are motivated to use it at every

possible opportunity. Principals demonstrated a highly positive attitude towards

technology and are motivated to acquire it, integrate it into the curriculum and get their

teachers trained. They have the problem of finding enough resources to do all they would

like to do.

---

Page 43

Chapter 4. Support for the Use of Technology in the Classroom

and Curriculum

Introduction

Support for teaching and learning comes in many forms. Traditionally, we think of

support in terms of physical classroom maintenance (heat, light, electricity), instructional

materials (books, white boards, chalkboards, films, and slides), teacher aides, special

instruction, teacher continuing education (in-service days, college courses, workshops,

and seminars), supplies (pencils, tablets, paper, and transparencies), equipment

(television monitors, overhead and slide projectors), and services such as telephones,

copiers, faxes, transportation, and administrative and management support in terms of

budgeting, policy, discipline, security, evaluation, human resources, staffing, standards,

scheduling, facility management, direction, guidance, and vision. As technology

becomes more a part of everyday life, both personally and organizationally, educational

institutions have felt the pressure to incorporate it into their activities. But although it is

relatively clear how technology can be integrated into the business and management

aspects of education in terms of accounting, human resources, asset management,

budgeting, student information, purchasing, course scheduling, and bus routing and

equally obvious how technology serves as a tool for teaching and classroom management

(grading, attendance, and counseling), integrating it into the curriculum is difficult. For

such integration entails rethinking educational strategies of learning, rethinking teacher

training, and providing new kinds of support. Truly integrating technology into the

classroom means providing students with the skills they will need for survival in a highly

technological world, affecting every aspect of their personal and professional lives.

Motivated by this new perspective, support for technology has the highest possible

mandate.

Integration Support

Integrating technology into the curriculum and instructional process requires many

things. First, technology must be available in sufficient quantity and accessible at the

appropriate times, before it will achieve the critical mass for effective use. Our study with

its classroom observations and reports of teachers, principals, and students proves that

more technology and better access are needed before technology will be used in the same

sense that a textbook and whiteboard are used. Although the Link-to-Learn initiative,

challenge grants, school district funding, and other monetary resources have done a great

deal to provide initial availability and accessibility, a critical mass has not been achieved.

Such grants are essential for getting started and making major improvements but a steady

and reliable source of funding is required for maintaining adequate availability and

access. Technology must become a line item with replacements in a school’s budget

similar to the way textbooks are managed. Companies typically budget 5% to 10% of

their annual revenue for technology. School districts in Pennsylvania have typically

---

Page 44

funded technology under 3 percent of their budget. A second requirement is technical

support. The lack of technical support was relatively high on the list of barriers for using

technology in the classroom (see Table 2.1). If equipment is not in working condition, it

is really not available for use. The difficulties range from computers that do not work to

computers whose operating systems has been trashed to networks that are not functioning

to software that cannot run on the equipment available. Thirdly, the lack of available

peripheral technology to support the use of other technologies also hampers the

utilization of technology. For example, the lack of printers, modems, scanners, digital

cameras, sound systems, and projection systems decreases the use of computer

technology in the classroom. A projection system is a simple but very useful addition to

classroom technology, since it encourages teachers to use the computer for group viewing

just as they now use whiteboards, overhead, slide, and film projectors, posters, textbooks

and workbooks. Using projection systems would eliminate part of the problem of

scheduling machines for students to view this same information individually.

Before technology becomes an integral part of the curriculum, teachers must feel

confident in demonstrating software and using presentation tools and web browsers. They

must also have hands-on support in developing content and associated activities to

support the instructional process. Teachers reveal that they are not sure how best to use

and integrate technology into the curriculum. They struggle with using presentation and

word processing tools for producing content, can’t trust the technology for web based

activities, can’t be sure the equipment and network will be working correctly, can’t figure

out how to use PCs or Macs to let students use a curriculum-specific piece of software,

and don’t have the time or confidence to teach the students all the basic skills they need

to utilize the equipment and software. Without such support they waste enormous

amounts of time attempting to develop content and activities using inappropriate tools

that they know such as word processing and PowerPoint, when other tools such as

spreadsheets, databases or web page design tools might better serve their purposes. In

reality, teachers should have tools to support the generation of content and activities for

the instructional process. The PENDOR system (Pennsylvania Distributed Object

Repository) developed for the Link-To-Learn initiative is an example of such a tool. The

PENDOR system provides a database of curriculum specific content and the ready means

for teachers to select a lesson plan and the content in the form of text, graphics, video,

and audio for a variety of subjects. This content is packaged as a sequence of objects for

students to view and listen to as determined by the teacher. Teacher can also add their

own content to the repository by downloading data from a web page or a file in addition

to preparing materials using word processing and presentation tools that they already

know how to use. The lesson as configured by a teacher can be saved for future use and

edited as new materials become available. As the content of the database grows, teachers

will have more previously prepared modules available for constructing a lesson on a wide

range of subjects. We expect to see more similarly prepared resources as these become

available for teachers.

Another dilemma teachers encounter when attempting to integrate technology into the

curriculum concerns the necessity of preparing students to meet state standards and

perform well on achievement tests. Such a focus requires that nearly every minute of

---

Page 45

classroom time be focused on delivering content using the accepted paradigms for

teaching. The attempt to add computer-based activities to this curriculum without

modifying the curriculum and its teaching paradigms creates an impossible time dilemma

for the teachers and the students. If computer-based activities are to be integrated into the

curriculum, they cannot be treated as add-ons but must become part of the curriculum.

Either we need to replace some activity in the curriculum or portion of the method

currently being used to help students meet standards or we need to initiate a totally new

teaching paradigm encompassing new technologies. Table 2.1 concerning the difficulties

teachers have in using technology includes having to stick to the tried-and-true

curriculum in order to prepare students for achievement tests.

Administrative Support

Teachers cannot use technology in the classroom without administrative support.

According to our study, principals provide such support in principle. Chart 4.1 shows that

over 98 percent of principals stated they support the use of technology for instruction and

80 percent stated they support the use of technology for classroom management

functions.

Technological Support for Teachers

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Instruction

Classroom Mgmt.

Chart 4.1. Principals’ Stated Support for Technology

Although principals affirmed the use of technology in general, less than 65 percent of

them actually had a technology plan available for their own school or the school district

(See Chart 4.2.). This data makes doubtful how much tangible and meaningful support

teachers can expect from some school principals.

---

Page 46

Technology Plan Available

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

1st grade

3nd Grade

5rd Grade

8th Grade

11 Grade

Percent With Plan Available

Chart 4.2. Principals with a technology plan available

Table 2.2 shows how principals described the ways in which they spent the funds

provided by the Link-To-Learn initiative. Significantly, even though the Link-To-Learn

grant required that schools provide training, training is not mentioned. In fact, we know

that professional training in information technology was provided as a part of the Link-

To-Learn grant, based on later interviews with principals. But our intent in the classroom

study is to elicit data both directly and indirectly and the failure of principals to mention

training during the classroom study suggests that training does not have a high priority

for them. The top two items on the acquisition list in Table 2.2: LAN networking

hardware and software and computers, printers, scanners, and other hardware, are directly

in line with the intent of the Link-To-Learn grants. The most disturbing aspect about

Table 2.2 is that over 11 percent of the principals either were not aware that Link-To-

Learn funds were available or that any technology was purchased for their school using

such funds. This may indicate their lack of input into the budgeting process or poor

communication within the district. In either case, this situation should be remedied so

that technology is available, where it can have the greatest impact or matches the

technology plan. Discussions with principals indicate that in many cases technology

plans and decisions are highly centralized at the district level. Many districts use a

“trickle down” philosophy, providing new technology to high schools first and then

installing the technology from these schools in the respective lower grades. However

justifiable this strategy may be during the initial setup of a technology program, it causes

problems when continued over a longer period of time. This is because the older

technology requires more technical support, is more likely to fail, is harder to use, and

usually has less capability than newer versions. It seems reasonable that a plan to replace

technology at all grade levels with the newest technology should be implemented, if

availability and accessibility needs are to be met.

---

Page 47

Principals have some budgetary control over how funds are allocated within their school.

In order to argue for more funds for technology and support for technology, they must be

aware of the technology plan for the district and should formulate a technology plan for

their school. This school level plan should have input from students, teachers, parents,

technology coordinator, and experts in the community.

---

Page 48

Summary

Technical support is an absolute necessity for successful use of technology in any

environment and schools are no different. Since teachers have not been trained to deal

with low-level problems, such as installing software or replacing printer cartridges, they

view technology as risky and unreliable. Schools must come to grips with the technical

support problem if they truly believe technology is important in the educational process.

Technical support in an academic environment is actually more complicated than in

commercial ones. Students have a tendency to experiment with technology in every

possible way, which often means that hardware, networks, and software quickly becomes

unusable. Commercial environments typically exercise more control over their

computing environment and employees are more constrained in the ways in which they

use technology. In any case, highly trained technical support must be available when

needed and in a wide range of technologies. This tends not to be the case in most

schools. Technology coordinators typically are not highly trained in a wide range of

technologies. They usually have an educational background in some subject area other

than computers along with some training in computer and associated software packages.

Some have taken courses in instructional technology, web design, and computer

fundamentals through schools of education. Such courses do not usually cover the

knowledge and skills necessary to diagnose and remedy problems at the operating

system, network protocol, or security level. Although such technology coordinators have

learned the skills necessary for integrating technology into the curriculum, their time is

consumed by fixing printers, re-installing operating systems and application software,

managing user accounts, and providing remedial training for teachers and principals.

Thus, their strengths are not utilized and their time is consumed by low level technology-

related tasks or struggling with problems they cannot handle. In many school districts a

single technology coordinator and a poorly trained assistant handle 50 to 100 classrooms.

Having to decide which support problems to address first, technology coordinators

usually deal first with those of the administrative systems, giving instructional problems

the lowest priority. Within the instructional arena, high schools get the most attention,

while each successively lower grade level gets less attention. Within a single school

building, computer laboratories get top priority because they service the largest number

of people. It is easy to see how a problem with a computer in a third grade classroom may

never be remedied. The strength, skills and time of technology coordinators are stretched

to the nth degree. One possible solution is the so-called “escalating level of trouble

shooting.” This entails each school having at least two people trained in resolving low-

level problems such as replacing printer cartridges or installing software. When the

problem demands more than these two people can handle, it is relayed to the technology

staff for the school district. If this step proves inadequate, the problem is then referred to

a consulting group on retainer for the district, which is contracted to respond within a

fixed period of time. The “replace and fix” approach to technical support should be

provided as a backup to the “escalating level of trouble shooting.” Spare computers and

parts should always be available to immediately replace poorly functioning components,

until they can be fixed. Further, schools should have access to a web site with policies,

procedures, FAQ (a frequently-asked-questions page), and other problem-specific help.

---

Page 49

Software such as “ASK JEEVES,” developed by DELL computers for technical support,

should be available on a statewide level. Perhaps students and faculty in computer

science departments of the state universities could even be enlisted to provide help desk

support. Only such a multi-pronged approach can begin to resolve the serious problems

pertaining to technical support within the schools of Pennsylvania.

---

Page 50

Chapter 5. Teacher Training and Experience in Technology

Introduction

Technology encompasses a very powerful and also relatively complex set of tools. A

networked environment has hardware components of the desktop device, the server

device, the network devices, and communication wiring as well as software that controls

and makes the hardware useful. There is also application software that the end user uses

to accomplish specific tasks, such as word processing for producing documents or math

programs for tutoring students. Before a technology tool can be used effectively, the user

must be trained in its use and have experience in applying it within an application area.

But since these technology components are highly dependent upon one another, each has

its own complexity, and failure can occur in any one of them, the training of teachers and

students is more difficult than in other environments. The teacher must assume a wider

range of support functions beyond the specific technology for presenting the content to

students because a highly trained support person is not always available. The training for

a teacher must include a basic understanding of all components of the system including

hardware, networking, operating system and utility software as well as application

software. For example, a computer’s network operating system controls the operation of

the hardware, network and the application software. If any of these is not configured

correctly or fails to function correctly, the application fails and a planned lesson using the

technology cannot be completed successfully. Since these technologies are used in real

time with students, failures are disruptive and require rescheduling, substitute activities,

lost learning time, and much frustration. Further, if the technology is not integrated

appropriately into the curriculum, it distracts from the learning process. Thus teacher

training is not limited to the use of technology, complicated as that may be, but includes

an understanding of a new learning paradigm. Various reports indicate that it takes as

much as 450 hours to train a teacher to integrate technology into classroom activities in a

fashion that enhances learning.

The following quotations stress how critical teacher training in the use of technology is.

“At the school level, a major pitfall is failure to provide teachers with adequate

professional development in technology. Teachers need to be trained to use the

technology and apply it instructionally within their particular curriculum. Too often,

technology training is discontinued after teachers acquire rudimentary computer literacy

or are taught the basics of using a specific piece of software “ (Office of Technology

assessment, 1995). “Besides professional development, teachers need adequate time to

experiment with technology and to design and implement good technology-based

activities in their curricula. Technology-using teachers agree that such activities not only

take longer to implement with students but also require more advanced planning and

preparation on the teacher’s part” (Sheingold & Hadley, 1990). “Schools that give

teachers adequate time to acquire technology skills, plan technology-based activities, and

share their technology-related work with each other are more successful in bringing a

large number of teachers to a level of technological proficiency” (Means & Olson, 1995).

---

Page 51

Teacher Technology Training

Education Week on the Web reports that 78 percent of all Pennsylvania School Districts

formally keep track of how much training teachers receive, 47 percent publicly report the

level of teacher technology fluency and 65 percent formally keep track of how teachers

use technology. In addition 68 percent of Pennsylvania school districts formally keep

track of how students use technology. According to the Milken Exchange on the Progress

of Technology in Schools (Solomon, 1999), 33% of Pennsylvania teachers have

beginner’s skills in technology-use, 38% are at an intermediate level, 6% are advanced,

and only 1% are at an innovator/instructor level. This survey also reports that an average

teacher has had 15 hours of technology training in the last 12 months. The 1999

Pennsylvania Link-To-Learn Technology survey (www.sis.pitt.edu/ltolearn) reports

slightly different data. Teacher training in technology ranges from no training at all to

over 100 hours per year. The average teacher receives 8.9 hours of instruction in the use

of technology per year. However, training in the pedagogical integration of technology

into the learning process only gets a little over three hours of instruction per year. This is

based on the 1653 schools, which reported a value, out of the 6213 public and private

schools surveyed. 689 out of 2456 private and public schools (27.9 percent) report that

they have no training in technology at all. In this comparison private schools fare on

average much worse than public ones. Public schools report that less than 10 percent

receive no training in technology.

The classroom survey results correlate well with the annual Link-To-Learn Pennsylvania

Technology results reported above. Chart 5.1 shows the recency of training reported by

246 teachers in our classroom survey. Less than 10 percent of teachers reported no

training, which is the same figure as that of the Link-To-Learn results. Over 70 percent of

teachers in the classroom survey reported they had had some type of training over the

past 2 years with nearly 40 percent receiving training during the last year. Because of the

rapid changes taking place in technology, teachers must be trained every year on the

latest technology or at least be trained on the changes that have occurred since they were

last trained. The fact that approximately 30 percent of teachers have not been trained in

the last 2 years indicates that either a formal professional development program is not in

place, professional development in technology is not mandatory, or incentives for

teachers to get continued training in technology is either not in place or not very

effective. A combination of these factors may also be at work. The Milken Exchange on

Education Technology indicates that 63.5 percent of Pennsylvania teachers receive some

type of incentive for technology fluency or for changing teaching methods to take

advantage of available technology. This includes 65.4 percent who were able to

participate in workshops, 54.6 percent who received release time, and 49.7 percent who

received additional resources for their classrooms. From this data one can conclude that

although incentive programs are in place to encourage teachers to take advantage of

training opportunities, these programs may not be widely enough distributed across all

grade levels.

---

Page 52

The classroom study attempted to elicit information about the areas in which teachers

received training and whether the areas of training were of a popular and introductory

nature, more technical in orientation, or somewhere in between. Chart 5.2 shows that

courses about such popular topics as “the Internet” and “computer based instruction”

were well attended (over 50%) while instruction dealing with such technical areas as

“programming languages” and “computer supported classroom learning (CSCL)” were

not. Web page design and construction falls in the middle range between

popular/introductory and technical and there was a corresponding intermediate level of

attendance at these training sessions. Teachers of the higher grades attend classes about

technical subjects.

Teacher Training in Technology Use

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

Last Trained in 1999

Last Trained in 1998

Last Trained in 1997

Last Trained in 1996

Last Trained in 1995

No Training

Percent

Chart 5.1 Teacher Training in Technology

---

Page 53

Teacher Technology Training

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Internet

W

eb P

age

P

r

ogr

ammi

ng

Languages

Computer

-

bas

ed

I

n

st

ru

ct

io

n

Computer s

uppor

ted

c

ooper

ati

v

e

l

ear

ni

ng

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Chart 5.2 Areas of Teacher Training in Technology

Teachers were asked to describe the level of the training they had received. As seen in

chart 5.3, over 50% of those who had received training reported they had received

intermediate level training while less than 20% reported receiving advanced training.

Although these numbers are slightly higher than the Milken Exchange and Education

Week (38%) survey data, the classroom survey data is more recent than other data. In

addition, since the teachers, who were observed, interviewed and surveyed in the

classroom study, were selected by the school principal, they may tend to have more

training than the average teacher.

Chart 5.3 Level of Teacher Training

Level of Teacher Training

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Beginner

Intermediate

Advanced

Percent Teachers Trained

---

Page 54

Teachers were asked to describe the types of training activities they were engaged in.

Table 1 below summarizes these categorizes. Training in curriculum-specific software

packages is by far the most frequently cited type of training, followed closely by office

suites such as MS Office 97 and introductory workshops on the Internet, computers,

software, and networking.

Type of Training

Percent Reporting

Curriculum Specific Software (PLATO, Future Kids,

Josten’s, etc.

23.0

Office Suits (Office 97, etc.)

15.8

Introductory Workshops on Technology

12.8

Networks, O.S. Operations

7.7

Presentation Technology

7.7

Formal Courses

7.7

Repair and Maintenance

6.4

Classroom Management (attendance, Report Cards, etc.) 5.0

Internet/Email training

5.0

MultiMedia

3.8

Hardware Operation (Scanners, Projection systems, etc.) 3.8

Distance Learning

1.3

TOTAL

100

Table 5.1. Types of Training Activities

Table 2 below with data from the Milken technology survey shows the advanced skill

levels of typical Pennsylvania teachers, who rated their skills as either 4 or 5 on a scale of

1 to 5, with 1 indicating beginner level and 5 indicating advanced level.

Training Category

Percent with advanced skills

Computer Use

18.0

Software Applications

18.9

Internet Use

23.1

Multimedia Peripherals

2.5

Online Projects

2.2

Use of Distance Learning Facilities

2.4

Integration of Technology

9.7

Use of email

22.5

Other

12.7

Table 5.2. Milken Exchange Data on Advanced Skill Level of Teachers

Several issues need to be resolved in regard to teacher training. How much training is

enough and at what level should it be oriented? How do we generate interest in

technology training and allocate time for teachers to obtain it. A further issue is matching

---

Page 55

technology integration and State Curriculum Standards. What requirement do we

eliminate from curricula currently overloaded with content and activities, in order to

make room for activities related to technology.

Teachers clearly have only the most rudimentary training in the operation of hardware,

operating systems and networks. The classroom survey indicates that technical support is

also inadequate. Since there will continue to be a lack of technical personnel and

instructional design personnel, teachers will need to assume some of the burden of

preparing and keeping machines operational in addition to designing learning and

teaching materials themselves (Pennell, 1996). Since most of the curriculum specific

software training includes suggestions about how to integrate technology into the

curriculum, we can assume that over 20% of the teachers have had some training in this

area and conversely approximately 80% of the teachers have had little or none. Teachers

taking formal technology courses reported having little training in integrating technology

into the curriculum. They focussed rather on acquiring hands-on skills in computer

hardware, operating systems and associated software. Significantly, nearly 8% reported

having training in “repair and maintenance” of hardware, software and networks. Some

teachers learn on their own to use technologies for their personal use or to support

administrative classroom tasks and require little training. Email and word processing are

two of the most frequently stated self-taught technologies. The Milken report: Progress

of Technology in the Schools found a positive correlation between technology

competence and actual use: teachers, who actually apply technology to their everyday

work are the most competent. Their primary use of technology is almost always for

administrative work and classroom management (grading, attendance, schedules, lesson

plan generation, etc.). The Milken report also stresses motivation: “Total hours of

technology training are positively and significantly correlated with teacher’s positive

attitude about technology, as was the availability of incentives to get training. The

correlation between using technology in their own practice and their attitudes about its

value for student learning are even larger.“

Teaching with technology means developing new instructional paradigms rather than

recycling familiar techniques, situations, and strategies. It is not just a matter of

converting notes, workbooks, and textbooks into electronic form. The very fact that we

are dealing with different media necessitates a different formatting of materials.

Technology facilities a non-linear, flexible learning style (the hypertext environment of

the Internet, for instance, permits an easy navigation of diverse resources). The

asynchronous nature of technology also offers diverse learning paths and accommodates

varying learner needs, difficult to achieve, when the teacher provides one content to one

group at one and the same time. Of course, small group work is not a new strategy but

knowledge-based technology can be a “guide at the side,” which augments the benefits of

such small group learning, freeing up the teacher’s energies and creativity. When utilized

well, technology is ideal for making learning concrete, problem-based, and context-

oriented (Lave and Wegner, 1990). With the right tools and techniques technology need

not isolate learners but can keep interactions between students and the teacher alive and

well. Pennell, for one, suggests various ways of using the Internet to establish new

---

Page 56

channels of communication in the educational environment. Table 5.3 lists some of these

communication types.

Communication Type

Typical Tools

Free-form messages

between participants

Email, Eudora

Messages from teacher to

entire class

Mailing list software

Delivery of learning

materials and assignments

to students

Telnet, Web pages, Gopher

Response by students to

short structured questions to

assess learning

achievements

Forms-based web pages

with CGI to extract and

analyze results

Text-based commentary

between students and

learning resources

Whiteboard facility and

desktop video conferencing

Submission of assignments

by students and return by

teacher electronically

Email with attachment

Synchronous audio

communication between

members of the learning

community

Audio-conference

equipment, internet phone,

etc.

Asynchronous audio

communication between

members of the learning

community

Answering machine, audio

download from web page

Face-to-face visual

communication between

members of the learning

community

Video-conference, desktop

video-conference or

CUSeeMe call

Table 5.3. Internet Communication Channels

Even as software tools become available for converting existing materials and producing

new ones, teachers will still be the single most important factor in the learning

experience. It is their responsibility to evaluate technological capabilities and to

orchestrate their appropriate use in learning activities. Thus teacher training in the

effective use of technology will become increasingly important, the more intricate and

sophisticated software and hardware become.

Teacher Experience in Using Technology

---

Page 57

Training is the first step. In the long run teachers must acquire experience, for they will

only use those technologies, with which they feel comfortable. Only experience will give

them the self-confidence they need. The classroom survey concludes that teachers have

on average over 4 years of experience with computer technology, whether at home, at

school or in the classroom (see Chart 3.6). Chart 3.7 shows that teachers estimated they

used computers on average 80 minutes each day, including home, school or classroom

use. This suggests that teachers are not novices in computer technology but that their use

has been restricted to a few applications such as word processing and email. The

software tools teachers use (Chart 2.5) correlate relatively well with the training they

have had. Teachers report that the use of email and the worldwide web are frequently

covered in workshops or that they have taught themselves these skills for use at home.

The Milken report (Solomon, 1999) shows that 36.2 percent of Pennsylvania Teachers

report using technology for administrative work/classroom management and 23.4 percent

report using it for communicating with colleagues. This same survey also reports that

29.4 percent of Pennsylvania teachers use desktop publishing technology to teach writing

and 15.4 percent use simulations, when teaching science. Thus we conclude that teachers

rate the use of such applications as word processing and spreadsheets highly not only

because they have been trained in their use but because they have experience in using

them. Likewise, few teachers use HTML, programming languages, electronic bulletin

boards, and video conferencing because they have little training in using them and also

little experience.

Chart 5.7 shows an estimate by teachers about what percent their lesson plans include

some use of technology. On average 31 percent of lesson plans include some use of

technology for either presentation of content, student projects or student individual or

group activities.

Use of Technology in Lesson Plans

Percent Lesson Plans

With Technology

Percent Lesson Plans

Without Technology

Chart 5.7 Use of Technology in Lesson Plans

---

Page 58

To gather additional evidence about the experience teachers have in using technology, we

asked a set of questions about the technology teachers had at home. Chart 1.8

demonstrates that 85 percent of teachers have a computer at home and over 70 percent

have Internet access at home also. Chart 1.10 shows the different types of uses teachers

make of their home technologies. It reinforces the fact that email capabilities are

probably learned through home use rather than in a workshop or class. It also shows that

information gathering on the WWW is learned at home and used there frequently.

Summary

The data show that most teachers are being trained and are using technology in their work

and personal lives. Unfortunately, this training and use is restricted to a limited range of

technologies and is of an introductory nature. It is mostly oriented toward teaching how

to operate a specific technology rather than teaching high level skills and the ability to

integrate technology into the curriculum. This is to be expected, when technology is first

being introduced into an environment. But soon thereafter the scope of training and

experience must be expanded in order to exploit the full potential of technology for

learning. Laurillard (1993) focuses on the following five aspects of learning, which

proper use of technology can enhance:

1. Apprehending Structure. Providing students the ability to interpret the structure of

a discourse before they can construct the meaning that is critical to understanding

2. Integrating Parts. Helping students integrate the signs of knowledge such as

language, symbols, and diagrams with what is signified by them

3. Acting on the World. Helping students engage in a form of activity which, when

integrated with other activities, assists in understanding content

4. Using Feedback. Providing feedback from activities performed by individuals on the

preceding aspects of learning

5. Reflecting on Goal-Action-Feedback. Helping students reflect on learning goals,

actions taken, and the feedback they have received.

The challenge is to design educational experiences for students which promote a deep

approach to learning (Alexander, 1996) so that students get an understanding of the

subject content, the ability to analyze and synthesize information, and develop creative

thinking and better communication skills.

---

Page 59

---

Page 60

References

Alexander, Shirley. (1996). “Teaching and Learning on the World Wide Web.” Institute

for Interactive Multimedia, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. AUSWEB99.

http://www.scu.edu.au/sponsored/ausweb/ausweb95/papers/education2/alexander/

Andrews, T. and Bowser, B. (1995). “Applying Technology Successfully: Meeting the

Challenge” in Higher Education: Blending Tradition and Technology: Proceedings of the

Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of

Australasia (HERDSA). Sydney, Australia: Higher Education Research and Development

Society of Australasia.

Education Week on the Web: Pennsylvania Data. (September 23, 1999). “Technology

Counts ’99,” www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/updates/states/pa-t.htm

Hooper, S. and Rieber, L. (1989). “Teaching with Technology” in Allan.C. Ornstein

(Ed.), Teaching: Theory into Practice. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.

Laurillard, Diana. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: a Framework for the Effective

Use of Educational Technology. London: Routledge.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.

Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Means, Barbara and Olson, Kerry. (1995). Technology and Education Reform. Vol. 1:

Findings and Conclusions. Studies of Education Reform. Menlo Park, CA: SRI

International.

Pennell, Russell. (1996). Managing On-Line Learning. Center for Interactive Multimedia

in Teaching, University of Western Sydeny Nepean, Kingwood, NSW. AUSWEB99

http://elmo.scu.edu.au/sponsored/ausweb/ausweb96/educn/pennell/paper.html

Sheingold K., and Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished Teachers: Integrating Computers

into Classroom Practice. New York: Bank Street College of Education, Center for

Technology in Education.

Solomon, Lewis C. (1999). “Progress of Technology in the Schools: Report on 21

States.” Milken Family Foundation. Santa Monica, CA www.milkenexchange.org

U.S. Congress Office, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and

Technology: Making the Connection, OTA-HER-616 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, April, 1995) http://www.ota.nap.edu/pdf/1995idx.html

---

Page 61

---

Page 62

Chapter 6. Integration of Technology in Instruction,

Administration and Home Use

Introduction

Integration of technology can be measured by the degree to which it is an integral part of

the lesson as opposed to being an add-on, and by the degree to which it supports the

curriculum as opposed to being a stand-alone set of instructions. One measure is the

concept: “maturity of use.” The greater “maturity of use,” the more users there are and

the greater variety of uses to which technology is put. Users become more sophisticated

and have a desire for exploring even more rewarding uses of technology. It becomes a

self-reinforcing process. A model based on an article by Rieber and Welliver (1989) and

reported in a publication of the Regional Computer Resource Center at the University of

Pittsburgh proposes the following steps or transformations through which a teacher

progresses, as she achieves ever greater integration of technology into the learning

process:

1. Familiarization. This is the first step where educators become familiar with the

computer and its range of capabilities and potential for application to education.

2. Utilization. At this stage educators use computers as an adjunct to their teaching

but not as an integrated component.

3. Integration. This is the critical step, at which an educator makes a long-term

commitment to using the technology as an integral part of teaching. From this

point onward the educational process is incomplete without its technological

component.

4. Reorientation. At this step the educator sees the instructional process in an

entirely different way than before. The learner becomes the focus of instruction,

the role of the teacher is reassessed, and educational planning aims to pinpoint

which human and technological resources best facilitate the learning process.

5. Evolution. Educators become more sophisticated in integrating technology into

the learning process. To be effective this evolution should be systematic in

nature.

Nancy Roberts articulates a similar set of stages oriented toward institutional change:

1. Beginning Awareness. A teacher has some knowledge about computers and

starts using them in the classroom. Although her colleagues are nervous and

hesitant, her ideas begin to catch on and an interest in technology starts to grow.

---

Page 63

2. Spread of Acceptance. As more teachers begin to use the technology in their

classrooms, a greater need for training, technical support, and a more

sophisticated infrastructure becomes apparent.

3. Rise in Comfort Level. As the amount of support and collaboration increases,

teachers feel that they can depend on technology as a teaching tool.

4. Impact on the Curriculum. As technology becomes accepted, it is used more

and teachers and students also become more competent. Simple tasks performed

with the technology evolve into more complex ones. As a result, students enjoy

learning more, work better in groups, require less time to learn, and are more

attentive to the learning task.

In administration, integration is reflected in the way technology is used for standard

school management: such as matters relating to personnel (attendance, enrollment,

payroll), materials (purchasing, inventory), finance (accounts receivable, accounts

payable) and planning, reporting and communication (scheduling, recording). For people

who make use of technology at home, integration is measured by the breadth of

applications that support life skills (e.g., for career pursuits and increased employability),

social skills (for communication and information gathering) and life management (for

personal finance and calendaring). Integration in the classroom, in administration, and at

home are mutually supportive activities. This self-reinforcement is most apparent within

each area, but technology use in one area also impacts other areas as well. For instance,

schools using technology for administrative purposes are more likely to support the use

of technology in instruction.

The use of information technology must support what we consider sound principles of

pedagogy.

1. It teaches students how to transfer knowledge from one domain to another.

2. It provides engagement in the learning process.

3. It helps students to analyze, explain, and apply knowledge to real-world problems.

4. It encourages students to be results-oriented.

5. It demonstrates the importance of decision-making skills.

6. It fosters cooperative work.

7. It also promotes individuality and diversity.

8. It improves student retention of knowledge.

9. It provides meaning to student’s learning activities.

10. It makes learning enjoyable.

Overall, the integration of technology into the classroom can foster a holistic approach to

learning that connects concepts, principles, content, and applications across all areas of

the curriculum. It can foster interdisciplinary perspectives and help students to focus in

on themes, issues or problems. It can provide students with the occupational, academic,

and higher-order thinking skills needed to function productively in society, the market

---

Page 64

place, and an information-based economy. This section discusses our findings about how

well teachers and administrators integrate technology into the school system and in their

personal lives.

Administration

Administrators rated the importance of technology for administration, instruction, and the

community on a scale of one to seven (Chart 6.1). Technology is clearly most important

to them for supporting administrative activities but instruction was a close, but consistent

second choice. These findings prevail across all grade levels. The lack of a major

difference between the three options may suggest a general support for the use of

technology for schools and for the larger school community.

Principals' View of Technology Importance

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Administration

Instruction

Community

Chart 6.1 Principal’s View of Technology Importance

The way principals rated the importance of technology is consistent with their appraisal

of productivity, otherwise known as “getting the most bang for the buck.” When asked to

rate the effect of technology on change in teaching, learning and management, they stated

that technology has had the greatest impact in management, with learning listed second

and teaching third (Chart 6.2). Since the spread is not very wide, it may again reflect that

there is no radical bias in the viewpoints of principals. But it may also reflect the fact that

the changes that are most apparent to principals are the changes in management. Their

perception that technology has impacted student learning more than instruction may be

interpreted in two ways. Children’s enthusiasm and aptitude for the technology (much of

which is gained at home) may simply be very visible to principals. On the other hand,

---

Page 65

principals may also be aware of how difficult it is to integrate technology into the

curriculum.

Effect of Technology on Change

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Teaching

Learning

Management

Chart 6.2 Effect of Technology on Change.

Not surprisingly, principals also stated that they used technology most in maintaining

records on students and teachers (in enrollment, attendance, and payroll) as illustrated in

Chart 6.3. This was followed by business uses, such as maintaining accounts. The fact

that the grades at the intermediate and high school level have higher scores in all areas,

but especially in business uses, may reflect the larger staff size, the larger enrollments

and greater volume of transactions and thus the greater demand for technology in such

school settings.

Automated School Functions

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Attendance

Enrollment

Inventory

Payroll

Purchasing

Receivables

Payables

Ledger

Reporting

---

Page 66

Chart 6.3. Automated School Functions

The way technology is used by administration also appears to reflect the fact that the

upper grades have more complex technology needs than do elementary schools. As Chart

6.4 below shows, clerical, communication and reporting uses are fairly uniform across all

school levels. However, scheduling, budgeting and finance—activities that are of greater

intensity in larger middle and high schools—are clearly more prevalent in the upper

grades than in elementary schools.

Technology Use by Administration

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Cl

e

ri

c

a

l

Sc

h

edul

i

n

g

B

ud

get

i

n

g

Fina

nc

e

C

om

m

.

R

epo

rt

i

n

g

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Chart 6.4. Technology Use by Administrators

These settings—larger, middle and high schools--clearly show greater degrees of

integration in administration, and arguably, provide more supportive environments for

technology in instruction.

Instruction

Although principals are committed to technology because of the way it aids management,

they give greater support to teachers in the instructional uses of technology than in

classroom management, although their support for classroom management increases in

the higher grades (Chart 4.1 Technology Support for Teachers). They support the efforts

of teachers to integrate technology into the curriculum, into lesson plans, and daily

instruction. The findings in Chart 6.6 substantiate the support principals give to

instructional uses of technology across curriculum areas.

---

Page 67

Technology Use by Curriculum Area

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

English

Languages

Math

Sciences

Social Science

Fine Arts

Chart 6.6. Technology Use in Curriculum Areas

Principals see a common pattern in the use of technology in the curriculum with English

leading in all grade levels. Math follows but appears to fall off in the 11

th

grade as

science surpasses math and approaches English in importance. The use of technology in

science increases as the grade level increases, which may be interpreted in two ways. It

may suggest a trend toward greater use of spreadsheets and math applications in standard

science problems and less use in standalone math drilling (see Chart 6.7). It could also

mean a significant integration of technology in the curriculum.

Supporting this interpretation is the finding that the amount of all technology training

increases at each grade level. This holds for all kinds of training, from “concept” to

“advanced”. Thus we can infer that the demand (and potential) for curriculum integration

increases as the level of student sophistication increases. As the various subject areas

become more complex, they also lend themselves to technological implementation and

supplementation.

---

Page 68

Technology Courses in Curriculum

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Concept

Beginner

Intermediate

Advanced

Chart 6.7. Technology Courses in the Curriculum

Teacher training in technology as shown in Chart 5.2 reflects a strong interest in using the

Internet, primarily for information gathering for lesson plans as well as for student

research. Teacher training (Chart 6.9) engages more complex domains as students make

more sophisticated uses of technology and as the curriculum lesson plans themselves

become more complex.

Level of Teacher Training

Beginner (1) Intermediate (2) Advanced (3)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Chart 6.9. Level of Teacher Training

---

Page 69

The increased technological proficiency of teachers as the grades get higher suggests that

teachers are able to keep pace with their students as the latter become technologically

adept. Not only do teachers meet the demands of an increasingly sophisticated curriculum

but their own proficiency is more likely to be integrative across applications and not just

with the curriculum. This interpretation is supported by the ways in which teachers use

technology in a typical day as shown in Chart 6.10.

Teacher Use of Technology

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8 Grade 11

Word Processor

Spreadsheet

Databases

E-Mail

WWW

Video

Conferencing

HTML

Graphics

Chart 6.10. Teacher Use of Technology in Teaching

While word processing remains the most frequently used application across all grade

levels, the increased use of spreadsheets, the Internet, and e-mail is significant. These

applications represent a greater integration of technology with instruction and this

integration increases at each grade level. The reported amount of time that teachers use

technology throughout the day further supports this thesis (see Chart 6.11).

---

Page 70

Tech Use Per Day (minutes)

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Chart 6.11. Time per Day of Technology Use by Teachers.

Teachers’ use of computers and the Internet at school reflects their use at home. Over 80

percent of all teachers at all levels have home computers (See Chart 6.12). The number of

teachers with an Internet access is almost as large.

Teachers with Home Computers and Internet Access

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Home Computer

Internet

Chart 6.12. Teachers with Home Computers and Internet Access

For teachers with computers and an Internet access at home, learning, e-mail, and lesson

planning are the main reasons for using technology and there is an increased use of

technology for these activities with each grade level (see Chart 6.13). The fact that first

---

Page 71

grade teachers use home technology a lot for entertainment may be an anomaly,

reflecting the lack of candor on the part of teachers in higher grades rather than an actual

difference in usage.

Teacher Use of Home Computer

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Entertainment

Shopping

Info. Seek

Prob. Solve

Learning

Planning

Email

Chart 6.13. Teachers’ Use of Home Computers and the Internet.

As teacher training becomes more sophisticated and technology usage increases with

each grade level, so too does the degree to which they report integrating technology into

their lesson plans, as Chart 6.14 illustrates.

Percentage of Lesson Plan with Technology Integration

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

% Lesson Tech

Chart 6.14. Lesson Plans with Technology Integration

---

Page 72

At each increasing grade level teachers also perceive the degree to which technology

changes classroom teaching and learning to be greater (see Chart 6.15).

Degree Technology Changed Classroom Teaching and

Learning Processes (1 - 7)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Teaching

Leaning

Chart 6.15. Technology Impact on Teaching and Learning

This pattern is matched by teachers’ expectations about the amount of time that students

use technology during the school day as shown in Chart 6.16.

Expected Daily Student Use of Technology (minutes)

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

---

Page 73

Chart 6.16. Daily Student Use of Technology

According to these teachers’ estimates, student use computers in school and at home on a

daily basis more at each grade level (see Charts 1.7 and 6.18). Outside usage appears to

increase and out-pace in-school usage dramatically in middle and high schools. The

pattern appears not to be a function of the availability of home computers and Internet

access, as the following charts show.

Daily Computer Usage in Minutes

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Use - In Class

Use - Out side Class

Chart 6.18 Student Daily Use of Technology

This trend does not correlate to the amount of homework assigned that calls for the use of

technology as illustrated in Chart 6.19.

---

Page 74

Homework Assigned and Technology Time Required

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Homework

At Home

In Class

In Lab

In Library

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Chart 6.19. Homework and Technology Time

Students use technology for homework less after grade 8 (and this trend is evident in

much of the remaining analysis). Since fewer home computers are available in grade 11,

it may be that less computer homework is assigned due to the decreased availability of

technology. We also noted in Chapter 3 that 11

th

grade teachers are less enthusiastic

about technology than 5

th

and 8

th

grade teachers. An alternative interpretation, and one

that appears to be supported by additional findings below, is that there may be a

“generational blip.” The cohort of 11

th

graders are just behind the technological curve

that gains in strength with the greater number of home computers and more time spent

using them at earlier ages. Therefore, younger students are more proficient and

enthusiastic about using computers in the classroom than 11

th

graders. We call this

phenomenon the 11

th

grade cohort curve hypothesis.

If we look at the percentage of time various technologies are used, we see a declining

computer use and a growing Internet use with the increasing grade levels (Chart 6.20).

---

Page 75

Percentage of Time Technology Used

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

B

oar

ds

Po

st

e

r

s

Computer

WAn

-

bas

ed

Res

our

c

e

s

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Chart 6.20. Technology use and Grade Level

Software use further exemplifies the 11

th

grade cohort curve phenomenon with a decline

in all applications in Grade 11 (see Chart 6.21).

Software Used in Classroom

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

WP

Spreadsheet

DBMS

Graphics

WWW Browser

Spec. App

Email

EBB

Chart 6.21 Software and Classroom Use

Earlier we interpreted the teachers’ emphasis on technology as an indicator of its

integration into classroom practices. In those courses which teachers describe as typically

having a technology component teachers stress the essentiality of the technology and its

integration with the curriculum. The pattern is the familiar one cited above with

---

Page 76

technology being increasingly used at each grade level but declining at Grade 11 (see

Chart 6.22).

Teacher Characterization of Technology Use

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Integr

ated,

E

s

s

enti

a

l

S

epar

ate,

E

s

s

enti

a

l

S

epar

ate,

not

E

s

s

enti

a

l

Integr

ated,

not

E

s

s

enti

a

l

Ba

re

l1

Menti

oned

not

Menti

oned

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Chart 6.22. Teacher Characterization of Technology

The emphasis on technology was examined by means of two scales: first, in terms of

technology, process and content and second, in terms of pedagogy. As the charts below

illustrate, the dominant emphasis in all grades is on curricular content, which suggests

good integration. Pedagogy emphasizes application utility as opposed to mechanics,

terminology, concepts or experimentation. This, once again, indicates a solid integration

of technology with the curriculum (see Charts 6.23 and 6.24).

---

Page 77

Primary Emphasis on Technology

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

Grade 1 Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11

Technology

Content

Process

Emphasis on Technology

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

Grade 1 Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade

11

Mechanical

Terminology

Conceptual

Application

Experimentation

Chart 6.23 Technology Emphasis

6.24 Technology Pedagogy

Teachers reported that the primary uses of technology in the classroom were for drill-

and-practice, problem solving and information retrieval (see Chart 6.25). Predictably,

first-graders used little technology for information gathering, although third graders used

information gathering technology to a surprisingly high degree. As is to be expected,

drill-and-practice falls off at higher grades. Consistent with the anomalies noted with

regard to Grade 11, technology use for problem solving and information gathering

decline and teaching strategies using technology for drill-and-practice increase.

Primary Use of Technology

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

Grade 1

Grade 3

Grade 5

Grade 8

Grade 11

Drill/Practice

Prob.Solve

Information

Experiment

Simulation

Group Activities

Entertainment

Chart 6.25 Primary Use of Technology in the Classroom

---

Page 78

These observations suggest that integrated activities like problem solving and information

retrieval climb rapidly and begin to match drill-and-practice, which is a less integrated

practice, in the higher grades.

Conclusions

The findings and observations sited here show clearly that teachers and students are

beginning to integrate technology into instructional and home use. We also infer that

administrators will use technology for school administration at an increasing rate. Middle

and high schools are presumable larger and have a greater need for using technology for

administrative purposes. And administrators, in turn, who know how important

technology is for school management, support the use of technology for instruction,

although they also support its use for classroom management.

In instruction, a movement toward integration of technology with the curriculum is

apparent across all grade levels and this integration increases from grade to grade. The

11

th

grade cohort curve hypothesis is a possible explanation for the lack of continuity in

what is otherwise a clear trend. Technology becomes more strongly integrated in

instruction and classroom management except at the 11

th

grade level. Curricula appear to

employ technology as integral parts and less as add-ons in higher grades, where

accumulated technology experience becomes more robust. Teachers at the higher grade

levels make more frequent use of applications such as spreadsheets and graphics and in

subjects such as science.

While it is encouraging to see patterns of integration at all grade levels, greater

integration of technology with the curriculum is needed. Above all, teachers need

standard strategies that they can adapt and such strategies will be made available via the

PENDOR initiative (Pennsylvania Distributed Object Repository) described in Chapter 4.

As more instructional content becomes available, as technology becomes more readily

available and accessible, and as teachers become better trained and more experienced,

more complex and sophisticated integration is likely to occur.

The home use of computers appears to support their use in schools. We infer from the

data that the growing use of computers and the Internet at home across all grade levels

leads to a greater sophistication on the part of both teachers and students in their use of

technology. At the present time, however, students cannot be expected to do their out-of-

class assignments on computers at home. But when computer and Internet access is

universally available, teachers can assign homework utilizing these technologies. At that

juncture, the integration of school-based technology usage and home-based usage will

have reached a critical mass. Then technology for learning purposes will no longer be

confined to the classroom but will become part of the overall learning environment of the

community. It will enable the vision we presented at the beginning of our study.

Technology will benefit the entire community, supporting life-long learning and career

enhancing programs.

---

Page 79

Despite the inferences we draw about trends in technology use in the Pennsylvania

schools, our synoptic view of the data presented here cannot fully capture the dynamics

of what is actually happening with regard to technology in our K-12 schools. We need

more information about the changes taking place with the adaptation and integration of

technology in our schools and communities. When our research has been replicated and

the trends confirmed, then our theories about the various causes for these phenomena can

be explored in greater detail. A longitudinal study, for instance, might determine whether

our hypothesis about the discontinuity apparent at the 11

th

grade level is correct. Future

surveys should focus on the drivers behind the patterns. Once the connections can be

made between the leading indicators (performance drivers), lagging indicators

(outcomes) and confirmed trends, a systems model can be developed that will give policy

makers the ability to manage technology investment in a targeted and strategic way.

References:

Rieber, L and Welliver, P. (1989). “Infusing educational Technology into Mainstream

Educational Computing,” International Journal of Instructional Media, 16(1), pp. 21-32.

Roberts, Nancy. Stages of Innovation: Integrating Technology into the Classroom.

http://www.cel/mcgill.ca/inst9596/Tech/

---

Page 80

Bibliography

Alexander, Shirley. (1996). “Teaching and Learning on the World Wide Web.” Institute

for Interactive Multimedia, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. AUSWEB99.

http://www.scu.edu.au/sponsored/ausweb/ausweb95/papers/education2/alexander/

Andrews, T. and Bowser, B. (1995). “Applying Technology Successfully: Meeting the

Challenge” in Higher Education: Blending Tradition and Technology: Proceedings of the

Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of

Australasia (HERDSA). Sydney, Australia: Higher Education Research and Development

Society of Australasia.

Becker, Henry Jay. (1999). Internet Use by Teachers: Conditions of Professional Use

and Teacher-directed Student Use. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Callendar, J. (1990). "Electronic Display Devices for High-Powered Presentations."

Presentation Products Magazine, 3, no. 6, 22-34.

“The Challenge 2000 Multimedia Project: Project-Based Learning with Multimedia.”

http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/topics_main.htm

Coleman, James S. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: US

Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 77.

Conway, Kathryn. (1997). “Master Classrooms: Classroom Design with Technology in

Mind.” http://www.iat.unc.edu/publications/conway/conway1.html

Education Week on the Web: Pennsylvania Data (September 23, 1999)

http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/updates/states/pa-t.htm#access

Garrett, N., Dominguez, F. and Noblitt, J. (1989). "Computers in Foreign Language

Teaching and Research: A 'New Humanism.'" In Graves, W. H. (ed.) Computing across

the Curriculum: Academic Perspectives. McKinney, Tex.: EDUCOM/Academic

Computing Publications.

Glennan, Thomas Keith. (1998). New American Schools After 6 Years. Santa Monica,

CA: RAND.

Glick, M. (1990). "Integrating Computing into Higher Education: An Administrator's

View." Educom Review, 25, no. 2, 35-38.

Goldman, Shelley, Cole, Karen, and Syer Christina. (1999) “The Technology/Content

Dilemma.” http://www.ed.gov/Technology/TechConf/1999/whitepapers/paper4.html

Hale, M. (1989). Faculty Support Centers. Research Triangle Park, N. C.: Institute for

Academic Technology.

---

Page 81

Hallett, J. (1992). LCD Projection Panel Selection Guide. Fairfax, Va.: International

Communications Industries Association.

Hawkins, Otha. (1996). Leadership, Quality and Education: Managing Change in the

Workplace. Final Project: North Carolina State University, 1996.

Hazen, M. and Parker, A. (1989). "The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:

Instructional Computing." In Graves, W. H. (ed.) Computing across the Curriculum:

Academic Perspectives. McKinney, Tex.: EDUCOM/Academic Computing Publications.

Hooper, S. and Rieber, L. (1989). “Teaching with Technology” in Allan.C. Ornstein

(Ed.), Teaching: Theory into Practice. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.

“The Idaho Technology Initiative: An Accountability Report to the Idaho Legislature.”

(1999). http://www.pte.state.id.us/document/public.htm

Jafari, A. (1992). "Issues in Multimedia." Technology and Teacher Education, Annual

1992 issue, Society for Technology and Teacher Education, 289-294.

Koschmann, Timothy D. (1996). CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm.

Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Laurillard, Diana. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: a Framework for the Effective

Use of Educational Technology. London: Routledge.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.

Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Link-to-Learn Initiative. http://www.l2l.org/index.html or

http://www.sis.pitt.edu/ltolearn/

Mann, Dale, et al. (March, 1999). “West Virginia Story: Achievement gains from a

statewide comprehensive instructional technology program.”

http://access.k12.wv.us/bsce/march23.htm

Market Data Retrieval: Technology in Education 1999 (Research Report).

http://www.schooldata.com/publications.html#tech99

Means, Barbara and Olson, Kerry. (1995). Technology and Education Reform. Vol. 1:

Findings and Conclusions. Studies of Education Reform. Menlo Park, CA: SRI

International.

“Milken Exchange Public Opinion Survey 1998.”

http://www.milkenexchange.org/project/poll/ME162_98.pdf

---

Page 82

Moldstad, J. "Facilities Design Factors for Effective Media Utilization." (Unpublished.)

Pennell, Russell. (1996). Managing On-Line Learning. Center for Interactive Multimedia

in Teaching, University of Western Sydeny Nepean, Kingwood, NSW. AUSWEB99

http://elmo.scu.edu.au/sponsored/ausweb/ausweb96/educn/pennell/paper.html

The Pennsylvania Technology Atlas http://www.technology.state.pa.us/atlas/Pa

Rieber, L and Welliver, P. (1989). “Infusing educational Technology into Mainstream

Educational Computing,” International Journal of Instructional Media, 16(1), pp. 21-32.

Ripp, D. (1990). "Face to Face: Video Projector Shoot-Out." AV Video, 12, no. 4, 53-65.

Roberts, Nancy. Stages of Innovation: Integrating Technology into the Classroom.

http://www.cel/mcgill.ca/inst9596/Tech/

Sandholtz, Judith, Ringstaff, Cathy, and Dwyer, David C. (1997). Teaching with

Technology: Creating Student-Centered Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sheingold K., and Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished Teachers: Integrating Computers

into Classroom Practice. New York: Bank Street College of Education, Center for

Technology in Education.

Smith, C. and McGahan, M. (1988). "Byte-ing into Video." AV Video, 10, no. 6, 44-50.

Solomon, Lewis C. (1999). “Progress of Technology in the Schools: Report on 21

States.” Milken Family Foundation. Santa Monica, CA www.milkenexchange.org

Tally, B. (Sept., 1996). “History goes digital: Teaching when the Web is in the

classroom.” D-Lib Magazine (special issue on digital libraries and education).

http://www.dlib.org/maga-zine.html

Timmons, Vianne, et al. (Sept., 1997) “Integration of Technology into the Secondary

School Curriculum.” http://www.stfx.ca/people/xliu/finalrp4.html

U.S. Congress Office, Office of Technology Assessment (1995). Teachers and

Technology: Making the Connection, OTA-HER-616 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, April, 1995) http://www.ota.nap.edu/pdf/1995idx.html

West Virginia Department of Education: Independent Study of BS/CE Program. (March,

1999). http://access.k12.wv.us/bsce/march23.htm

Wyld, Seryn. (1996). “Success Models for Integration of the WWW in Primary

Education,” Faculty of Education, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.

http://www.elmo.scu.edu.au/sponsored/ausweb/ausweb96/educn/wyld

---

Page 83

Wyld, Seryn and Eklund, John. (1997). “A case study of communication technology

within the elementary school.” Australian Journal of Educational Technology 13.2, 144-

164. http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/ajet/ajet13/su97pl44.html

Xiufeng, Liu, Macmillan, Robert, and Timmons, Vianne. (1 Nov. 1997) “Assessing the

Impact of Computer Integration on Students.” Seventh Conference of Atlantic Educators

http://iago.stfx.ca/people/xliu/cae.html

---

Page 84

Appendix A

Teacher Survey Instrument

---

Page 85

Link-to-Learn

Technology Utilization and Impact in the Classroom

1999

Date __________________

District Name ___________________________________________________

School Name ____________________________________________________

School ID Code __________

Grade(s) Taught_________

Teacher Name __________________________________________________

A. Teacher Information:

1. Technology training received—

___________ Date of latest training (year)

Type of training –

___ Internet

___ Web page design

___ Programming languages (other than HTML)

___ Computer-based instruction

___ Computer supported cooperative learning (CSCL)

___ Other, specify type

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

2. Level of training received (Check highest level of training received.)

___ Beginner

___ Intermediate

___ Advanced

3. Describe your use of technology

Use Of Word processing for _________________________________________

Use Of Spreadsheet for _________________________________________

---

Page 86

Use Of Data base management system (DBMS) for

______________________________________

Use Of Email for ______________________________________

Use Of WWW for ______________________________________

Use Of Video Conference for _____________________________

Use Of Html for _______________________________________

Use Of Graphics Software for _____________________________

Use Of Programming Language for ________________________

Use Of Electronic Bulletin Board for ________________________

Other: ________________________________________________

4. Years of technology use: None / Less than 1 year / 1-3 years / 4+ years (Circle

choice.)

5. _______ How much time do you spend each day using technology in your

classroom? (minutes)

6. _____ Estimate the percentage of your lesson plans in a given week that

integrate (computer) technology

7. ________ How much time each day are students expected to use technology?

(minutes)

8. Do you have a computer at home? Y / N If yes, please complete the following

items—

Type and configuration (e.g. Pentium with Windows 95) _______________________

Internet connection? Y / N If yes, indicate type (e.g. individual modem, cable

modem) _____________________ and speed (e.g. 28.8kbps) ___________

Home use of computer (Please check all that apply.)

____ Entertainment

____ Shopping/Buying

____ Information Seeking

____ Problem Solving

____ Learning

____ Lesson Planning

____ Email

---

Page 87

9. Indicate your enthusiasm for using technology.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

No

Enthusiasm

Some

Enthusiasm

Very

Enthusiastic

10. How has technology changed the teaching process in your classroom?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all

Somewhat

Totally

changed it

11. How has technology changed the learning process in your classroom?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all

Somewhat

Totally

changed it

B. Classroom Environment (Student Information):

1. ______ Total number of students in the class

2. ______ Total number of male students in the class

3. _____ Average age in the class

4. _____ Average student grade in the class

5. How much time, on average, do students use computers inside classroom?

____ 0 minutes per day

____ 1 to 30 minutes per day

____ 31 to 60 minutes per day

____ over 60 minutes per day

6. How much time, on average, do students use computers outside the classroom

but in the school?

____ 0 minutes per day

____ 1 to 30 minutes per day

____ 31 to 60 minutes per day

____ over 60 minutes per day

---

Page 88

7. Estimate the percentage of time computers are used by students for the following

activities (at school or home)

____ simulation

____ modeling

____ practice exercises

____ group learning

____ problem solving

____ research (information seeking)

____ experimentation

____ games

8. ________Number of students with computers at home

9. Average time using computers by students outside of school?

_____ 0 minutes per day

_____ 1 to 30 minutes per day

_____ 31 to 60 minutes per day

_____ over 60 minutes per day

10. How do students with computers at home use them? (Please provide number of

students.)

_____ Entertainment

_____ Information seeking

_____ Shopping/buying

_____ Homework

11. ________ Student home computers with an Internet connection (Please indicate

the number of students.)

_______ Number with modem speed <= 28.8kbps

_______ Number with modem speed > 28.8kbps

12. ______ Percentage of parents who are professionals (e.g. engineers, teachers,

lawyers, doctors)

---

Page 89

13. Room Layout (Please indicate the locations of the following items on the room

layout floor plan provided below. Identify items using the codes listed next to

each item. Also, indicate the location of other relevant items, e.g. doors (D),

windows (W), front of the room (F).)

§ Location of technology devices

§ Computers (C) ________Count

§ TVs (TV)

§ Video conference equipment (VCE)

§ Printers (Pr) ________Count

§ Plotters (Pl)

§ Modems (M) ________Count

§ Location of telephone jacks (TJ)

§ Location of LAN connection (LC)

§ Location of writing boards (WB)

§ Location of projection screens (PS)

§ Location of work surfaces (tables) (WS)

Room Layout Floor Plan—

---

Page 90

C. General Comments:

1. What is the motivation for using technology?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

2. What have been the benefits of technology for this class?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

3. What are the difficulties/barriers/shortcomings of using technology?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

4. If you could acquire more technology what would it be?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

5. If you acquired more technology how would you use it?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

6. Additional Comments—

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

---

Page 91

Appendix B

Principal Survey Instrument

---

Page 92

Link-to-Learn

Technology Utilization and Impact in the Classroom

1999

Date __________________

District Name ___________________________________________________

School Name ____________________________________________________

School ID Code __________

Principal Name __________________________________________________

A. Documentation to be collected. Please indicate all items that are available and

attached.

_____ Technology plan

_____ Annual Report (if available)

_____ Vita/Resume of principal

_____ Vita/Resume of teacher for room visited

B. General School Information:

1. _______ Total number of students

_______ Number of male students

_______ Number of female students

2. Which curriculum areas use technology the most in the building? (Check all

that apply.)

____ English / language arts

____ World languages

____ Mathematics

____ Sciences

____ Social studies

---

Page 93

____ Fine arts

____ Other, please specify _______________________________________

3. Technology use by Administration (Please check all that apply.)

____ Clerical functions

____ Scheduling

____ Budgeting

____ Financial transactions

____ Communications

____ Reporting

____ Other (please specify) ________________________________________

4. Technology support for classroom teacher (Please check all that apply.)

____ Instruction

____ Classroom management (e.g. grading, attendance, etc.)

____ Other (please specify) __________________________________________

5. Indicate the percentage of teachers with advanced (10 or more hours) of training

in the following areas

____ Internet

____ Web page design

____ Programming languages (other than HTML)

____ Computer-based instruction

____ Computer supported cooperative learning (CSCL)

C. Computer Use at School:

1. Where are the computers located in the building? (Check all that apply.)

____ Classrooms

____ Computer labs

____ Library / media center

____ Administrative offices

____ Other location(s), please specify _____________________________________

2. Are there technology courses in the curriculum? Y / N If yes, indicate the level(s)

of the course(s).

____ Concept level (theory)

____ Beginner skill level

____ Intermediate skill level

____ Advanced skill level

3. Who is the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for the school? (Indicate your

answer.)

____ Phone company

____ Cable company

____ Private ISP

---

Page 94

4. What school functions are automated? (Please check all that apply.)

____ Attendance

____ Enrollment

____ Inventory

____ Payroll

____ Purchasing

____ Receivables

____ Payables

____ General Ledger

____ Reporting To PDE

____ Others (please specify)

________________________________________________

5. What school hardware, software and networking facilities were acquired with

Link-To-Learn money?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

6. What professional development activities were funded with Link-To-Learn

money?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

7. $___________________ Total school budget

8. $___________________ Total school budget for professional development

9. _______ % of school budget for technology

---

Page 95

D. School Principal Information:

1. How important is technology?

§ Administratively

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not

important

Somewhat

important

Extremely

important

§ For instruction

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not

important

Somewhat

important

Extremely

important

§ For community building

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not

important

Somewhat

important

Extremely

important

2. How do you budget for technology? (Please check all that apply.)

____ Ad hoc

____ Based on the technology plan

____ Replacement cycle

3. Do you use technology in school? Y / N At home? Y / N

4. Do you use Email in school? Y / N At home? Y / N

---

Page 96

5. How has technology changed the teaching process?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all

Somewhat

Totally

changed it

Reasons for change:

6. How has technology changed the learning process?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all

Somewhat

Totally

changed it

Reasons for change:

7. ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

8. How has technology changed the management/administrative process?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all

Somewhat

Totally

changed it

Reasons for change:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

---

Page 97

9. What is the motivation for using technology?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

10. What have been the benefits of technology for this school?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

11. What are the difficulties/barriers/shortcomings of using technology?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

12. If you could acquire more technology what would it be?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

13. Additional comments—

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

---

Page 98

Appendix C

Observer Instrument

---

Page 99

Link-to-Learn

Technology Utilization and Impact in the Classroom

1999

Date __________________

District Name ___________________________________________________

School Name ____________________________________________________

School ID Code __________

Grade Visited _________

Field Researcher ______________________________________________

A. School Environment:

1. Condition of building (Please note response on the scale provided.)

§ Outside

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Poor

Adequate

Excellent

§ Inside

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Poor

Adequate

Excellent

2. Condition of classroom (Please note response on the scale provided.)

§ Lighting

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

---

Page 100

Poor

Adequate

Excellent

§ Temperature

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Poor

Adequate

Excellent

§ Wiring

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Poor

Adequate

Excellent

§ Walls and floors

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Poor

Adequate

Excellent

§ Writing boards

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Poor

Adequate

Excellent

§ Seats

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Poor

Adequate

Excellent

§ Tables

---

Page 101

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Poor

Adequate

Excellent

§ Screens

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Poor

Adequate

Excellent

§ Other (please specify) _______________________________

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Poor

Adequate

Excellent

B. Class Observed:

1. ________________________Class (e.g. math, social studies)

2. ________________________Subject being taught (e.g. volcanoes)

3. ____________Length of lesson (minutes)

4. Lesson plan (Indicate times in minutes.)

_______ Lecture time

_______ Recitation time

_______ Individual project time

_______ Group project time

_______ Time using technology

5. Homework assigned? Y / N If yes, please complete items below.

Amount of time technology use required for assignment?

_______ At home

_______ In classroom

_______ In labs

_______ In library

6. How much time did students spend using computers during class?

_____ 0 minutes per day

_____ 1 to 15 minutes

_____ 16 to 30 minutes

_____ over 30 minutes

7. How much time did students spend using computers outside the classroom but in

the school?

---

Page 102

_____0 minutes per day

_____1 to 30 minutes per day

_____31 to 60 minutes per day

_____over 60 minutes per day

8. In textbook or lab book—

Y / N Technology mentioned

Y / N Technology use illustrated

Y / N Detailed explanation of technology use

Y / N Software packages suggested for use

9. During the class, what technology was used? (Estimate the percentage of time

the following items were used, e.g. 20%.)

______ Writing boards

______ Overheads

______ Film

______ Posters/paper displays

______ Video conference

______ Standalone computer

______ LAN based resources

______ District WAN based resources

______ Internet/WWW resources

______ Other, specify _____________________________________

10. What software was actually used in the class? (Check all items that apply.)

____Word processing

____Spreadsheet

____Database Management System (DBMS)

____Graphics

____WWW Browser

____Special Application For Subject

____Email

____Electronic Bulletin Board

____IP Audio (Voice over Internet)

____IP Video (Video over Internet)

____Curriculum Specific Software Please identify software:

__________________________________________________

11. How was the use of technology introduced for the lesson? (Indicate your

response.)

____ As an integrated but essential tool

____ As a separate but essential tool

____ As a separate but not essential tool

____ As an integrated but not essential tool

____ Barely mentioned

____ Not mentioned at all

---

Page 103

12. Was the primary emphasis of the lesson on— (Please indicate your response(s)

with an estimate of the percentage of lesson time, e.g. 25%.)

_______ the technology

_______ the content

_______ the process

13. How well does the teacher respond to the technology?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all

Moderately

Extremely

well

14. How well do the students respond to the technology?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all

Moderately

Extremely

well

15. What is the nature of the student-teacher interaction?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

No

interaction

Limited

interaction

Highly

interactive

16. Is the technology primarily used for – (Please indicate your choice(es) by

estimating the percentage of lesson time technology was used, e.g. 10%. )

______ drill/practice

______ problem-solving

______ information seeking

______ experimentation

______ simulation

______ group activities

______ entertainment

---

Page 104

17. How well did students like using technology?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all

Moderately

Extremely

well

18. How well does the teacher like using the technology?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all

Moderately

Extremely

well

19. Was the class well behaved?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all

Moderately

Extremely

well

20. Y / N Were the class activities observed part of the lesson plan?

21. Was the use of technology observed staged ____ or part of curriculum _____?

(Indicate response.)

22. Where was the emphasis with technology? (Please indicate your response by

estimating the percentage of lesson time devoted to the specific use of technology,

e.g. 15%.)

______ mechanical aspects

______ terminology

______ conceptual (theory)

______ application to problem or task

______ experimentation

C. Classroom Environment:

---

Page 105

1. ______ Total number of students in the class

2. ______ Total number of male students in the class

3. Classroom designed (check all that apply)

____ For technology

____ Retrofitted for technology

____ No changes to accommodate technology

4. Room Layout (Please indicate the locations of the following items on the room

layout floor plan provided below. Identify items using the codes listed next to

each item. Also, indicate the location of other relevant items, e.g. doors (D),

windows (W), front of the room (F).)

§ Location of technology devices

§ Computers (C) Count ________

§ TVs (TV)

§ Video conference equipment (VCE)

§ Printers (Pr) Count ________

§ Plotters (Pl)

§ Modems (M) Count ________

§ Location of telephone jacks (TJ)

§ Location of LAN connection (LC)

§ Location of writing boards (WB)

§ Location of projection screens (PS)

§ Location of work surfaces (tables) (WS)

Room Layout Floor Plan—

---

Page 106

5. Additional comments

---

Page 107

Appendix D

Observers Guidebook

---

Page 108

Technology Assessment Instrument

Observer Survey

Instructions

Complete all the identification information requested in the header section. This

information is needed to uniquely identify each school’s information.

A. School Environment:

The School Environment section contains ratings scales designed to assess various

aspects of the building and classroom surroundings. The table below provides

examples for these rating scales. Examples are given for rating scale extremes—

ratings 1 and 7—as well as for the middle rating (4). These examples are presented

as a guide for evaluating school environment factors. There are factors besides those

used for these examples which can influence your ratings.

Rating Item

Examples ratings

1. Condition of the building

Outside

1—broken windows, trash on building

property, structural damage (including

graffiti); entrance not clearly marked

4—relatively free of trash, building not

structurally unsound, entrance well

marked

7—very clean, no structural damage

apparent, entrance well marked, no

broken windows or graffiti

Inside

1—unclean halls, noisy, dirty windows

4—halls not dirty, low noise level,

windows clean

7—very clean floors in halls, very little

distraction due to noise, windows treated

to reduce glare

---

Page 109

2. Condition of the classroom

Lighting

1—inadequate lighting or too harsh,

4—lighting appropriate for school

activities (e.g. reading)

7—all lighting in working order, special

lighting for various learning

environments

Temperature

1—too hot or too cold

4—temperature comfortable

7—climate control adjusted for various

room environments (e.g. cooler for rooms

where large number of students seated)

Wiring

1—limited outlets, tangled extension

cords, exposed wires

4—adequate outlets for equipment,

limited use of extension cords

7—ample number of outlets, electrical

cords hidden

Walls and floors

1—dirty and/or cluttered floors, pealing

and/badly chipped paint

4—clean walls, paint in good repair,

limited floor clutter

7—very clean walls, freshly painted

walls, waxed floors

Writing boards

1—unable to be completely erased,

damaged, inaccessible

4—clean surface, limited damage, easily

viewed

---

Page 110

7—very clean, no surface damage, placed

for optimal viewing

Seats

1—broken, poor back support, poorly

arranged for learning environment

4—seating in good repair, with proper

back support, arranged for learning

environment

7—no damage, good support, able to be

easily (re-)arranged as needed

Tables

1— inadequate writing surface,

4—adequate writing surfaces

7—large writing surfaces available for

each student

Screens

1—torn or damaged surface, poor

viewing location, unable to be adjusted

4—good condition, able to be viewed,

adjustable

7—no damage, easily viewed from

various locations in the room, adjustable

B. Class Observed:

There are two basic types of items under the Class Observed section—items that

require providing or checking a response and rating scales. Items that require

providing an answer or checking a response have brief instructions indicating how

and what information to provide. If you do not know an exact number or percentage,

please give an estimate. The table below provides examples to assist you in

answering the items with rating scales. Examples are given for rating scale

extremes—ratings 1 and 7—as well as for the middle rating (4). There are factors

other than those presented in the examples that can influence your ratings.

---

Page 111

Rating Item

Examples ratings

Class Observation Ratings

13. Teacher’s response to technology

1—teacher uncomfortable with

technology, ignores technology, refers

disparagingly about technology

4—teacher comfortable with technology,

incorporates technology into lesson with

little difficulty, does not refer negatively

to technology

7—teacher adept using technology, use

of technology in no way distracts from

lesson, refers positively to technology

14. Students’ response to technology

1—students uncomfortable with

technology, ignore technology, refer

disparagingly to technology

4—students comfortable with technology,

willing to use technology as required by

lesson, do not refer negatively to

technology

7—students adept at using technology,

eager to use technology as required by

lesson as well as additional activities,

refer positively to technology

15. Student-teacher interaction

1—teacher lectures with minimal input

from students

4—student responses limited to

answering teacher questions and asking

questions

7—teacher and students engage in

discussion about lesson material

17. How well students like using

technology

1—students avoided using technology if

at all possible

---

Page 112

4—students willing to use technology as

prescribed by lesson

7—students eager to use technology for

lesson study and additional activities

18. How well teacher likes using

technology

1—teacher avoided using technology as

much as possible

4—teacher willing to use technology to

support lesson

7—teacher eager to use technology for

the lesson as well as activities beyond

the scope of the lesson

19. Behavior of class

1—class disruptive, inattentive, unruly

4—class well behaved, requires minimal

correction from teacher, attentive

7—class very well behaved, no correction

required during lesson, attentive and

active participants

C. Classroom Environment:

The Classroom Environment section contains two types of items: questions that

require you to provide a response and an item for which you need to indicate the

locations of technology devices in the classroom. For both item types, instructions

are provided next to the items. Provide an estimate if you cannot give an exact

answer. More detailed instructions for the room layout are presented below.

For the room layout item, indicate the locations of the pertinent technology devices

located in the classroom on the floor plan provided. Several devices and their

abbreviations are listed for the room layout item. When indicating the location of a

device, use the abbreviation. If you need to denote a device or other information that

is not included on the list, indicate the device name and the abbreviation used. Also,

indicate the number of computers, printers, and modems that are located in the

classroom. There is space provided next to the device abbreviation for this

information.

---

Page 113

The final item of the survey is an opportunity to record any additional comments you

may have. If additional pages are needed to record your comments, attach these

pages to the survey.