Section One: National Scan
For many years, the educational community has recognized the potential of computing and information technologies to support effective and innovative instructional practices. For example, remote scientific instrumentation, authentic audiences for student work, current information on relevant topics, and hosts of new software tools should enable teachers and students to pursue inquiry, knowledge construction, communication, and expression in new and more meaningful ways (Bruce & Levin, 2003; Bruce & Levin, 1997). Such technology-supported practices not only promise to strengthen motivation to learn, transfer of knowledge, and understanding of content, but they also allow students to acquire new literacy skills necessary for work, life, and responsible citizenry in the 21st century (Lemke, 2002; NETS Project, 2000; Secretary’s Commission on Necessary Skills, 1991).
Educators have warned, however, that technology’s potential will only be realized under very specific conditions. Researchers have established that “the success or failure of technology is more dependent on human and contextual factors than on hardware or software” (Valdez et al., 2000). According to a synthesis of several national frameworks (enGauge, 2000; Lemke & Coughlin, 1998; Porter, 2002) technology programs most likely to improve student learning will require:
Figure 1: Essential Conditions for Success
¨
Effective
instructional use;
¨ Effective administrative use;
¨ Adequate access to technology;
¨ Educators who are proficient in technology integration;
¨ Wide-spread commitment to a common vision;
¨ Adequate system support for technology; and
¨ Equitable access to high-quality technology programs for all students, parents, and educators.
This national scan will define each of these critical conditions and document national progress in each category.
Effective Instructional Technology Use
Ongoing research continues to suggest that
technology-enhanced learning can and does improve student achievement of
learning goals ranging from the basics to higher-order thinking (Center for
Applied Research in Educational Technology, 2003; Valdez et al., 2000;
Wenglinsky, 2002).
However, to achieve
these positive results, the technology must be implemented effectively — and
defining “effectively” currently comprises a center of activity in the field of
educational technology today. As research agendas have evolved over the last
decade, scholars have rejected simplistic questions such as “Does technology
improve student achievement?” and turned toward questions such as “What
conditions need to be in place in order for technology to improve student
learning?” and “What types of technologies are most effective in which
situations and for what types of results?” (Dickard, Honey, & Wilhem,
2003). While ongoing research around such questions constantly yields new
understanding, current evidence suggests that, for technology use to be
effective, it must be:
¨
Aligned to
learning standards;
¨
Integral to the
instructional process;
¨
Frequent enough
to make an impact on learning;
¨
Appropriate for
the types of cognitive skills that students are expected to acquire; and
¨
Embedded in
instructional strategies matched to the desired learning goal.
First, improving student achievement is extremely dependent on aligning
instructional tools and strategies to local, state, and national curriculum
standards (Valdez et al., 2000). If instruction and the use of technology are
not focused on achieving specific learning standards, the likelihood of
achieving measurable impact on student achievement is low.
Second, effective instructional technology use is integrated into
students’ mainstream learning activities and not viewed as an “add-on.”
Technology use associated only with play, reward, remediation, or enrichment
tends to remain peripheral to the learning process and does not necessarily
affect all students (Moersch, 2001). Effective technology use is seamless and
transparent. It is naturally intertwined into daily activity much in the same way
technology is embedded into daily work or personal tasks for adults. Truly
integrated technology also moves beyond teacher-only use and allows students to
assume user roles, as well. When teachers use technology, they can certainly
extend the resources available to the students for learning and enhance their
own presentation of material. However, students also need hands-on access in
order to develop the information literacy and the critical thinking skills
associated with effective instructional technology use (NETS Project, 2000).
Third, student technology use must be frequent enough to play a
significant role in the learning process. While it is impractical and
unproductive to establish frequency thresholds that define effective or
ineffective use or to examine frequency in isolation from other variables, it
is still important to consider how often students use technology for learning.
For example, technology that is used only once or twice a year is unlikely to
have a significant impact on achievement (Becker, Ravitz, & Wong, 1999).
Finally, student technology use and the
instructional context in which it is deployed must be appropriate for the type
of cognitive skill that students are expected to acquire (Jacobson & Spiro,
1995). In other words, research has illustrated that some technology tools and
instructional approaches are more effective in yielding specific types of
results. As a result of this research, educators now have more ways to talk
about different types of technology and to consider which technological tools
and instructional approaches are more appropriate for achieving desired
learning outcomes.
The following chart from North Central
Educational Laboratory’s enGauge project attempts to summarize some of these
key findings surrounding effective deployment of instructional technology use
in classrooms (enGauge, 2000).
Figure 2: Range of Use Chart, NCREL’s
enGauge Framework
The Y-axis describes the uses of technology best suited to supporting various levels of thinking skills as represented in Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia’s Taxonomy (1984, pp. xv-xix). In this taxonomy, thinking skills are represented from the simple to the complex as follows: (1) Knowledge; (2) Comprehension; (3) Application; (4) Synthesis; (5) Analysis; and (6) Evaluation.
As represented in the chart, researchers have found most drill and practice and integrated learning systems target basic skill acquisition, while a range of other technology tools are better able to support higher-level thinking and problem solving.
Of course, the instructional approaches into which these tools are embedded are also important factors in the learning process, as well. The X-axis illustrates how certain pedagogies create the most fruitful context for certain technology tools and thinking skills. Didactic pedagogies are characterized by lecture and use of tools (texts, software, etc.) that transmit information to students. According to the enGauge framework students in didactic situations “receive, take in, and respond.” Students in more constructive instructional settings have higher levels of engagement and experience with content, and they make more decisions about their learning. In these environments, students “construct, examine, and evaluate meaning” instead of passively receiving it.
Currently, researchers advocate constructivist practices over predominantly didactic models. This preference is supported by research indicating that when basic skills are taught via constructivist approaches, students:
¨ Retain knowledge better;
¨ Transfer concepts flexibly across situations; and
¨ Exhibit a deeper understanding of content.
Constructivist methods are also touted for their ability to encourage the student acquisition of higher-order thinking and problem solving skills and to boost motivation and interest in learning.
As represented in the enGauge chart, productivity tools, expression/visualization software, online communication and multimedia tools, simulations, online research, and problem solving with real data sets are thought to have the strongest potential for supporting constructivist approaches.
The Z-axis is designed to identify technology applications that might be the best springboards to real-world contexts for learning. Research findings have consistently indicated that learning improves when students use inquiry to solve real problems and to create knowledge that is valued by persons or communities outside the school environment (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Newmann, 1996; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995). These instructional features seem to be especially important for at-risk students. Information technology infrastructure and tools which allow students to connect to the outside world and construction tools that allow them to prepare products for publication for others are among those most important for supporting authentic learning. In fact, such technologies may actually enable new learning opportunities that would have been very difficult or impossible to achieve without them.
As the chart illustrates, all types of technology use and instructional modes can be effective in achieving learning goals. Therefore, many researchers, such as Valdez et al. (2000) recommend that schools “maximize” the effectiveness of their investments in technology by using it often, and in “a spectrum of ways” (p. 6).
Yet, recent data collections indicate that the frequency and range of use in America’s schools likely falls far below desired goals. For example, according to results from nationally-validated Level of Technology Use surveys (Moersch, 2001), 71 percent of teachers fall in Levels 0-2 of Technology Use (Table 1). The practices of the largest group of teachers, nearly 30 percent, are best described as Level 2, Exploration. Students in these teachers’ classrooms do use technology for the purposes of learning. However, the technology-based activities are usually peripheral to daily activities, often as supplemental remediation, reward, or enrichment activities, and the focus of learning is on lower level cognitive skills, such as knowledge or comprehension. An additional 41 percent of teachers’ practices are best characterized as Level 0, Non-use, or Level 1, Awareness. At these levels, teachers may use technology to complete their work, but students either do not use technology for instruction (Level 0) or use it in labs or pull-out programs where an adult other than the teacher takes primary responsibility for instruction (Level 1).
Study results also indicate that less than ten percent of teachers nationally are performing at Level 4B or above—the levels which begin to align with constructive practices, higher-order thinking, and authentic learning experiences as represented on NCREL’s Range of Use chart (enGauge, 2000).
Table 1
Level of Technology Integration Levels in
the Nation
Such findings highlight the need to encourage instructional technology use in the context of authentic, student-centered learning environments that promote critical thinking and problem-solving. Since national learning standards, workforce needs, and standardized assessments are increasingly focused on higher-order thinking, it would seem reasonable that predominant pedagogical strategies and technology use patterns should be appropriately aligned.
To accomplish these goals, a variety of constructivist learning models, including those with strong authentic learning components, may be extremely useful to educators. These approaches include, but are certainly not limited to, student-centered learning, collaborative learning, reality-based learning, authentic instruction, anchored instruction, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, and problem-based learning.
The Engaged Learning model,
found in Plugging In by Jones, Valdez, Norakowski, and Rasmussen (1995),
may be of special interest to educators interested in technology implementation
(see Table 2). These indicators provide a thorough overview of the
instructional strategies most appropriate for technology use targeted toward
higher-order thinking and problem solving.
Table
2
Levels of Technology Implementation
|
Level of Technology Implementation
Framework |
|
|
Level: |
Description: |
|
0 – Non-use |
Technology is not used for instructional purposes. |
|
1 – Awareness |
The
use of technology-based tools is either (1) one step removed from the
classroom teacher (e.g., integrated learning system labs, special
computer-based pull-out programs, computer literacy classes, central word
processing labs), (2) used almost exclusively by the classroom teacher for
classroom and/or curriculum management tasks (e.g., taking attendance, using
grade book programs, accessing e-mail, retrieving lesson plans from a
curriculum management system or the Internet) and/or (3) used to embellish or
enhance teacher-directed lessons or lectures (e.g., multimedia
presentations). |
|
2-Exploration |
Technology-based
tools supplement the existing instruction at the knowledge/comprehension
level. The electronic technology is employed either as extension activities,
enrichment exercises, or technology-based tools and generally reinforces
lower cognitive skill development relating to the content under
investigation. |
|
3 - Infusion |
Technology-based, complement-selected
instructional events at the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels.
Though the learning activity may or may not be perceived as authentic by the
student, emphasis is, nonetheless, placed on higher levels of cognitive
processing and in-depth treatment of the content using a variety of thinking
skill strategies (e.g., problem-solving, decision-making, reflective
thinking, experimentation, scientific inquiry). |
|
4A – Integration
(mechanical) |
Technology-based tools are integrated in a
mechanical manner that provides rich context for students' understanding of
the pertinent concepts, themes, and processes. Heavy reliance is placed on
prepackaged materials and/or outside resources (e.g., assistance from other
colleagues), and/or interventions (e.g., professional development workshops)
that aid the teacher in the daily management of their operational curriculum.
Technology is perceived as a tool to identify and solve authentic problems as
perceived by the students relating to an overall theme/concept. Emphasis is
placed on student action and on issues resolution that require higher levels
of student cognitive processing and in-depth examination of the content. |
|
4B – Integration (Routine) |
Technology-based tools are integrated in a
routine manner that provides rich context for students' understanding of the
pertinent concepts, themes, and processes. At this level, teachers can
readily design and implement learning experiences that empower students to
identify and solve authentic problems relating to an overall theme/concept
using the available technology with little or no outside assistance. Emphasis
is again placed on student action and on issues resolution that require higher
levels of student cognitive processing and in-depth examination of the
content. |
|
5 - Expansion |
Technology access is extended beyond the
classroom. Classroom teachers actively elicit technology applications and
networking from other schools, business enterprises, governmental agencies
(e.g., contacting NASA to establish a link to an orbiting space shuttle via
Internet), research institutions, and universities to expand student
experiences directed at problem-solving, issues resolution, and student activism
surrounding a major theme/concept. The complexity and sophistication of the
technology-based tools used in the learning environment are now commensurate
with (1) the diversity, inventiveness, and spontaneity of the teacher's
experiential-based approach to teaching and learning and (2) the students'
level of complex thinking (e.g., analysis, synthesis, evaluation) and
in-depth understanding of the content experienced in the classroom. |
|
6 - Refinement |
Technology is perceived as a process,
product (e.g., invention, patent, new software design), and/or tool for
students to find solutions related to a "real-world" problem or
issue of significance to them. At this level, there is no longer a division
between instruction and technology use in the classroom. Technology provides
a seamless medium for information queries, problem-solving, and/or product
development. Students have ready access to and a complete understanding of a
vast array of technology-based tools to accomplish any particular task at
school. The instructional curriculum is entirely learner-based. The content
emerges based on the needs of the learner according to his/her interests,
needs, and/or aspirations and is supported by unlimited access to the most
current computer applications and infrastructure available. |
Table 3
Indicators of
Engaged Learning
|
Variable |
Indicator |
Indicator Definition |
|
Vision of Learning |
Responsible for learning Strategic Energized by learning Collaborative |
Learner involved in setting
goals, choosing tasks, developing assessments and standards for the tasks;
has big picture of learning and next steps in mind; Learner actively develops
repertoire of thinking/learning strategies; Learner is not dependent on
rewards from others; has a passion for learning; Learner develops new ideas
and understanding in conversations and work with others. |
|
Tasks |
Authentic Challenging Multidisciplinary |
Pertains to real world, may be addressed to personal
interest; Difficult enough to be interesting but not totally
frustrating, usually sustained; Involves integrating disciplines to solve
problems and address issues. |
|
Assessment |
Performance-based Generative Seamless and ongoing Equitable |
Involving a performance or demonstration, usually for
a real audience and useful purpose; Assessments having meaning for learner,
maybe produce information, product, service; Assessment is part of
instruction and vice versa, students learn during assessment; Assessment is
culture fair. |
|
Instructional Model |
Interactive Generative |
Teacher or technology program responsive to student
needs, requests (e.g., menu driven); Instruction oriented to constructing
meaning, providing meaningful activities/experiences. |
|
Learning Context |
Collaborative Knowledge-building Empathetic |
Instruction conceptualizes students as part of
learning community; activities are collaborative; Learning experiences set up
to bring multiple perspectives to solve problems such that each perspective
contributes to shared understanding for all, goes beyond brainstorming;
Learning environment and experiences set up for valuing diversity, multiple
perspectives, strengths. |
|
Grouping |
Heterogeneous Equitable Flexible |
Small groups with persons from different ability
levels and backgrounds; Small groups organized so that over time all students
have challenging tasks/experiences; Different groups organized for different
instructional purposes so each person is a member of different work groups,
works with different people. |
|
Teacher Roles |
Facilitator Guide Co-learner/co-investigator |
Engages in negotiation, stimulates and monitors
discussion and project work but does not control; Helps students to construct
their own meaning by modeling, mediating, explaining when needed, redirecting
focus, providing options; Teacher considers self as learner, willing to take
risks to explore areas outside his or her expertise, collaborates with other
teachers and practicing professionals. |
|
Student Roles |
Explorer Cognitive Apprentice Teacher Producer |
Students have opportunities to explore new
ideas/tools, push the envelope in ideas and research; Learning is situated in
relationship with mentor who coaches students to develop ideas and skills
that simulate the role of practicing professionals (i.e., engage in real
research); Students encouraged to teach others in formal and informal
contexts; Students develop products of real use to themselves and others. |
Effective
Administrative Uses
It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between instructional and administrative technology use—especially when administrative applications for technology are evolving so rapidly. However, for the purposes of this plan, administrative applications are defined by their focus on managing assessment information and the business operations of a school system. Most often, these administrative applications are made available at the school system level and have many users. Primary users of administrative technologies include administrative/clerical staff and teachers. School board members, parents, and other decision-making stakeholders in the system are especially interested in the types of reports these administrative technologies yield. Students use administrative technologies much less frequently, if at all. Examples of administrative technologies traditionally include:
¨ Grading software that teachers use to keep their own administrative records of student achievement;
¨ Student information systems; and
¨ Financial software.
However, there is rapid development and dissemination in the fields in the following areas as well:
¨ “Accountability” systems that allow educators to analyze data in new ways. Hallmark characteristics of these accountability systems include the ability to: (1) “warehouse” data over time instead of having volumes of isolated data from year to year; (2) disaggregate data at multiple levels and to compare data easily across subgroups and across time; (3) generate visualizations of this data in forms of charts, graphs, and tables; and (4) find trends and patterns (often referred to as “data mining”) that would be very difficult to find via traditional analyses;
¨ Online standardized testing programs that greatly reduce the time frame between when students take the test and when results are made available; and
¨ Adaptive testing systems that adjust the difficulty level of the test items according to the students’ performance as they answer questions.
For example, over the past several years, the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST)[2] has envisioned, developed, and evaluated a suite of assessment tools known as the Quality School Portfolio (http://qsp.cse.ucla.edu/). In January 2003, CRESST rolled out training and a full-functioning version of the software to school systems in 11 states. In April 2003, they began a second phase of implementation bringing the total number of school systems using the product/processes to over 1000 schools in 80 school systems located in all 50 states.
There is similar interest and activity surrounding online testing. In May 2003, Ed Week reported that 12 states and the District of Columbia will be administering computer-based state exams in 2002-03 and predicted that more would soon follow. However, the publication also noted that barriers to a full-scale, national implementation of online testing exist. First, while great progress has been made in the areas of access, it is clear that not all schools have enough modern computers connected to the Internet to support online assessment programs. Second, Ed Week also notes that “comparability,” or controlling the testing environment to ensure that no student experiences variations that might affect his or her performance, is also an issue. Some educators are especially concerned about the variations of computer systems and networks and of students’ skill and comfort levels with online assessments. Finally, although online testing promises to be cheaper in the long run, budget cuts have stifled development in several states at least temporarily.
Adaptive testing is also attracting great attention since they promise to identify students’ grade-level performance more quickly. They might also allow more frequent and even more accurate testing. However, like other innovations, adaptive testing is not without obstacles. Federal law asks states to measure student performance by grade-level standards, while adaptive testing produces a grade-level equivalency for students’ knowledge and skills.
This difference between what adaptive testing offers and what federal law requires has already posed a problem for two states. Idaho modified their 2002 plans for an online adaptive testing system and in January 2003, North Dakota made their statewide online adaptive testing program optional for school systems. Ed Week (2003) reports that such developments have “…clearly caused states to think twice about venturing into adaptive, online assessments” but they also report that adaptive testing is by no means stalled. Practitioners, researchers, and developers are quite intent on exploring how adaptive testing can meet requirements outlined in federal law and retain the highly-desired qualities of accuracy and speed.
While
these efforts to develop, implement, and evaluate various administrative
technology programs is still in early stages, there are two major arguments
supporting the importance of successful administrative technology programs. The
first argument, such as the one presented in NCREL’s enGauge framework, centers
on creating school cultures that are amenable to advanced technology use for
instruction. Authors of the framework argue that, “In order for students to
develop the knowledge and skills necessary to contribute to such creative
environments, they and their teachers must be immersed in a culture of learning
and innovation.”
In
the context of such arguments, administrative technologies set the tone for
effective instructional technology use in several ways. First, on the most
general level, school systems that integrate technology into their
administrative activities send a message that technology is valued. Second, the
presence of such technologies establishes a need for community members to
acquire certain levels of technology literacy in order to participate in system
activities. Finally, strong administrative technology programs also enable
administrators to be good role models for other system members as they
integrate technology into their daily work. In these ways, administrative
technology use establishes strong support for effective instructional use.
Yet, others elevate the importance of administrative technology use beyond merely enhancing system readiness or support for effective instructional technology use. This especially occurs when the actual administrative applications of technology move closer to instructional issues. For example, by reducing the time between testing and results, online testing can actually help instruction be more responsive. Likewise, accountability systems also allow school systems to target instruction to specific need areas. In these arenas, administrative applications become critical mechanisms for advancing student achievement.
Access to Technology
Of course, effective uses of technology cannot be realized until computers, software, online resources, and Internet connectivity are available for instruction. Because of this fact, educational technology programs traditionally have been dominated by access-related goals. For example, in 1996, three out of four of the National Technology Plan goals focused on providing students and teachers with access to the following in every classroom:
¨
At
least one modern multimedia computer for every five learners;
¨
A
high-speed connection to the Internet, and
¨
Effective
software and online learning resources.
Over the past seven years, progress toward these Internet and computer access goals in the nation’s K-12 public schools has been significant (NCES 2002):
¨ The percentage of schools connected to the Internet grew from 65 percent in 1996 to 99 percent in 2001.
¨ In 2001, a high percentage of Internet-connected schools (approximately 90 percent) have high-speed, distributable access (56KB or greater) via a leased line, fiber/coaxial cable, or wireless connection.
¨ The percentage of classrooms connected to the Internet grew from 14 percent to 87 percent between 1996-2001.
¨ The ratio of students to modern, Internet-connected computers in schools moved from 35:1 in 1996 to 5.4:1 in 2001.
Yet, statistics related to computer access in classrooms also suggest that not all of the 1996 access goals have been met. According to Ed Tech Week’s 2003 Technology Counts Issue, student to instructional computer ratios in the nation’s classrooms equal 11.1 to 1. These figures imply that while the number of computers in schools is increasing, recommended ratios in classrooms have not been reached. This access gap is likely to stifle desired patterns of instructional technology use in schools. Ratios were set based upon the resources needed to fully integrate technology into the curriculum, and recent research confirms these assumptions. For example, Becker, Ravitz, & Wong (1999) found that teachers integrated technology into instruction more frequently when computers were available in their classrooms. This trend held true even when the teachers had access to computer labs elsewhere in their school. Frequency of use was highest in classrooms having at least one computer for every four students, and researchers noted that low student-to-computer ratios were especially important in secondary education classrooms where economy of instructional time is extremely important (pp.7-9).
Gauging national access to effective software and online learning resources is slightly more difficult than counting computers and Internet connections. However, there seems to be exponential growth in digital content for learning as well. For example, 16 states have established a virtual high school, three states have pilot programs, and one state will launch a program this year (Ed Week, 2003). Online resources for traditional school students also seem readily available. In 1999, Ed Tech Week summarized general opinion of education experts as follows:
“There is certainly no lack of digital content available to teachers. Thousands of CD-ROMs and Web sites have been created specifically for educators and students. Many general purpose software tools, such as spreadsheets and desk-top publishing packages, can also be adapted for the classroom. And, the number of archives and reference materials that student can draw from is virtually limitless” (p. 6).
However, even though a multitude of digital content may be available, it is unclear if it is truly accessible to teachers. Statistics suggest that schools have been spending over three times as much on hardware than software, and only 12 percent of schools subscribe to online curriculum services (Ed Week, 2001). Some even worry that lack of time and training are preventing teachers from taking advantage of the abundance of free resources via the Internet (Fatemi, 1999). In any case, the balance of spending between hardware and software and the distinctions between availability and true accessibility of free online resources to teachers warrant attention in contemporary planning processes.
Sustaining current access levels, reaching 1996 goals for classroom
computer access, and ensuring access to high-quality software and online
resources for learning may be more challenging in the next few years. The first
challenge is sustaining state funding for technology during an economic
downturn. A recent Benton Foundation report, for example, reports that over 40
states have reported shortfalls of between $40-$50 billion to meet existing
state budgets. In some of those states, funding for K-12 technology programs
have been reduced or, in some extreme cases, even eliminated (Denton, 2003).
Yet, in other states facing similar economic situations, technology funding for
schools has remained stable. This suggests that state leaders’ second challenge
will be keeping technology on the forefront of educational agendas. It remains
to be seen whether state and local education agencies/policymakers will follow
the national lead of reducing spending in areas other than education and
maintaining technology funding as a priority, or if technology programs will
suffer.
On a more positive note, reaching access goals may become easier due to the declining costs of computing equipment. Also, the advent of smaller, more portable devices and the advances in wireless networking may make arranging classroom computers more convenient, as well. For example, many predict fewer “tethered-to-the-network” desktops and more “personalized, portable, and dynamic” technologies, such as laptops, tablets, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and wireless networks (Goldberg, 2002). In fact, models of these new environments have already emerged, mostly in the form of laptop computers and wireless networks in schools. Some have even achieved a one-to-one computer ratio with a laptop for each teacher and student, while others have only provided classroom sets of computers or a mobile lab in their buildings. While not yet pervasive, such models promise to provide the ubiquitous, flexible access that some claim is necessary to fully integrate technology into the curriculum (Goldberg, 2002), and only a few barriers seem to be restraining wide-scale adoption. Currently, smaller devices are still more expensive when compared to larger counterparts with similar functionality. Purchasing additional wireless networking devices and ensuring that wireless networks are secure also present additional expenses and concerns. However, dropping costs and advances in encryption technologies promise to minimize these obstacles in the near future.
While
all access-related conditions provided so far have centered on the school
environment, many also consider beyond-school access an important issue,
as well. Some may argue that beyond-school access is outside a school system’s
realm of responsibility, but the authors of North Central Educational
Laboratory’s EnGauge framework offer an alternative view:
“Since the vast majority of students with home computers and Internet access claim they use these resources for completing homework, students without comparable tools will likely experience academic disadvantages. Therefore, educators must carefully monitor the state of home access….[and] encourage home access through strategies, such as public awareness and education campaigns; home-buy programs; laptop or Internet appliance check-out; student laptop purchases; subsidized dial-up for community members; and centralized, online resources that are attractive and beneficial to the community” (http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/framewk/equ/soc/equsocpr.htm).
Given this view and data suggesting that significant gaps exist in this area, home access for students and their parents may well become a new frontier for action. US Census Reports (2000) suggest that 33 percent of households with school-age children (ages 6-17) do not have home access to computers and 47 percent do not have Internet access. While public access may be available to this segment, ease and frequency of access may become an issue when trying to fully scale technology programs. Without a critical mass of beyond-school access, school systems are unlikely to achieve “anywhere-anytime learning” that has always been a strong component of effective technology use and technology may not assume the vital, central role in education that most envision.
Educator Proficiency
Of course, access to technology alone does not ensure effective instructional or administrative uses of technology. Such outcomes also depend on a work force that is proficient and comfortable using technology to support learning. In the field of education, these technology-related proficiencies extend far beyond merely understanding and operating computers (NETS Project, 2002; Technology Standards for School Administrators Collaborative, 2001).
National standards
for teachers and administrators also include the following performance
objectives:
¨
Designing,
implementing, supporting, and evaluating effective learning experiences
supported by technology;
¨
Designing
and implementing curriculum plans that include applying technology to maximize
learning;
¨
Applying
technology to facilitate a variety of effective technology-supported assessment
and evaluation strategies at the classroom, school, and system level;
¨
Using
technology to enhance professional productivity and practice; and
¨
Understanding
the social, legal, and ethical issues related to technology use and applying
that understanding to practice.
In addition,
national standards for administrators include:
¨
Inspiring
a shared vision for comprehensive integration of technology;
¨
Fostering
a culture conducive to the realization of that vision; and
¨
Ensuring
the integration of technology to support productive systems for learning and
administration.
Today, nearly one-half of educators feel moderately comfortable using technology in their classroom and an additional eight percent report high levels of comfort and proficiency using technology (Moersch, 2001).
Figure 3: National PCU
Levels
Levels 0-2 Levels 3-5 Levels 6-7 low comfort/skill moderate comfort/skill high comfort/skill
Even a higher percentage of teachers exhibit a strong pedagogical foundation for effective technology use. Today, 67 percent of teachers’ instructional practices are best described as “moderately aligned” with research-based practices and an additional 18 percent are best described as “highly aligned.” (Moersch, 2001).
Figure 4: National
Instructional Practice Levels
Levels 0-2
Levels 3-5
Levels 6-7 low alignment to moderate alignment to high alignment to research-based practices research-based practices research-based practices
While on one hand, these reports are encouraging, these
national statistics also indicate that:
¨
44
percent of teachers
still report low skill and comfort levels related to technology use and nearly
15 percent
report low alignment to research-based instructional practices.
¨
A
majority of teachers, who exhibit only moderate performance levels in
technology (49 percent)
and pedagogy (67 percent),
must continue to improve.
Such statistics suggest that educators’ professional development needs
have only begun to be met. Experts in the field encourage states to conduct new
needs assessments, re-evaluate existing programs, re-target existing
initiatives, and develop new strategies to sustain and “accelerate” educators’
proficiencies (Honey, 2003). The federal government has provided strong support
for these initiatives in Title IID “Enhancing Education Through Technology”
which maintains that school systems will spend 25 percent of all funds from this
program on high-quality professional development for teachers (see System Support section below).
Vision
Establishing and
articulating a vision is essential for realizing objectives in any setting
(enGauge, 2000; Keane, Gersick, Kim, & Honey, 2003; Porter, 2002). However,
equally important is high-levels of commitment to that vision. Without
commitment, other system readiness factors may not leverage movement toward
goals (enGauge, 2000; Porter, 2002). For example, system members may have
access to technology and even high-levels of proficiency using technology, but
unless they believe that technology use can enhance practice, they are
unlikely to act and may even actively resist an innovation (Rogers, 1995).
According to experts in systemic change and long-range
planning, the best way to encourage high levels of commitment among system
members is to involve them in construction a vision that is:
¨
Clear, convincing, and easily communicated;
¨
Forward thinking;
¨
Informed by research and best practice;
¨
Shaped by local needs and language;
¨
Highly visual in nature, allowing system members to “see”
themselves in specific situations where the vision is being realized;
¨
Supported by a strong majority of system members; and
¨
Focused on issues of learning and student achievement, and
not just access.
System Support
Incorporating technology effectively into
instruction and administrative practices often requires changing long-standing
beliefs and practices. Therefore, supporting technology programs becomes one of
the most challenging types of tasks for leaders (Rogers, 1995). While there are
many support strategies that system leaders use to encourage and enable the
effective use of technology, the most common and perhaps the most critical,
include:
¨
Monitoring progress of technology programs on regular
basis;
¨
Providing technology support staff charged with keeping
hardware, software, and networks functional for learning purposes;
¨
Providing high-quality professional development programs
which build educators’ proficiency levels;
¨
Establishing policies and/or incentives that encourage
technology proficiency and effective use; and
¨
Engaging in high-quality long-range planning for technology
programs.
Perhaps the first step
toward supporting high-quality technology programs is knowing current
conditions. By analyzing data from regular, meaningful collections, leaders can
not only monitor progress, but craft more responsive support strategies.
More specifically, we know
that one area to monitor includes technical support. Technology support staff
are critical to school systems for many reasons. First, teachers have neither
the time nor the expertise to fully support computers, software, and network
connections. But, when technology is inoperable, teachers cannot use it for
instruction. In fact, research indicates that low functionality may even cause
teachers to dismiss technology as a primary learning tool (Ronnkvist, Dexter,
& Anderson, 2000). Second, technical personnel are also needed to secure
school networks from those who might compromise local school data or deploy the
local network resources in a larger attack against another entity. Finally,
technical staff are not only needed to maintain existing technologies, but also
to plan and supervise future projects. Since technology changes rapidly,
keeping a pulse on emerging developments is an important function.
Yet, in
spite of their critical role, national statistics suggest there is a shortage
of technical capacity in local systems. For example, a Market Data Retrieval
survey reported in Ed Week (May 2003) suggests that less than 50 percent of
schools have a full-time district or school-level computer
maintenance/technical support person and only a third of schools have a
full-time district or school level technology coordinator. According to the
survey, most schools without technology coordinators provide for local needs in
the following ways:
¨
21
percent have a full-time teacher who also has the title of coordinator;
¨
14
percent use library media specialists to coordinate technology needs;
¨
9
percent have a teacher who informally provides technology leadership but does
not have the official title of technology coordinator;
¨
7
percent have no one to serve as this type of coordinator;
¨
4
percent use a part-time teacher as technology coordinator;
¨
4
percent use administrators to fill the technology coordinator role.
While many variables
affect the type and number of technical staff needed in school settings, the
Consortium for School Networking (2001) suggests that school systems consider
providing “at least one support person for every 50-70 computers or one person
for every 500 computers in a closely-managed networked environment” (p. 6). Of
course, CoSN also suggests that school systems track the adequacy of tech
support in various ways to more accurately determine local staffing needs.
Records such as network down time, number of inoperable computers, length of
service time, and client satisfaction surveys are listed as possible ways to
gather pertinent information.
While technical staff can support the functionality of technologies,
teachers still must be able to use technology effectively and to integrate it
into the curriculum. Research in this area suggests that professional
development does impact effective use in the classroom (Becker
& Reil, 1999). Of course, certain types of
professional development are more effective than others. For example, most
teachers need both technical skill training, assistance with integrating
technology into the learning process, and support from peers and mentors
(Becker & Reil, 1999). Components in isolation is usually not enough to
impact practice. Of course, technology-related professional development must
also exhibit the general characteristics of high-quality professional
development, as well. The most commonly-accepted standards of professional
development suggest that effective professional development standards are:
¨ Based on theory, research, and best practice;
¨ Centered on specific goals for student learning;
¨ Focused on promoting effective student assessment;
¨ Situated in actual practice;
¨ Experiential;
¨
Collaborative;
¨ Directed by participants' interests, questions, and needs;
¨ Integrated to local, regional, and state school improvement programs and goals; and
¨
Adequately supported by organizational conditions,
materials, human resources, and funding.
While providing technical support and professional development opportunities form the basis of most system support programs, researchers agree that policy and/or incentives to support participation in professional development and changes in practice are also useful (Dede, 2001; enGauge, 2000; & Porter, 2002). The most common policy/incentive actions include:
¨ Establishing and adopting educator and student standards for technology use;
¨ Mandating technology training aligned to standards as a condition for initial licensure and recertification of educators; and
¨ Integrating student standards into state and local curriculum.
Other frequent, but slightly less common, methods of engineering system support include testing student achievement of technology-related learning standards. In other cases, systems have provided educators with financial or material incentives for participating in professional development programs or for engaging in actual technology use. Of course, in all situations, system support includes budgeting for and funding selected strategies.
Given the current levels of technology use in America’s
schools, examining the support strategies that are being deployed emerges as
especially critical.
According
to results from Market Data Retrieval’s Technology in Education (2002) and
Survey of State Departments of Education (2003), schools have strong support
from state-level education agencies in the following areas:
¨
establishing
technology standards for students (42 states);
¨
establishing
technology standards for teachers (34 states);
¨
establishing
technology standards for administrators (31 states); and
¨
requiring
preservice teachers to complete coursework related to these standards before
initial licensure (23).
While establishing these standards seems to be a good
start, evidence related to educators’ technology proficiency and students’
technology use suggests that not many educators are meeting these standards.
Results from Market Data Retrieval surveys suggest only 14 percent of
public school teachers have had more than eight hours of training (in service
or professional development programs) in the area of educational technology,
and many professional development opportunities were in the form of one-time
seminars insufficient to bring the teaching profession up to speed with
emerging technologies. Currently, data collection results also suggest that
only 14 percent of school’s technology
funds are allocated toward professional development and there is no projected
increase in the foreseeable future (Ed Week, 2003).
Perhaps
weak state-level policies and procedures related to teacher recertification and
administrative licensure also contribute to this lack of professional
development. For example, only 12 or fewer states currently require the
following:
¨
technology-related
professional development for teachers;
¨
technology
training for initial administrator licensure; and
¨
technology-related
professional development for administrators.
Such data suggest that states consider policies, procedures, and resources directed to technology-related staff development and improving technology support.
Equity
While technology has traditionally been seen as a positive
influence on education, many have also noted the potential dangers of
inequitable access, as well. If students cannot have access to the same tools
and become as fluent in using those tools as their peers, technologies may
actually deepen rather than relieve social disadvantages (enGauge, 2000).
For these reasons, equitable access to technology has been
closely monitored over the past decade (Children’s Partnership, 2000; Hoffman
& Novack, 1999; US Census, 2000; US Department of Commerce 1998; US
Department of Commerce, 1999; Williams, 2000) and results show that schools are
great equalizers—at least for nearly one quarter of America’s K-12 students.
According to a US Census Bureau report on school and home access (2000), 57 percent of students ages 6-17 had access to computers at both school and at
home. However, the next largest group (22.8 percent) had access only at school. (see Figure 5)
Figure 5: Student Access to Computers
Source: US Census
Bureau, Current Population Surveys, August 2000
Recent data also indicate that there is a reasonable
pattern of equitable access across all schools. For example, Market Data Research Survey results
(2002) suggest while access levels in high-poverty or high-minority schools may
lag slightly behind national averages, the differences are not great (see Table
4).
Table 4
School Access to Technology
|
|
National
Average |
High-poverty
Schools |
High-minority
Schools |
|
Student
per Internet-connected computer |
5.6 |
6.3 |
6.7 |
|
%
of schools with Internet Access |
94% |
94% |
92% |
|
%
of schools with Internet access from one or more classrooms |
90%
|
85% |
84% |
|
Among
schools with Internet access, the percent that connect through a “high-speed”
connection (T1, T2, digital satellite, or cable modem) |
76% |
73% |
75% |
Source: Market Data Retrieval Survey,
2000-2001
The
differences among how these school computers are actually used
among these subgroups, however, are slightly more pronounced in some reports.
For example, the US Census Bureau reports that white, non-Hispanic children and
children living in families earning $75,000 or more lead their lowest-earning
counterparts in computer use at school by over 15 percentage points (see Figure
6). Similar discrepancies in school use patterns also exist among racial origin
groups (See Figure 7).
Figure 6: School Computer Access by Children (ages 6-17) by family income
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey,
August 2000
Figure 7: School Computer Access Among Children (ages 6-17) by Race and Hispanic Origin
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey,
August 2000
Furthermore, findings from the National
Teaching, Learning, and Computing Studies (Ronnkvist, Dexter, and Anderson,
2000) suggest the following:
¨ Teachers in high-poverty elementary and middle schools are more likely than others to select “remediation of skills” and “mastering skills just taught” as their primary objectives for student computer use.
¨ Secondary teachers in poorer communities are more likely to see computers as valuable for teaching students to work independently rather than collaboratively.
¨ Teachers in high-income area are more likely to analyze information presented.
¨ Elementary teachers serving higher-income populations are more likely to use computers to teach students written expression than to teach computer skills.
These
differences imply that students from different socio-economic backgrounds may
actually be using technology differently and that these differences may either
be an advantage or disadvantage to a child. While no listed technology uses are
totally undesirable, each encourages different types of cognitive skill
acquisition. Certainly, school system leaders must ensure that students from
all demographic groups have similar opportunities to use computers in
academically-rigorous ways that support problem solving and higher order
thinking.
Home access for school-age children is another area attracting national attention (U.S Census Bureau, 2000). While school access levels across populations are more equitable, home access patterns have greater discrepancies across subgroups. For example, children ages 6-17 from families earning more than $75,000 a year are nearly three times as likely to have home access to computers than their counterparts in families earning less than $25,000 (See Figure 8).
Figure 8: Home Computer Access Among Children (ages 6-17) by Family Income
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current
Population Survey, August 2000
Figure 9: Home Computer Access Among Children (ages 6-17) by Race and Hispanic Origin
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current
Population Survey, August 2000
Disaggregated data on school access to technology, technology use at
school, and home access data are perhaps the most popular ways to gauge equity
across subgroups. However, disaggregated data on other issues, such as
administrative uses, educator proficiency, and system support may also prove to
be useful. Identified subgroups recommended for study include students from
various socio-economic status, race/origin groups, and students with special
learning or physical needs that require individualized educational plans or
IEP’s (see equity sections in enGauge framework, 2000; and data elements
section in National Leadership Institute Toolkit, 2003). As technology use
matures, studying use patterns across gender may also be an important concern,
as well (enGauge, 2000). NCREL’s enGauge framework also identifies
“system-wide” equity as a variable worth considering. For state education
agencies, monitoring system-wide equity would require looking beyond state
averages to examine the range of data across the whole system and striving to
understand and improve the situation of those lagging behind on access, use, or
system readiness indicators. Local education agencies would use the same
process to locate patterns among their schools or grade levels within their
schools
Summary to National
Scan
As this National Scan suggests,
technology planning is complex and broad in scope. It includes many more
variables than simply equipping the nation’s schools, and, as the field matures,
new variables emerge. This scan provides a cursory overview of some of the most
critical pillars of technology planning processes that hope to improve student
learning. They include:
¨ Effective Technology Use;
¨ Effective Administrative Use;
¨ Adequate Access to Technology;
¨ Educator Proficiency;
¨ Vision;
¨ System Support; and
¨ Equity.
These pillars will serve as an
organizing framework for the state of Georgia’s technology plan. The next
section, Georgia’s Current Reality and Needs Assessment will document Georgia’s
progress in related areas and identify gaps that must be addressed within the
next three years.
Section Two: Georgia’s Current
Reality and Needs Assessment
Access to Technology
As experienced in the rest of the nation, some of the greatest gains in Georgia include increased access to instructional computers in schools. For example, in December 2002, the statewide inventory of modern computers[3] had more than tripled in the past seven years. The number of modern computers available for instruction in Georgia’s K-12 public schools currently tops 300,000 or approximately one modern computer for every five students in the state.
Figure 10: Modern Instructional Computer s in Georgia
Despite these remarkable gains in inventory, several challenges remain in the areas of computer access in schools. While state averages are helpful in some respects, they can also disguise the actual conditions existing in some settings. For example, while student to modern computer ratios have reached 1:5 statewide, 47.5 percent of schools in Georgia still have student to modern computer ratios ranging between 1:6 and 1:36. Thirty-four percent of these schools (or 16 percent statewide) still have ten or more students per modern computers.
Table 5
Student to Instructional Computer Ratios
|
Percentage of FTE reporting schools with five or
fewer students per each modern, instructional computer. |
Percentage of FTE reporting schools with more than
five students per instructional computer. |
|
52.5% (1051 schools) |
47.5% (952 schools) |
(2002
DOE Hardware Survey)
When compared to the rest of the country, Georgia’s student to computer ratios are near the national average, but the state still ranks 34th out of 50 states (Market Data Retrieval, 2002). This means that 33 states have more desirable student-to-instructional computer ratios in their public schools than Georgia does.[4]
Access in Georgia’s classrooms still falls far below national goals, as well. According to the 2002 Hardware Survey, 22 percent of Georgia’s classrooms still have no modern instructional computers, and over half (57 percent) are best described as one-computer classrooms. With 79 percent of classrooms having zero or only one modern instructional computer, only 21 percent of Georgia’s classrooms could possibly be achieving or even approaching national standards of five or six computers per classroom (CEO Forum, 2001; National Technology Plan, 1996).
Modern Computers in FTE Reporting Schools
|
Number and Percent of Classrooms in FTE reporting
schools with Modern Computers |
|||||||||
|
No Computers |
1-2 Computers |
3-5 Computers* |
6-9 Computers* |
10+ Computers* |
|||||
|
21,199 |
22% |
55,065 |
57% |
14,738 |
15% |
2,148 |
2% |
3,633 |
4% |
(2002
DOE Hardware survey)
*Classrooms with access levels
meeting National Goals of five to six computers
or 1:5 student to modern
computer ratios would fall in these categories.
As highlighted in the National Scan, classroom computers play a significant role in promoting technology use in instruction. The presence of computers significantly impact how they are used for learning. Perhaps the data presented in this section explain one reason why 16 percent of teachers involved in Georgia Department of Education’s Statewide Study of Technology Use (2002) reported their primary barrier to effective technology use is access to the technology.
Georgia Department of Education hardware inventories also suggest that the number of computers in media centers has grown over the past six years, although at a slower rate than computers in classrooms or labs.
Figure 11: Modern
Computers in Media Centers
Student to computer ratios in media centers currently fall 10 percent below national averages. Nationally, there is an average of 78.7 students per instructional computers in media centers. Georgia ranks 37 out of 50 states and the District of Columbia with 95.3 student to instructional computers (Ed Week, 2003).
Instead of student to computer ratios, Georgia media specialists conceptualize their computer access goals differently. Georgia media specialists expect to have at least enough modern, Internet-connected computers in their centers to accommodate a full class with approximately two students per computer. Based on this logic, most suggest a minimum of ten computers in elementary school media centers; 12 in middle schools; and 15 in high schools. According to the Georgia Department of Education’s Annual Technology Hardware Survey, to date, approximately half of Georgia’s media centers meet these standards.
Table 7
Media Centers Meeting Minimum Standards
for Modern Computer Access
|
Percent of Media Centers Meeting Minimum Standards
for Modern Computer Access |
||
|
Elementary Schools (ten or more modern computers) |
Middle Schools (12 or more modern computers) |
High Schools (15 or more modern computers) |
|
44% |
47% |
63% |
(2002
DOE Hardware Survey)
When considering these data, the current computer access needs for Georgia K-12 schools are clear:
¨ All schools must maintain their current inventory of modern instructional computers (which means upgrading equipment every three to five years).
¨ Inventories must continue to increase until all schools and classrooms have at least one modern computer for every five students - and - all media centers have between 10-15 modern computers based on the grade levels they serve.
Certainly programs such as online testing and advances in effective technology use hinge on meeting these objectives. While Georgia schools have made great strides in building their inventories of modern computing equipment, there is still an insufficient number of computers in most schools to provide the daily experiences students need to master the QCC Technology Integration Standards approved by the State Board of Education in February 2002, or to implement statewide, technology-based instructional assessment programs.
Meeting these objectives given current economic situations, however, seems quite challenging for the following reasons:
¨ Many systems report declining local funds for technology during an economic downturn.
¨ Between 1994-2002, State Lottery funds have provided an average of 60 million dollars, or approximately $44 per FTE, annually to schools for purchasing classroom computers and assistive technology. However, in Fiscal Year 2003, those Lottery funds were diverted entirely to cover growing costs associated with Hope Scholarship and Pre-K program leaving the K-12 “Computers in the Classroom” program and the “Assistive Technology” program unfunded. Unless another funding source is found, it is unlikely that schools will be able to continue trends toward national student to computer ratios in schools and classrooms.
¨ In FY03, state media center program funds were reduced from $19.54/per FTE to $9.77/per FTE. The proposed FY04 budget continues funding at a reduced level, which means a loss of approximately $14 million annually from previous years. While the media center program funds a broad range of activities and materials, it is also an important source of funding for technology in media centers and technology available for centralized video and data distribution throughout the school.
¨
While Federal Title IID “Enhancing Education Through
Technology” (Ed Tech) Funds provides approximately $17.6 million annually to
Georgia schools, these competitive and formula funds are not likely to have a
significant impact on technology inventories for all schools across the state.
First, these funds are earmarked only for schools with high economic and
academic needs, and, while all systems receive funds from this program, some
receive as little as $1,500. Second, the scope of the program, wisely so, is
much broader than only providing computers. For example, legislation directs 25
percent of funds toward professional development and many Georgia school
systems are choosing to exceed that percentage to meet local needs. Finally,
provisions in the legislation also allow school systems to transfer as much as
50 percent of their Title IID program funds to other Title programs where they
have local need. Although funds transferred out of Title IID are currently less
than $50,000 in this first year of the program, the potential for reduced
funding exists. Given all of these variables, the GA DOE projects that
approximately seven million dollars in Ed Tech program funds will actually be
spent annually on modern computers.
On the positive side, continuing declines in the cost of equipment; the increase of smaller, more mobile computers; and the advent of wireless technologies may eventually help school systems increase their inventories and make progress toward desired classroom and media center access levels.
Internet Access in Schools
Largely due to the development and maintenance of the
State of Georgia K-12 Network and the efforts of local districts, nearly every
modern computer in K-12 schools also has a high-speed connection to the
Internet. Since e-Rate funding became available in
1997, the Georgia Department of Education has applied for and received funding
discounts, enabling the state to provide Internet access for all 180 public
school districts as well as three state schools. Currently, the statewide
network delivers bandwidth equaling 256-512K per school to each system, and
school systems have managed to connect 94 percent of their instructional buildings to this high-speed network.
Since very few schools remain without high-speed Internet access parity seems achievable. In the next three years, the state’s primary focus will be improving and expanding the statewide network where critical needs exist. First, many school systems’ bandwidth needs overextend the network’s current capacity. Second, while some network security measures are in place, the level is by no means adequate to support the types of data transfer activities that are quickly emerging or to protect the network from potential attacks or breaches. Finally, the network must be maintained and upgraded to keep pace with technological advances and industry standards for information management. Therefore, over the next three years, GA DOE network staff will direct their attention to the following tasks:
¨ Providing sufficient bandwidth for each school systems’ growing needs and evolving Internet-based applications, such as video streaming and teleconferencing.
¨ Ensuring that the network reflects modern standards for transferring and securing information.
¨ Purchasing, installing, and using network monitoring software to measure bandwidth use and to promote maximum use and security.
¨ Connecting schools to Internet II.
Since state and federal funding support for the statewide network is currently stable, the likelihood of achieving these objectives is high.
Access to Instructional