A qualitative study of computers and printouts in the classroom

A Qualitative Study of Computers and Printouts in the Classroom Susan Tyler Eastman

Susan Tyler Eastman is an associate professor in the Department of Telecommunications, Indiana Univer- sit'y, Bloomington, IN 47405.

This qualitative inquiry into using microcomputers to access an on-line electronic encyclopedia revealed the salient issues for eighth-graders in using computer technology and what they valued in their videotex experience. Assigned to gather information both electronically and from traditional library materials to write a science theme, students with no prior computer experience exhibited very little technological apprehension. Nearly all the students preferred electronic search by computer to print search in books and periodicals. Underlying student reports appeared to be the perception that using a computer relieved them from the process of note-taking and some editing judgments that using print materials would require. Overall, middle-school students in this situation readily accommodate computers and videotex within their ongoing school context but assigned the new technology greater value than traditional learning media.

ECTJ, VOL. 34, NO. 4, PAGES 207-222 ISSN 0148-5806

Three-quarters of public and private schools now routinely use microcomputers in math and spelling drill, in teaching computer programming and, less frequently, in simulations and word processing (Becker, 1983). On-line information retrieval using videotex technology has also been suggested as an appropriate application of microcomputers to the classroom (Martin, 1984) and has been adopted in some high schools (Craver & Ouanian, 1984). As a means of accessing an electronic library of information, microcomputers become tools for teaching library research skills, a standard part of the middle and secondary school curriculum. Electronic information search has the advantage of reflecting a broad conception of computer literacy (Pais- ley &Chen, 1982; Slesnick, 1984). Introduc- ing a new technology, however, invariably raises questions about its relationship to established media and its cognitive and affec- five functions for those who use it (Wartella & Reeves, 1983).

A large body of scholarly and anecdotal research deals with the classroom introduction of television technology--seeking to determine whether television fostered educational policy goals of equity, efficiency, achievement, socialization and the like (Pogrow, 1983). This research raised questions, many still unanswered, about the medium's content and function from the perspectives of both students and teachers. Many studies sought to determine the effects of television on students' motivation to achieve and the values they assigned to particular content and processes. The results of this research suggest that children actively

208 ECTJ WINT'ERI986

use media in ways far different from intended uses; children, especially, have motivations and values not readily apparent to adult researchers that may inhibit or facilitate instructional processes (Ander- son, Meyer, & Traudt, 1980; Clement, 1981; McCain & James, 1982; Salomon, 1981). Children have been shown to hold self-fulfilling preconceptions about the amount of effort required to process information in different media (Salomon & Leigh, 1984).

These issues remain appropriate to con- sider in regard to computer-mediated instruction (Briggs, 1984; Clement, 1981; Lawton & Gerschner, 1982). Over a million microcomputers appeared in schools in recent years, supported by a very small body of literature on their potential effects on classroom processes and learning (Becker, 1983; Paisley & Chen, 1982). Most discus- sions of computers in education focus on their cognitive and instructional significance; little research has looked at affective processes and unintended side-effects. At least three different theoretical perspectives on motivation appear in the psychological and educational literature. In capsule form, aspects of challenge, curiosity and perceived control have been postulated as the causal elements in motivation (Lepper, 1982) but have not yet been studied in relation to computers in education.

A National Institute of Education summary divided the microcomputer-research literature as of 1982 into (a) CAI development and evaluation research; (b) the use of graphics animation; (c) the use of simula- tion; (d) comparison of CAI with other modes of instruction; (e) barriers to instructional computing; and (f) students" attitudes toward computer-mediated instruction (Olstad & Haury, 1982). Research in the first four of these categories has focused on instructional content questions in relation to achievement, the last two on processes and affective reactions. The research on barriers concerns computer programming as a cur- ricular and resource issue. Only a fragment of the literature looks at students' under- standings of this new technology, and it has several theoretical and methodological limi- tations.

Most computer-attitudinal studies focus on college students or the primary ages al-

though computers are now most typically introduced at the middle- and high-school levels (Becker, 1983). The bulk of microcomputer research in education deals with tasks such as arithmetic drill or computer programming (Gleason, 1981; Williams & Williams, 1984) although many other cur- ricular applications are possible (Martin, 1984; Watts, 1981) and desirable from a policy perspective (Grossnickle & Laird, 1983; Slesnick, 1984). Moreover, mathematical and programming applications have been shown to contain gender inequities because males (for a combination of bio!ogical and social reasons) tend to perform better than females at (perceived) math-related tasks (Steinkamp & Maehr, 1984). Cross-media studies generally have employed experimental methods attempting to measure the quantity of learning gained, despite the dif- ficulty of controlling the large number of interacting variables in instructional settings (Bums & Bozeman, 1981; Gleason, 1981). In sum, then, most formal microcomputer research has been concerned with effects on achievement, has dealt with mathematics or programming in Basic, and has occurred with high and low age groups.

Very few studies of particular applications report students' computer-related values. Welch (1983) and Spector (1984) have pointed to the naturalistic inquiry paradigm as the appropriate method for explicating the variable of values in evaluation research. Lepper (1982) has argued co- gently that microcomputers provide the opportunity to test intrinsic motivation from the three traditions of previous motivational research (but views these as outcome questions relating to software, not process questions relating to initial approach to the technology).

Most computer projects to date have been evaluated from predominantly instructional and administrative perspectives (CARE, Minnesota Videodisc, Lyons Township, Rocky Mountain) and give short shrift to students' points of view (Dickerson & Pritchard, 1981). Cumulatively, however, previous applications suggest that students have either (a) considerable initial computer apprehension (Winkle & Mathews, 1982) or (b) little fear of using computers (Glenn, Kozen, & Pollack, 1984; Williams &

COMPUTERS AND PRINTOUTS 209

Williams, 1984). Clement (1981), Lawton and Gerschner (1982) and Williams and Williams (1984) summarized student attitudes as positive because computers are (a) self-paced, (b) private, (c) feedback providing, and (d) objective in relation to performance. Williams and Williams found that students gained a greater sense of control over their learning. Clement also suggests that positive acceptance does not re- sult from a "Hawthorne Effect"--due to the uniqueness of a computer experience--but persists over time. Collis (1983) asks whether the microcomputer has intrinsic motivational qualities within certain learning tasks. Although these studies almost uniformly claim that computers motivate students, this claim has not been explained in detail in the research to date.

Therefore, this study was designed to observe the practices and discourse of middle-school students assigned to a computer-assisted class. It contrasts with previous research largely at the primary and college levels and focuses on a verbal rather than a mathematics task. It employs naturalistic field inquiry methods rather than deductive methods. It seeks to explicate the students' perspective, not the teacher's or the researcher's a priori constructs. It con- centrates on student sense-making practices rather than outcome questions.

In order to penetrate behind layers of adult-imposed expectations, this study used inductive procedures to build up an understanding of meaning from the students' point of view and took place during the students' first exposure to microcomputers. Broadly, we investigated (a) how the students approached this computer experience, (b) what they valued about the computer experience, (c) what role the computer printout played, and (d) what relationship electronic search bore to print search from the students' perspective. The significance to educators of students' un- derstandings lies in their relevance to interpretation of microcomputer instruction and, more generally, in their opportunity for revealing major shifts in cultural and social patterns. In a period of swiftly chang- ing social processes, opportunities for "first contact" computer studies are rapidly dis- appearing. Moreover, the opportunity to

incorporate videotex in school activities remains extremely rare because of its high cost, and reports of research on videotex in the school situation are absent in the literature. These interpretations of student behaviors and conversations regarding computers and videotex may aid teachers who face a similar situation.

SITUATION AND METHOD A team of researchers observed and in- teracted with 27 eighth-graders who used microcomputers in their science class to access a commercial videotex service containing an electronic encyclopedia. The classroom teacher assigned the students to col- lect information in order to write a science theme on topics they had chosen. The students individually developed a list of about 10 questions and a dozen or more key terms to guide their information search. They were given three weeks for information search in the school's media center and a week of classroom time to write and edit their themes. Observation and participation began at the point of the theme assignment's introduction and ran to the point of its termination.

This project took place at a small-town middle school drawing primarily from rural non-farm children and the children of blue-collar workers employed at local man- ufacturing plants, retail businesses, and the university. Altogether, 773 sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students attended the school at this time, 247 of whom were offi- dally in the eighth grade (approximately age 13). All eighth graders took a science class from one of two teachers, and this study focused on one class of 27 students chosen because it was taught by a participating teacher (who also taught computer programming and was therefore knowledge- able about equipment) and given at an hour less likely to be interrupted by late buses, early bells, and so on. In the view of four other teachers, the students in this class reflected the usual range of 13-year-old abilities. Later statistical comparisons of standardized test results confirmed the rep- resentative nature of these students in relation to the rest of the eighth grade, but no

2'10 ECTJ WINTER1986

claim is made for generalization of these results to other schools or other times (espe- dally when computer literacy becomes more widely apparent in schools and homes.)

The students used standard commercial hardware and software for hooking personal computers to on-line data bases. In adjacent carrels, in a section of the media- center containing twenty microcomputers, nine TRS-80s with at least one disk drive were connected to nine auto-dial modems with nine separate telephone lines. This ar- rangement permitted nine students at a time to call the videotex service (Com- puServe) independently of all others. One of the computers was attached to a line printer and used after class time to print the material stored on the students' disks. (The equipment is evaluated in detail in Eastman, Daugherty, & Agostino, A Guide to Electronic Text in the Classroom, 1983; it was a common technical setup for microcomputers in school settings--saving only the addition of the modems requisite to any videotex use.)

This study used a focused-inquiry design emerging from on-going systematic analysis of field observations, sup- plemented by open-ended one-on-one interviews with both students and teachers (Guba, 1982; Schwartz & Jacobs, 1979). Throughout the project, the observers talked daily with participating teachers and met with each other bi-weekly to discuss observational procedures for this educational setting.

A team of twelve teachers and researchers participated in the study. In addition to the classroom teacher, the school's media- center supervisor (librarian in charge of media equipment), two eighth-grade lan- guage arts teachers (who developed parts of the theme assignment and computer workbook), and seven university researchers actively worked on the design and interpretation of results. An out-of-state consultant served as an auditor to whom the observers daily mailed their expanded field notes.

In preparation for the study, four college faculty and three senior/graduate students were coached in applying the philosophic assumptions of participant observation and naturalistic inquiry, while practicing field

note-taking and conversational interview- ing. They adopted the constructivist view that meaning is negotiated between people and must be interpreted based on the evidence of discourse and behavior (Ander- son, 1986). During the study, consistent efforts were made to observe the shared un- derstandings of the students rather than the more easily achieved perspective of the science teacher and school hbrarian. It was presumed that meaning was constructed by the students and would not necessarily be superficially apparent to teachers or researchers. It was accepted that participation in the class activities would be needed to gain insight into the shared reality of the class. Therefore, over the month preceding the students ' introduction to computer search, the research team observed in pairs in the science classroom, acquiring familiarity with the style of the teacher and the classroom rules, learning the names and usual behavior patterns of the students while becoming known individually to the students. They then continued to observe and interact during the three-week period in the media center and during the final writing week in the classroom.

When the teacher began the research phase of his lessons, he first introduced his students to library search using exercises involving books, periodicals, and a printed encyclopedia. At the end of a week, he introduced microcomputers as a means of accessing an electronic encyclopedia and dis- tributed copies of an operating workbook prepared for this project. The teacher initially attempted to place greater value on book and periodical citations than electronically derived citations, suggesting that the computer might function as a supplementary source. As the project progressed, he attempted to apportion his time equally among students in the library and computer areas. However , the presence of the media-center supervisor and the observers belied this equity, and eventually the teacher's rising concern that each student obtain a computer printout reinforced the importance of the computer activity.

The teacher assigned all students to one of nine computers using a rotating schedule giving each student at least four sessions on a computer over a ten-day period. Indi-


vidual computer -sess ions var ied from twenty minutes to a half-hour. Two or three of the participant observers served as resource people and took field notes in the computer and library areas during all computer and print use, concentrating on interactive verbal behavior among students, between students and teachers, and between students and themselves. They also looked at task performance and general operating behavior.

In general, the students construed the participant observers as necessary to learning computer operations. One of their assigned functions was to instruct the students in both computer and print search, and mild protests occurred when the observers were initially reluctant to intrude. (Ob- server: Can I sit here and watch what you do? Student: Only if you'll help me!) In the print area, students continually asked how to spell words or how to find a reference. Generally, the students tolerated the observers as the source of the new computers and made use of them when they could not at- tract the regular teacher's attention. Occa- sionally, more personal relationships de- ve loped as they tested an observer ' s willingness to "fool around" in the library area, make change for the copying machine, discuss clothes and hair styles, and so on.

The results reported here come from eight weeks of almost daily interaction and observation by a team of researchers. For the entire three weeks the students spent in the media center, three participant observers were constantly present, working in- formally with the students on the computers and at the library tables. The remaining five weeks of observation took place in the regular science classroom.

Observations recorded in field notes provided the raw data that each observer expanded in typed form immediately following each field session and later unitized, separating the notes into the smallest interactive episodes. An episode could con- sist of the dialogue of a conversation, with any associated description or interpretation, a narrative of an event, a description of a scene or set of behaviors, or an interpre- tive note. Altogether, 1,092 observational units from 62 site visits were collected. Two researchers subsequently categorized each

unit following Glaser 's (1969) constant comparative method. This procedure for inductively classifying observational data involves sorting and resorting units until each "pile" contains only those units most closely associated, in the view of a researcher who participated in the observation. The researchers repetitively compared each unit with all others and associated seemingly like units until all groups contained so many units that maintaining a singular association for them became difficult. Then the thick piles were resorted into still more clusters, and all were resorted again and again as new units were considered for addition.

Finally, when all interpretable units had been associated with others, each grouping was "named" by describing the principle of association that tied the units together (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Anderson (1986) calls this the inductive exemplar method in which inductively derived constructs are explanatory terms which make sense of the research text and of the episodes composed from it. These constructs (groupings) are defined by their contents (the episodes or units), not by properties that are assigned to them. This procedure contrasts with deductive methods that fit observations into pre- determined categories. As is to be expected, some conversational or descriptive frag- ments remained beyond this researcher's ability to classify or interpret, but this procedure reduced the enormous wealth of information to manageable groupings that could then be interpreted using the notes in the grouping as evidence for the interpretation. In this study, the purposes of inductive classification were to allow the research focus to emerge during the early stages of data collection and to ensure that the conceptual array of reported results reflected the actual evidence, not this author's preconceptions.

Observations relating to the technical op- eration of the hardware and software were reported in Eastman and Agostino (1986), which covered procedures for logging on/ off, opening/closing buffers, and finding content-related keywords. Audiotapes of the classroom teacher's and librarian's interactions throughout the project were inductively examined in Anderson and

212 ECTJ WINTER'I986

Eastman (1983). This study focuses on student conversations, interactions, and task behaviors interpreted within the context of the entire project.

It utilizes the evidence from discourse and the understanding of on-the-spot observers to create the interpretations that are explicated in the sections ahead. Actual conversations, reported verbatim in notes taken at the time, become the evidence of the reasonableness and appropriateness of the interpretation (Anderson, 1986).The nature of the unit divisions remains problema- tic as do the processes of classification and naming. The interpretations reported in this study are not to be understood as all- exhaustive or necessarily occurring in other individuals or other situations. At the same time, they reflect the best understanding, after considerable reflection, of someone who was present and actively participating at the time.

Moreover, exit interviews with the 27 students provided accounts from each indi- vidual's perspective, supplying both a ten- tative confirmation of interpretations and a supplement to the observational data, mod- ified, however, by the constraints of talking to a "teacher ." Open-ended questions asked during concluding interviews covered what the students thought they were supposed to do, what they had trouble with, how they solved their problems, how they got their search concepts (keywords), what they were looking for and found or did not find, and what they thought about using computers this way. Supplementary information came from copies of the students' printouts and their themes. Sum- maries of the interpreted observations and accounts were reviewed by the students, teacher, and other team members to estab- lish the credibility, transferability, depen- dability, and confirmability of conclusions (Guba, 1981).

Lincoln and Guba (1985) argue that interaction between investigators and re- spondents is both necessary and desirable in qualitative research, but that there are strategies for avoiding bias in interpretation and maximizing the balance and fairness of results. These include prolonged engage- ment and persistent observation, reflective journals of the daily process, member

checks, debriefing by peers, triangulation of methods and observers, and an indepen- dent audit. All of these strategies are evident in the methods of this study. Ulti- mately, however, this research should be judged on the merits of its contribution to our understanding of students and the educational uses of microcomputer technology.

RESULTS

For convenience, the results of this study are discussed in four sections correspond- ing to the four research questions; although overlap is both inherent and acknowledged; value concepts stretch across time and the other topic areas. These results are an exploratory mapping of the salient issues as they were voiced by the students themselves. The first question dealt with the students' initial approach to this computer experience.

Initial Reactions

Because none of the students had prior computer experience, learning to use a computer generally inspired a small amount of initial apprehension, as we might expect. Although the students typically demonstrated increasing self-confidence as they used the computers for a third and fourth time, most found the first experiences intimidating, but some reactions that appeared to be fear can be given a different interpretation.

The following student conversation illustrates shared apprehension about using this new technology for the first time. As often happens in the school environment, fear hinges in part on having to be self-reliant:

Student: How does this work? [silence] Student: Do we work on this by OURSELVES?

[horror in voice] Other Student: You go here and here and here. Student: [wailing] I can't do this by myself. Other Student: I can't do it in a half-hour. Student: I can't do it by myself.

Another student, on the first day of computer use, ordered an observer to stand behind her: "I want you to stand there because I don't know what's going to happen." Later she repeated the same "instruction" to the media center supervisor. Boys in the class who frequently joked with each other,


fooled around, and talked back in both the science classroom and the library table area, became noticeably silent at the computers even when waiting around.

Like adults learning new computer programs, the students depended heavily on the workbooks containing operating instructions, using them as much for reassur- ance as for information. (Since Com- puServe is a menu-driven system intended for home users, most instructions appeared plainly on the screen, and the workbook became redundant after the encyclopedia was accessed.) Students typically called to the teacher several times in every session (failing him, they called the media-center supervisor or an observer) to get aid in operating the computer and in accessing the electronic encyclopedia. At the beginning, the students far more frequently consulted adults or their booklets than the screen for guidance, having to learn to place some re- liance on the screen. Once they became comfortable with reading the screen and using the keyboard, another set of new skills that had to be learned, the frequency of demanding attention fell off and was re-. served for specific problems.

During the initial phase, lasting perhaps two sessions on a computer, students who had relatively little command of the technology would often threaten to repeat a single learned procedure just to use up time and look busy: "I'm gonna push 'enter' til the end of the period.'" "I'm just going to do 'moon' over and over."

Most of this reaction was normal and predictable, given the newness of the situation. What was more startling was the students' repeatedly expressed fear of "messing up." Before the start of computer use, doz- ens of student questions about the assignment appeared to ask about damage ("What if I MESS UP--on the computers?") The students seemed to think they could hurt the computers, and the teacher responded in line with this interpretation by referring to the need for care because of the high cost of the equipment and long-distance telephone lines. This did not seem to satisfy them as a student would again ask about "messing up" as if the subject had not been dealt with.

For example, on their first computer day,

several students volunteered remarks like the following to their teacher or the observers: "I'm afraid of doing something wrong." "I don't want to mess up no computers." As- surances by an observer that the student could not hurt the computer were patently disbelieved ("You can too!"). However, when the student was asked what might happen if "you do something wrong," the student only muttered, "I don't k n o w . . . "

Although these reactions appeared to be normal fears about new technology (concern for embarrassment, lack of familiarity with a new activity, and so on), they also can be interpreted in light of the school's science laboratory breakage fees. In the science laboratory, prior to the move to the media center, observers had noted the class" hushed expectancy when a boy accidentally knocked a small retort on the floor, shatter- ing it. They also noted the students' avid interest in several conversations between the teacher and the boy as they negotiated the cost of a replacement retort and repay- ment timetable.

In the unfamiliar situation of the computer assignment, before any actual experience of the machines, many of the students may have transferred this familiar laboratory convention (fifty cents for a test tube, a dollar for a beaker, and the like) to computer "accidents" since the two experiences were occurring in the same class with the same teacher. By asking about "messing up," at least some of these students were striving to find out if penalties applied to accidental error on computers--perhaps comparable to the amounts required to pay for laboratory equipment breakage. As a class, they made numerous jokes that support this interpretation, worrying aloud about the "cost" of messing up and laughing at each other ("I'm gonna be so embarrassed if I t u b up; I'll have to pay the school two thousand dollars!") In learning a new technology, then, they were operating without knowledge of the penalties that might arise from their actions and guessed that financial penalties or other penalties significant to them might occur. Questions about "messing up" occurred only before the students used the computers, disap- pearing en~ely during the first day of computer use.

214 ECTJ W~NTER1986

As the days proceeded, the students gained confidence and later reported in interview accounts: "It was kind of scary at first. I'm getting used to it. First time, I was really scared thinking I'd screw it up or something." "We know how to use books and can look things up. I was nervous. The thing that bugs me--I 've never used these before--I was afraid to mess up." As typical of classroom experiences, the students reported increasing mastery removed their apprehension: "(The worst thing is) you get lost and it takes forever to get back. After you learn how it works, it goes better." "It's easy to work. Not as bad as everyone says. It was easier than I thought it would be. Using this (modem) was the hardest part." Another reported: "'Well, if you press the wrong button, you got off on the wrong track if you didn't know what you was doing." The penalties, then, proved to be "getting lost'" and "wasting time." We see the students beginning to form a mental process-model of "using a computer."

Learning Computer Technology The question of the students' values when learning to use this new technology is especially interesting because the technology is not "user friendly" from an adult perspec- five. (Adults often claim that clairvoyance is required to use the reference materials on commercial videotex systems!) The electronic encyclopedia itself is far from logical, and the communications software imposes further roadblocks acknowledged even by the publisher at this early developmental stage (see Cook, 1984). Therefore, we wanted to know why the students made the effort to conquer these irrational operations and persisted in finding their information despite the fact that finding specific infor- marion was often wholly serendipitous. The students' conversations and interview accounts contained at least six reasons revealing their underlying values. These in- c luded the usual school achievement motivations but also revealed the students assigning a larger personal relevance to this project.

In this context, "motivating" had several layers of meaning. According to accounts by the teacher, several students who would not normally have bothered with a print

search in the library made an effort to find and store electronic information for their science assignment. All but four students eventually completed a theme, a much higher completion rate than usual, according to the teacher. This suggests that writing a theme was the by-product of learning the technology rather than the computer being a tool used to serve an end, a more common educator's interpretation. The class overall demonstrated attention to the task of manipulating the computer; very lit- fie nontask-directed conversation or activity occurred at the computers. The teacher was not observed to urge students to use a computer or to stick to the job of finding information. In the science classroom and library stacks, however, many of these students were observed to require nearly constant redirection to their task.

As could be predicted, many student conversations illustrated the importance of good grades and the desirability of receiv- ing approval from the teacher, both normal motivations in the middle-school context. Specifically, the class exhibited a shared understanding that mastery of the computer/electronic text operations would gain the teacher's approval and have a positive influence on their overall science grades. A third motivation behind learning computers was suggested by volunteered comments about computers being "easier" than books or printed library resources. Field notes showed this reason for using the computers shouted out in class in response to a teacher's question and muttered among students during the teacher's introduction of the electronic encyclopedia ("This is easier than going through all that"). One girl explained her concept of the difference between using books and computers:

% . . because it [a computer] gave you a feeling of power. Made you feel like you was DOING something. In a book, when you find something, you didn't DO anything. This, you have to DO something to find it!"

During the early days of computer use, all observers noted occasional comments revealing the students' positive attitude toward control over the technology. Reac- tions included: "Wow! Neat-O! That 's total." "I found it. I found it. This is neat once you get in."

COMPUTERS AND PRINTOUTS 2't5

Student: "There it goes. I'm getting good at this. This is fun. Look [to boy in next carrel] . . ."

Other Student: [giggles] "I could do this all period."

Student: "This is really fun." [giggles] "Watch this. If I hit enter, it just keeps on going!"

Similarly, another student discovered the repeat function, insisting that a nearby student watch what he could do: "Look, if I press enter after you get t o . . . thing, if you press enter three times, it'll go two times. There it goes!" The computer processes, then, provided some positive internal rewards.

In interviews, many of the s tudents volunteered an account of their feeling that the computer gave them a sense of achievement. Despite the short length of computer use (less than two hours per student), they made unsolicited statements like: "I know how to use computers a little now." "I don't know everything about it, but I can do it pretty well." "I am comfortable that I can figure it out." These statements reveal the scale and the frame of student expectations for themselves; even a minimum of achievement is enough for self-congratulations: "I had to go back; I pushed the wrong button. Today I didn't do that." "I feel like I know how to USE this." "When I messed up was the worst thing, but I know how to do it now." In another interview a student proudly claimed: "One day I never lost nothing! I did everything right."

Perhaps the most interesting implied motivation, however, was the future relevance the students gave to learning anything to do with computers. Conversations and interview accounts displayed the job- salience of learning computers, probably learned at home, picked up from the media, and reinforced by the classroom teacher. This conversation at the library tables illustrates the future context the students gave to the science assignment:

Student 1: '~'he thing about the computers is that everybody'll have to get trained on computers or they won't get a job."

Student 2: "Like doctors and everything. By the time you'll get through school and everything, they'll have computers all over."

Student 3: "I heard Marsha took a computer class this summer."

Student 2: "I don't know." Student 3: "I heard that somewhere, I don't know

where."

This motivation implied their personal and social context for learning a new technology in school. Many anticipated a stereotypical business and home environment strewn with computers, demanding computer expertise, to which they related this videotex assignment. In interviews, several students specifically reported the value of learning computers was that the experience would eventually help them get jobs:

"It might be our FUTURE someday--computers."

"'I like it; there'll be jobs." "I'll bet this'U help me! It'll help to learn how to

do a job or something." "Later or when we get a job, there's going to be a

lot of computers." Nearly all students pointed out a general future-oriented value to learning to use computers: "It gives you an education. In the future they're going to be used more anyway, so it's a good idea." One student reported that she found the print materials more valuable for writing her report, "But the computer gave me exposure to the computer." Another wanted tO learn computers because "Books we know how to use." Al- though these values were adopted in part from the classroom teacher, and given additional weight by the observers' presence, they reveal the students' larger conceptual framework for school learning. One student reported that she found the future she imagined sufficient grounds for over- coming her fear of using computers: "I have to get over it [nervousness]--I need to learn how to use these. This is something I 've thought about. I will be using them my whole life." One boy reported: "'My dad said I'll probably have to work at Mac- Donalds if I don't learn how to use one." Another student found less support at home: "My parents aren't interested in computers. I tried to talk about it, but they don't understand." These comments show thirteen-year-olds worrying about pre- paring themselves for jobs and uniformly expecting to use computers knowledgeably in their adult lives.

However, interest in the computers de-


creased with time. Toward the end of their fourth sessions on a computer, a few students asked to quit early, explaining that they had all the information they needed. In exit interviews, students typically reported that using the computers was "fun" or "funner than books," while only one student was predominantly negative about the computer experience. However, their initial interest in the new technology apparently lasted only about four class periods over two weeks, and pressure to write their themes then seemed to supercede any remaining interest in/reward from the new technology.

Values and Printouts

The data revealed many values connected with using the computer, but on a more specific level, what the students valued especially about the process were the printouts. The field notes showed that most por- tions of observations at the media-center tables were taken up with how students used their hard-copy printouts, an unan- ticipated focus of student attention since the teachers expected them to be researching in traditional print sources when they were not at the computers. Printouts were a serendipitous byproduct of using computers for interactively searching a commercial data base. (Because of high time costs, technical experts r ecommend including provisions for printing copy in any config- urarion for on-line search; see Chalgren, 1983, and Martin, 1984). In this grant- funded project, however, the teacher added a printer to the equipment configuration as an afterthought ("if we can afford one").

Printouts were a new experience for these students, only faintly similar to xerox copies, that the students chose to accommodate and find meaning for. Out of the total of 127 computer sessions, counting each student each time they used a computer, the students succeeded in making 99 printouts (an overall completion rate of 78 percent). These included the miniscule as well as those repeating identical material, of course, but all students except one gener- ated from two to five printouts, many more than the teacher expected. This goal of a printout, especially a long one, was initially established by the students themselves and

then unintentially reinforced by the teacher who found them convenient evidence of task application. For the students, getting a printout became an "end," whereas the teacher intended the printouts as a means toward the goal of writing a theme.

Conversations and observed behavior suggest that the students in this class attributed at least three practical values to printouts: They empirically demonstrated coil- quest of the computers; they provided concepts and page numbers for further work in the electronic encyclopedia and content for writing themes; and they substituted for less appealing "work" with print resources. These shared values occurred in both ob- servarions and interview accounts, revealing an easy accommodation of an entirely new technology within the students' usual reward-and-penalty system.

Achievement Measure. The students had to go through several operational steps to store information in their computer memories ("buffers") and had to move that information to their disks which were later used to generate hard copy printouts. By the rime students had been asked by the teacher and media-center supervisor two or three times in the same computer session whether they had indeed "opened their buffers," the value of obtaining a hard copy, and demonstrating that fact irrevocably, was entrenched. On one occasion, one boy was asked five times if he had opened his buffer, all within two minutes (once by the observer, once by the supervisor, and three times by the teacher). The teacher said, "Did you get your BUFFER open today? [pause caused by distraction] DID you? Did you SEE it say 'buffer open'?"

This idea was so firmly embedded as "right" behavior that it was common to hear wails of "Oh, No! I FORGOT my buffer!" several times in the first week of computer use. One girl thought it was so serious that she hit the teacher on the arm, saying, "Hey! I didn't turn on my buffer." Another girl could hardly bring herself to leave the computer carrel in case her precious infor- marion had somehow not been transferred from her screen to her buffer to her disk, which would later be used by the supervisor to generate a printout. Since the process

COMPb"I'E~S AND Pf~NTOUTS 2'~7

was invisible and inaudible except for a couple of "whirrs," her success was not demonstrable one way or the other until the next day when a printout would appear or fail to appear.

In the table area, the teacher said more than once, "Those of you who didn't get a printout made some mistake." Although this was not uttered threateningly, it had the effect of imprinting the teacher's attitude toward obtaining a printout on the students--implying that it would be desirable to get one every time one used a computer. Not getting a printout became the penalty for not mastering the new technology. This was reinforced by the teacher and the supervisor making rounds on the sec- ond and following days of computer use, insisting that most students show them that their screens said, "**Buffer Opened**"

Students who failed to obtain a printout showed their worry in comments to the teacher or to each other. One student ex- cused himself by saying that he "lost" all his work but knew how to do it again, clairning that " today was just practice." Others showed some anxiety by pointing out that "I didn't get a printout last time," or "I didn ' t get any informat ion." Observer notes of jubulation in voices when students did obtain a printout, especially a long one, supports this interpretation.

During the first week of computer use, the students redefined the project's goal from "getting information" (to write a theme) to include "getting the longest printout." On getting a new printout, the typical first gesture was to open it to see how long it was. By the third class meeting after computer use started, the students rushed to their folders on the bookshelf to see if they had gotten a printout and to open it full-length if they had, generally an- nouncing its length to classmates. The values that length had for the students are illustrated in this conversation:

Student: [to tablemates] "I didn't make no mis- takes! [laughs at self] I got TOO much on it!" [laughs and unfolds printout, measuring against those of tablemates] "Mine's the longest one! [prideful] Oh, now I've got EVERYTHING on here!"

Another girl, commented ruefully to a nearby observer after she unfolded a short

printout, "I didn ' t do too hot, I don ' t think." In more than a dozen notes, six observers noted students judging or comparing the size of their printouts. Orally, students at the computers bragged to each other: " I 'm getting a LOT of information today." "I got t o . . . I got way past it. My thing [printout] was about that [gestures] thick." Exchanges like the following between students calling up information at" the computers demonstrate that length was important irrespective of content:

Student: [self-congratulatory tone] "I'm going to have a long piece of paper."

Other Student: "You are. I'm going through all this twice."

Reference Tool. The observers in the table area during the ten days of computer use repeatedly noticed students carefully mark- ing their printouts from one end to the other. They made circles around potential search terms and obliterated text perceived as irrelevant to their papers. In the view of the teachers, the printout replaced the xeroxed book or magazine page as the most important element in research. At the computers, the previous day's printout became a tool for relocating within the electronic encyclopedia by page number, and a strategy for finding desired information by calling up highlighted words. (See Eastman & Agostino, 1986, for content analyses of students' printouts.)

Printouts provided a hard copy of the material accessed in the electronic encyclopedia, supplying facts, spelling of difficult words, names and dates, and so on; they also permitted students to avoid taking lengthy hand-written notes from printed sources or bat t ing for possession of the limited number of printed volumes. In addition, the class assignment required at least t w o page citations from the electronic encyclopedia, a portion of the assignment not completed by some students despite heavy use of their printouts. The poorer students copied directly from their printouts2 Later examination of final themes showed that large sections of encyclopedia content were paraphrased, often without footnotes.

Accommodating Activity. Students who did not appear to be task-directed were likely to


elicit personal attention from the teacher in this class. When reminded "to get some work done" by the teacher, a student typically opened up a printout and buried him or herself in it. Studying a printout served as acceptable behavior for several days, possibly substituting for searching the library for print references for their bibliog- raphies or reading other material or writing their themes. Many students decided that manipulating their printouts by tearing them up sheet by sheet, stapling them in groups, crossing sections out, or circling words gave the appearance of being "at work" in the classroom.

Tearing and stapling was used by one group of four boys to occupy half of a class period on one occasion. The amount of stapling stimulated a student at a nearby table to order, "Quit pounding like that!" Their own jokes and sensitivity to observation showed that they understood this activity to be questionable--evident in this sardonic comment: "Now we gonna get written down as s tudents [who] like to waste staples." When another student was asked what he was going to do after spending half a class period stapling, he said that next he 'd "cross out what I don't need."

In sum, their ready accommodation of printouts showed the students' willingness to find roles for this new technology and its byproducts. It illustrates the multiple layers of a technology's functions within a given context and shows a positive cultural bias toward new activities within a school setting.

Relationships Between Electronic and Print Technology Our fourth research issue concerned comparative values-- the values students asso- dated with electronic information search and the tradit iona[ pr int information technology they were familiar with and required to use as a part of the total assignment. They had to complete exercises using periodicals and the print encyclopedia. Here, the role of printouts provided a deft- nite connection between the old and new technologies, showing greater salience for the new technology than the old.

Although the students may have dimly understood the computer to be performing

a selection and editing process for them and making theme-writing "easier," in fact the system placed everything in the computer 's memory on the disc file, irrespective of value. It was not possible for the students to selectively edit the electronic encyclopedia before saving information. The computer 's role in research was, from an adult perspective, no different than that of a xerox machine because it reproduced everything.

Being "easier" than books was a facet that emerged prominantly in interview accounts of electronic search, despite clear observational evidence that the technology was in fact more difficult to use (from an adult perspective) than print. Although eighth- grade students have been using books in school for eight years, they may find researching in them more difficult than teachers imagine. Virtually all students attributed greater ease to using the electronic text than they attributed to using books and pr inted encyclopedias. However , on analysis, "easier" had at least four mul- tilayered meanings. The following are student accounts of why they preferred computers over printed encyclopedias or other print materials. Only three s tudents claimed that using the computers remained frustrating, and two of them still said they preferred computers to books. None of the students verbally distinguished the computer hardware from the videotex service.

One meaning, asserted by the students in class and in several interviews, was that computers are "faster":

"'Books take too long. In one hour I can get all the information I need (from a computer). I like the TRS better than those (the Apple computers); they don't do as much."

"Normally, under book form, you have to look under one thing and then keep looking, and it takes a few hours."

"It takes longer to READ. You learn some (computer processes), and it goes quicker. In just a week, why we got all this information PLUS we learned something about computers!"

"It's a lot easier than going through an encyclopedia and taking all the time for that. You just push the buttons, and you get all the information you needed."

Another uniformly expressed related meaning was that "less effort" was required of the student; this meaning included a preference for not having to read. Many


students referred to their positive feeling from having information "at my fingertips" or "just pushing buttons":

"Here you can just type it, and it finds it for you. Easier. You have to look it up (in books), seems harder. Computer just does it for you."

"Books are confusing. Looking stuff up is easier on the computer than from books. You don't have to read all the way through to find things like in books."

"Books you have to check to see if the subject is in it. Computer you just have to push some buttons, and it tells you."

"Computers put a lot more at your fingertips." "Didn't have to turn so many pages, just press

buttons." "You don't have to use AUTHORS [tone of dis-

gust]."

The preponderance of opinion was that the "computer had more information" than print materials. Most students seemed to feel that the quantity of information on a topic was greater in the electronic encyclopedia than in the printed version of the same encyclopedia or in the books available in their library. Several students referred to the expansion capability of the electronic data base:

"Encyclopedias [printed] don't have it all." "There wasn't enough in the books." "[Computer] has more information. This went to

Ohio to find out information. They might have more. Books can give you three paragraphs, and you can look in more books, but computers keep going; you get more information. Keep pressing enter, and the information keeps coming in."

"If it was a book, it has to be a little part on a page [shows small space with fingers]. In the computer, there is as much room as they need."

Observation also showed the students appearing impressed with the quantity of relevant material in the electronic encyclopedia in some topics in comparison with the print sources available to them. One student commented at large to his tablemates, referring first to his printout, "All this information! (scornfully) I just got a little bit of information out of this whole book."

Another meaning volunteered by several students was that the computer 's content is more "current," and sometimes more appropriate, than the library's books and periodicals:

"Books aren't new." "It is more up-do-date than the books; I found

out more about dolphin communication from here than from the books."

"The computer gives you all the information you want, not a bunch of junk like the books do."

"In the library, most was just STORIES."

The students appeared to be comparing their experience with just one electronic encyclopedia with their generalized unde r - standing of all the books in the l ibrary--on criteria of accessibility, effort, quantity, and topicality. Clearly, the s tudents found pushing buttons preferable to handling in- dividual books and magazines, claiming that the computer was quicker and relatively effortless. And, of course, the printout relieved them from the tasks of taking notes and making xerox copies.

Moreover, they viewed the computer as editing their information for t hem- -a l - though this was largely a function of the data bases available. The limited number of appropriate sources in CompuServe's data base was a restriction that the students ac- tuaUy viewed as a positive feature. They were content to assume that whatever was in the computer was "enough" and whatever the pr inter pr inted was probably " thorough , " always provided that their printouts were as long as other students' .

The researchers' detailed comparison of the print and electronic versions of Academic American Encyclopedia at the time revealed no differences in content on the students ' topics although the electronic version was theoretically capable of more frequent up- dating. Nonetheless, the students reported "up-to-datedness" as a positive feature of electronic information, despite hav ing magazines with more recent material in their library. Apparently, they felt able to abdicate some of their research respon- sibilities to the computer.

Conceptual Functions of Printouts Most students drew the bulk of their theme content from their printouts, apparently choos ing the conceptual s t ructure and specifics from the electronic rather than pr in t resources . A l t h o u g h some stu- d e n t s - t h o s e with topics inadequately covered in the electronic encyclopedia and those seeking the highest g rades - -made

220 ECTJ WINTER1986

substantial use of printed materials, most of the class referred constantly and exclusively to their printouts when writing.

Accounts from some students suggested that they were aware of using the electronic text differently in their theme content: "Most of the questions I wrote out were [too] easy. I wrote, 'do cats have nine lives." I didn't know what I was doing. And when I saw what we were doing [on the computer], I wrote harder questions." Another student commented to her tablemate that she had "to do all my questions over 'cause they don't go with this stuff [computer infor- marion]." Like other students, this student appeared to alter her theme to fit what the electronic encyclopedia contained, allowing the new technology to drive her perception of appropriate conceptual content. The students usually felt they couldn't answer questions requiring information the computer had not contained, in spite of initially posing the questions as logically appropriate and having numerous other printed reference sources to consult. This pattern may illustrate a greater willingness to adopt cognitive structures from the electronic source than the equally available print sources, perhaps because it is "easier."

CONCLUSIONS This study addressed student conceptions of computers and printouts in the context of first-time efforts to use information search. It considered issues reaching across the conceptual arena of human/technology values, posing four questions about eighth-graders' sense-making practices regarding electronic search. The inductively derived constructs explicated in this paper, based on systematic observation and participation, contradict some previous research results and support others--enlarging our understanding of students' ability to accommodate a new technology.

In the class studied, expressions of apprehension by students were more directly connected to the need to learn new skills than to deep-seated "computerphobia"; any initial fears disappeared rapidly. In contrast to some research at the adult level, none of these students rejected the whole assignment (no initial paralysis appeared

upon being asked to learn to operate a computer) despite many frustrating failures during first attempts at accessing videotex. These 13-year-old students appeared to gain confidence after a few opportunities to use computers.

Students' motives reflected the usual range of rewards for school activities-- grades, teacher approval, perceived control, achievement, and perceived relevance; students were convinced that learning computers would be useful to them espe- dally in future jobs. However, the effects of these motivations were generally short- lived; after two weeks, the students started turning to other activities for their rewards although they reported a long-term expec- tation that knowledge of computers would have importance for them.

The most surprising outcome of the study was the salience of the hard-copy printouts of information accessed in the electronic encyclopedia. Although printouts were new materials to these students, they rapidly ab- sorbed them within their value structures. Both teachers and students acknowledged printouts as empirical evidence of achievement, although size was frequently substituted for quality. Their usefulness as reference and writing tools was quickly recog- nized, as well as their value for new ripping and stapling activities that postponed or replaced less appealing library and/or writing activities.

In contrast to print search, electronic search seemed faster, simpler, more fruit- ful, and more up-to-date to these students. Most clearly preferred working with the computer to working with traditional books and periodicals, although two of the 27 students insisted that books were better for their purposes. But they still wanted to learn the new technology as well as the old. Mastering the technology became a complete educational experience, contradicting educators' expectations that computers function as tools to aid other educational experiences such as writing themes. The process evoked positive comments from the students in spite of the awkwardness of the videotex system. At the cognitive level, the students appeared predisposed to allow the electronic materials to direct their writing efforts, rather than the print, giving the


hard copies of the results of their electronic search more prominance than notes or xerox copies of print materials.

We need not simplistically accept students' reasons for preferring electronic over print search. At the same tLrne, we cannot ignore contradictions between their perceptions of media and ours. Collectively, these students decided they wanted to "learn computers" at this educational moment and s imul taneous ly genera ted acceptable rationales for their goal. These rationales provide clues to classroom motivations and values; they also provide clues to what students perceive as the educational differences between electronic and print search.

Studies by Salomon (1981) and Salomon and Leigh (1984) comparing print and television may hold at least part of the key to students' assumptions about computers. These studies found that children's preconceptions regarding television appeared to affect the depth with which they processed televised information, making their own expectations of little effort come true. Like their socially shared predispositions about processing television content, children may presume that computers should require less effort than print, and, therefore, using self- fulfilling expenditures of effort, find as they expected that computers are less work than books. Because computers and television share entertainment values (games and programs) and use physical ly similar technology (cathode ray tubes and screens), a transfer of expectations and preconceptions was likely and makes sense in light of the students' shift of focus to their printouts and the multiple functions attributed to this aspect of the videotex experience.

In sum, then, observations and interviews showed these students incorporating the process of learning to use this new technology within their daily routines, applying conventions from the science laboratory, assigning rewards and penalties appropriate to the classroom and judging electronic search an acceptable science class activity. At the same time, it showed students attributing several practical features to electronic search of value to them and cognitive features that permi t ted the medium, in this case computers, to replace human judgments. It is this aspect of stu-

dents' perceptions that need further explor- ation as it signals the evolution of social values and a change in the type of cognitive skills that the future will require. It is an area where software programs for interactive data base search can be expected to evolve, providing better opportunities for manipu- lation of information during the process of electronic search.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. A. (1986). Methods and Issues in Communication Research. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Anderson, J. A., & Eastman, S. T. (1983). Con- versations occurring during use of videotex resources in writing eighth-grade science themes. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Associa- tion, Washington, D.C., November 1983.

Anderson, J. A., Meyer, T. P., & Traudt, P. J. (1980). Nontraditional mass communication research methods: An overview of observational case studies of media use in natural settings. Communication Yearbook, 1980, 4, 261- 275.

Becker, H.J. (1983). How schools use microcomputers. Classroom Computer Learning, Sep- tember 1983, 41-44.

Briggs, L.J. (1984). Whatever happened to motivation and the affective domain?" Educa- tional Technology, May 1984, 33-34.

Burns, P.K. , & Bozeman. W.C. (1981). Computer-assisted instruction and mathematics achievement: Is there a relationship? Educational Technology, October 1981, 32-39.

Chalgren, B. (1983). Connecting your computer to a modem: Where to start. The Computing Teacher, September 1983, 65-68.

Clement, F. J. (1981). Affective considerations in computer-based education. Educational Technology, April 1981, 28-32.

CoUis, B. (1983). Questions for research on microcomputers as instructional media. Educa- tional Technology, March 1983, 43-44.

Cook, P. R. (1984). Electronic encyclopedias: Navigating in 'Knowledge Land.' Byte, June 1984, 73-87.

Craver, K. W., & Ounanian, L. A. (1984). An introduction to online bibliographic searching for high school students: A successful approach. Educational Technology, June 1984, 39-41.

Dickerson. L., & Pritchard, W. H. (1981). Micro- computers and education: Planning for the coming revolution in the classroom. Educa- tional Technology, January 1981, 7-12.

222 ECTJ WINTER1986

Eastman, S. T., & Agostino, D. E. (1986). Com- manding the computer: Functions and concepts of videotex technology for eighth-grade students. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 1986, 19, 49-57.

Eastman, S. T., Daugherty, T., & Agostino, D. (1983). A guide to using electronic text in the classroom. Report to the Lilly Endowment, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

Glazer, B. G. (1969). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. In G. J. McCall and J. L. Simmons, eds., Issues in participant observation. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1969, 216-228.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The dis- covery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Co.

Gleason, G. T. (1981). Microcomputers in education: The state of the art. Educational Technol- ogy, March 1981, 7-18.

Glenn, A. D., Kozen, N. A., & Pollack, R. A. (1984). Teaching economics: Research findings from a microcomputerfvideodisc project. Edu- cational Technology, March 1984, 30-32.

Grossnickle, D. R., & Laird, B. A. (1983). Profile of change in education: Micros gain momen- tum. Educational Technology, February 1983, 13-16.

Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiry." Educa- tional Communication and Technology Journal, 1981, 29 (2), 75-92.

Guba, E. G. (1982). The search for truth: Natu- ralistic inquiry as an option. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Reading Association, April 1982.

Lawton, J., & Gerschner, V. T. (1982). A review of the literature on attitudes towards computers and computerized instruction. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 1982, 16, 50-55.

Lepper, M. R. (1982). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. Address to the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., August 23, 1982.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

Martin, W. (1984). Touring an informational wonderland. Classroom Computer Learning, February 1984, 52-60.

McCain, T. A., & James, N. C. (1982). Television games preschool children play: Patterns,

themes and uses. Journal of Broadcasting, 1982, 26, 783-800.

Olstad, R. G., & Haury, D. L. (1982). A summary of research in science education, 1982. Seattle, Washington: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, University of Washington.

Paisley, W., &Chen, M. (1982). Children and electronic text: Challenges and opportunities for the "new literacy.'" Palo Alto, California: Stanford University, April.

Pogrow, S. (1983). Education in the computer age: Issues of policy, practice, and reform. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Salomon, G. (1981). Communication and education: Social and psychological interactions. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Salomon, G., & Leigh, T. (1984). Predispositions about learning from print and television. Jour- nal of Communication, 1984, 34, 119-135.

Schwartz, H., & Jacobs, J. (1979). Qualitative sociology: A method to the madness. New York: Free Press.

Slesnick, T. (1984). Mandates aren ' t good enough: Here's an alternative. Classroom Com- puter Learning, April/May 1984, 26-27.

Spector, B. S. (1984). Qualitative research: Data analysis framework generating grounded theory applicable to the crisis in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1984, 2I, 459-467.

Steinkamp, M. W., & Maehr, M. L. (1984). Gen- der difference in motivational orientations toward achievement in school science: A quan- titative synthesis. American Educational Re- search Journal, 1984, 21, 39-59.

Wartella, E., & Reeves, B. (1983). Recurring issues in research on children and media. Educa- tional Technology, June 1983, 5-9.

Watts, N. (1981). A dozen uses for the computer in education. Educational Technology, April 1981, 18-22.

Welch, W. W. (1983). Experimental inquiry and naturalistic inquiry: An evaluation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1983, 20, 95-103.

Williams, F., & Williams, V. (1984). Microcomput- ers in elementary education. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.

Winkle, L. W., & Mathews, W. M. (1982). Com- puter equity comes of age. Phi Delta Kappan, January 1982, 63, 314--315.

Documents

A qualitative study of computers and printouts in the classroom