Computers and Classrooms

Computers and ClassroomsThe Status of Technology in U.S. Schools

POLICY INFORMATION REPORT

®

POLICY INFORMATION CENTEREducational Testing Service

Princeton, New Jersey 08541-0001

1

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Summary and Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

School Access to Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Multimedia Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Cable TV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Internet Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Videodisc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Satellite Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Student Use of Computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27School Computer Use Information from NAEP . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Student Use of Computers at Home and School . . . . . . . . . . . 27Student Use of Computers for School Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28The Use of Computers in Teaching Reading, U.S. History/ Social Studies, and Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Student Use of Computers in Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Computer Coursework and Experience of College-Bound Seniors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30A Profile of the Class of 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Change Over the Decade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Evaluating the Impact of Educational Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . 34What the Research Shows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Evaluation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38An Example from the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Connecting Teachers and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Current Status of Staff Development for Technology Use . . . . . 41Barriers to Effective Technology Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Models for Connecting Teachers and Technology . . . . . . . . . . 44Involving Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Assessing the Content and Quality of Courseware . . . . . . . . . . . 48The Instructional Design of Courseware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49The California Instructional Technology Clearinghouse . . . . . . 49The CITC Evaluation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Guidance for Courseware Developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52The Quality of Current Courseware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Integrating Effective Courseware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Incentives for Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

The Costs of Educational Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Estimating the Costs of Technology in Our Schools . . . . . . . . . 57Cost Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58California’s Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Urban/Rural Cost Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Economies in Educational Technology Funding . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

This report was written by:

Richard J. ColeyPolicy Information CenterEducational Testing Service

John CradlerCouncil of Chief StateSchool Officers

Penelope K. EngelEducational Testing Service

The view expressed in thisreport are those of theauthors and do not necessar-ily reflect the views of theofficers and trustees ofEducational Testing Service.

2

PREFACE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Education reform andthe quality of schoolstop the list of nationalconcerns these days. Andthe use of technology inclassrooms shares topbilling with the standardsand assessment move-ment as ways to improveeducation.

This report is abouttechnology in the class-room. It is not an argu-ment for or againsttechnology, nor a how-to-do-it manual. Itspurpose is to inform —to bring together whatwe know about:

● the access of schools totechnology and the fair-ness of access amongstudents

● how technology is usedin schools

● the effectiveness ofeducational technology

● issues involved inconnecting teachersand technology

● the quality of educa-tional courseware

● the costs of deployingtechnology in ourschools

This report alsoprovides a baseline ofinformation from whichwe can track change.Change, of course, is the

one constant in theworld of technology.This report is a “snap-shot” of a rapidly chang-ing phenomenon; thepicture will have to betaken regularly for suchinformation to be useful.

Paul E. BartonDirectorPolicy Information Center

The authors wish tothank the followingpeople for their helpwith this report. At ETS,Tony Cline, Larry Frase,and Ellen Mandinachcontributed advice earlyin the project and pro-vided reviews of thereport. Paul Barton andHoward Wainer of ETS,and Margaret E. Goertzof the Center for PolicyResearch in Education atthe University of Penn-sylvania also reviewedsections of the report.

Quality EducationData, Inc. provided pre-publication access totheir data on technologypenetration in schoolsand we are grateful toLaurie Christensen andJeanne Hayes for theirhelp. Ruth Mary Cradlerof Educational SupportSystems also providedassistance.

Shilpi Niyogi andBarbara Bruschi providededitorial support andCarla Cooper did thedesk-top publishing. RickBruce, Rod Rudder, andJim Wert designed thecover. Jim Chewningmanaged production.

Errors of fact orinterpretation are thoseof the authors.

3

SUMMARY AND HIGHLIGHTS

SCHOOL ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY

● There are major differences among schools in theiraccess to different kinds of educational technology.

● Students attending poor and high-minority schoolshave less access to most types of technology thanstudents attending other schools.

● Ninety-eight percent of all schools own computers. Thecurrent student-to-computer ratio of 10 to 1 representsan all-time low ratio. The ratio ranges from about6 to 1 in Florida, Wyoming, Alaska, and North Dakotato 16 to 1 in Louisiana.

● While 85 percent of U.S. schools have multimediacomputers, the average ratio of students to computersis 24 to 1, nearly five times the ratio recommended bythe U.S. Department of Education. The ratio rangesfrom about 9 to 1 in Florida to about 63 to 1 in Louisi-ana. Students attending poor and high-minority schoolshave less access than students attending other schools.

● About three-quarters of the nation’s schools haveaccess to cable TV. This percentage ranges from 91percent of Connecticut’s schools to 36 percent ofVermont’s schools. Students attending poor and high-minority schools have less access to cable TV thanstudents attending other schools.

● Sixty-four percent of U.S. schools have access to theInternet, up from 35 percent in 1994 and 50 percent in1995. In Delaware, Hawaii, New Mexico, and SouthCarolina, all schools are connected. Students attendingpoor and high-minority schools are less likely to haveInternet access than other students. Only 14 percent ofU.S. classrooms have access to the Internet.

● Little more than half of our schools have CD-ROMdrives, ranging from 91 percent of the schools in NorthCarolina to only 29 percent of the schools in Vermont.Students attending poor and high-minority schoolshave less access to CD-ROM than students attendingother schools.

● Thirty-eight percent of our schools are using local areanetworks (LANs) for student instruction. This rangesfrom 57 percent of the schools in Colorado, Utah, and

North Carolina, to 16 percent of the schools in Ver-mont. Students attending poor and high-minorityschools have less access to LANs than students attend-ing other schools.

● About one-third of U.S. schools have videodisc tech-nology, ranging from 95 percent of Florida’s schools to10 percent of Mississippi’s schools. Students attendingpoor and high-minority schools are more likely thanstudents attending other schools to have access tovideodisc technology.

● Just under one-fifth of our schools have access tosatellite technology, ranging from 50 percent of theschools in Missouri to only 1 percent of Hawaii’sschools. While students attending high-minority schoolshave less access to this technology than studentsattending other schools, students attending poorschools have more access than students attending richschools.

USE OF COMPUTERS

● Among eleventh graders, writing stories and paperswas the most frequently rated computer use at homeand school. Among fourth and eighth graders, playinggames (presumably at home) was the prevalentcomputer use. At all three grade levels, using thecomputer to learn things and for writing were highlyrated uses. About half the students said they used acomputer at home.

● Nine percent of fourth graders, 10 percent of eighthgraders, and 19 percent of twelfth graders said theyused a computer for school work almost daily. Sixtypercent of fourth graders, 51 percent of eighth graders,and 37 percent of twelfth graders said that they neverused a computer for school work.

● Black and Hispanic fourth graders were more likelythan White and Asian students to report using comput-ers almost daily.

● Fourth graders receiving Title 1 services and thoseattending the lowest scoring third of schools reportedmore frequent use of computers than other students.

4

● White, Black, and Hispanic twelfth graders were morelikely than Asian students to report almost daily use ofcomputers.

● Twelfth graders receiving Title 1 services and thoseattending rural/small town schools were more likely toreport daily computer use than other students.

● About 40 percent of fourth-grade teachers used com-puters to teach reading, U.S. history/social studies, andgeography.

● About one-third of eighth-grade teachers used comput-ers to teach U.S. history/social studies and geography,and 17 percent reported using the computer to teachreading.

● With a few exceptions, the use of technology to teachreading, U. S. history/social studies, and geographywas found to be equitable. Among the exceptions:

— White fourth graders were more likely than Blackfourth graders to have teachers who used com-puters to teach geography.

— White eighth graders were more likely than theirBlack and Hispanic classmates to have teacherswho used computers to teach history.

— Students whose teachers indicated that the abilitylevel of their class was low were less likely thanother students to be taught geography using acomputer.

● About half of the nation’s 13- and 17-year-olds hadaccess to a computer to learn mathematics.

● For college-bound seniors from the Class of 1996, wordprocessing exposure was the most frequent type ofcoursework or experience, followed by computerliteracy, use in English courses, use in solving math-ematics problems, data processing, computer program-ming, and use in solving natural science and socialscience problems. Only 9 percent of students reportedno computer coursework or experience. Findings bygender and racial/ethnic group follow:

— Females were more likely than males to haveword processing experience.

— Students from minority groups were less likely tohave courses or experience in word processingand computer literacy, and less likely to usecomputers in English courses and to solveproblems in mathematics and natural science.

— Minority group students were more likely tohave courses in data processing and computerprogramming.

— Females were less likely than males to havecoursework or experience in computer literacyand computer programming, and less likely touse computers to solve math and natural scienceproblems.

— Since 1987, the percentage of college-boundseniors reporting no computer coursework orexperience dropped from 26 percent to 9 percent.

— Drops were registered in computer programmingand in using the computer to solve math problems.

— Increases were registered in all other areas,particularly in word processing and in usingcomputers in English courses.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

● Research generally agrees that drill-and-practice formsof computer-assisted instruction are effective in produc-ing achievement gains in students.

● More pedagogically complex uses of educationaltechnology generally show more inconclusive results,yet many offer promising and inviting educationalvignettes.

● Many ongoing educational technology projects are inthe process of documenting and recording measures ofstudent motivation, academic outcomes, and otheroutcomes such as increased skills in problem-solvingand collaboration.

5

● Evaluations of educational technology are reallyevaluations of instruction enabled by technology, andthe outcomes are highly dependent on the implementa-tion of the instructional design.

● Evaluations of educational technology applications mustconfront a number of methodological problems,including the need for measures other than standard-ized achievement tests, differences among students inopportunity to learn, and differences in starting pointsand program implementation.

● Effects of educational technology on teachers should beemphasized because teachers remain in the classroomto influence many generations of students.

CONNECTING TEACHERS AND TECHNOLOGY

● Research shows that helping teachers learn how tointegrate technology into the curriculum is a criticalfactor for the successful implementation of technologyapplications in schools.

● Most teachers have not had the education or trainingto use technology effectively in their teaching.

● Only 15 percent of U.S. teachers reported having atleast nine hours of training in education technology in1994.

● In 18 states, teacher education students do not needcourses in educational technology to obtain a teachinglicense.

● Only 16 percent of teachers currently use telecommuni-cations for professional development.

● Research on the adoption of innovations in schoolsconsistently points to the key role of administrators insuccessful implementation.

● Effective staff development for teachers should takeadvantage of telecommunications technologies thatallow teachers to interact with each other, take onlinecourses, and easily access the latest research in theirdiscipline.

EFFECTIVE COURSEWARE

● Effective courseware needs to reflect the research onhow students learn, be matched to national, state, ordistrict educational standards, and be integrated intothe teaching and learning activities of the classroom.

● Research-based criteria for the development of effectivecurriculum should also be applied to the developmentand selection of educational courseware.

● The California Instructional Technology Clearinghousehas rated only 6 to 8 percent of evaluated coursewareas “exemplary,” and from 33 to 47 percent as “desir-able.” Less than half of the courseware submitted to theClearinghouse had sufficient quality to merit review.

● Promising directions in courseware development mightinclude a national clearinghouse; partnerships amongdevelopers, teacher groups, and private and publicagencies; and a determination of courseware needsthat would meet current and emerging curriculumdirections.

THE COSTS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

● Research shows that the cost of the technology cur-rently in our schools is about $3 billion, or $70 perpupil. This cost represents just over 1 percent of totaleducation spending.

● Estimates indicate that it will cost about $15 billionto make all of our schools “technology rich.” This isabout $300 per student, 5 percent of total educationspending, and about five times what we now spendon technology.

● Different deployment scenarios are estimated to costfrom $11 billion for a lab with 25 networked PCs inevery school, to $47 billion for a networked PC forevery five students.

● The primary upfront factor affecting costs is thepurchase and installation of computers and otherhardware.

6

● Secondary, very high-cost, factors relate to the hiring orreassignment of technology staff and the training ofstaff and teachers.

● Telecommunications costs (e.g., Internet access,telephone bills) are a small portion of total technologycosts, estimated at from 4 to 11 percent.

● Connecting schools with cable substantially increasestheir technological capacity over that of telephonewire, but technical problems have to be solved.

● Wireless solutions are appropriate and cost-effectiveunder certain circumstances, such as in old buildingsrequiring asbestos removal or in rural areas. Savingsfrom 20 to 40 percent of the cost of Internet connectiv-ity have been observed.

● Urban/rural disparities in telephone costs exist whichadversely affect rural schools. Significantly higherpercentages of non-metropolitan than metropolitanschools are located in high-cost service areas.

● A variety of technology cost reductions to schools havebeen achieved through the configuration of networks,discounted group rates, donated services, and specialprograms.

7

INTRODUCTION

Education has alwaysbeen susceptible to“silver bullet” solutions toits problems, and impos-ing a new technologyhas often been such asolution. Yet time aftertime, the “technology dujour” has collided withthe realities of the class-room and resulted inonly marginal changes inhow teachers teach andstudents learn. Why isthis so? And what are theprospects for change?

Some researcherspoint out that “techno-reformers” too oftenignore the main purposeof schooling, the realsocial organization ofschools, and the pressingdaily realities of teaching.Teachers are seen as partof the problem and areburdened with solvingit.2 Yet most of theteachers in today’sclassrooms have hadlittle training or experi-ence in technology.Nationally, only 15percent of our teachershad at least nine hours of

training in educationaltechnology in 1994;and as of 1996, 18 ofthe states did notrequire courses ineducational technologyfor a teaching license.3

Further, teachers oftenhave difficulty linkingeducational technologyuse to local curriculaand integrating itwith instruction andassessment.

Perhaps anotherproblem is the couplingof educational technol-ogy issues with educa-tion reform issues. Somecomputer advocatesargue that computerswill become integratedin our schools onlywhen teachers teachdifferently than they donow and students studya different curriculum.Others have suggestedthat we can makeheadway in gettingteachers to use comput-ers in instruction if westop trying to get teach-ers to do their jobsdifferently and begin

using technology to helpteachers do their jobs asthey do them now. Oncethe use of computers isunhitched from move-ments to reform teachingand redesign the curricu-lum, technology stands abetter chance of assum-ing an important educa-tional role.4

We need to remem-ber at least two impor-tant things. First, comput-ers in and of themselvesdo very little to aidlearning. The presenceof technology in theclassroom does notautomatically inspireteachers to rethink theirteaching or students toadopt new modes oflearning. Althoughcomputers may makethe work more efficientand more fun, students’use of computers forvarious tasks — likewriting, drawing, orgraphing — does nottend to radically changewhat they would havedone without computers.Computer technology

may provide powerfullearning opportunities,but both teachers andstudents need to learnhow to take advantageof them. Second, nosingle task or activityhas profound andlasting effects on learn-ing by itself. Rather, it isthe whole culture of aclassroom environmentthat can have importanteffects on learning.5

What is educationaltechnology? And how isit used in schools today?In the broad sense, theterm includes anyresources used in theeducation of students.These can includemethods, tools, orprocesses. In practice,the term was used inthe post World War IIera to mean technolo-gies such as film strips,slide projectors, lan-guage laboratories,audio tapes, and televi-sion. Since the advent ofpersonal computing inthe 1980s, the phrasehas come to refer

I believe that the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our educational system and that ina few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks...

Thomas Edison, 1922

Because education will be much more efficient, it will probably cost less than it does now. This is not autopian dream. It is well within the range of an existing technology of teaching.

B.F. Skinner, 1986

There won’t be schools in the future... I think the computer will blow up the school. That is, the schooldefined as something where there are classes, teachers running exams, people structured in groups byage, following a curriculum — all of that...

Seymour Papert, 19841

8

Although today’s technologyreform started about 15 years ago,technology in the schools goesback twice as far. The computer-assisted instruction projects of the1960s evolved, with the increasedavailability of personal computers,into the CD ROM-based multi-media learning resources of today.At the same time, telecommunica-tions networks burgeoned, greatlyextending the possibility of con-nections to learning sources acrosstime and space, via voicemail,E-mail, direct broadcast viasatellite, and the electronicresources of the World Wide Web.

The federal governmentsupported technology for schoolsas early as the late 1950s, largelythrough funding from the NationalScience Foundation and theDepartment of Education. Morerecently the departments ofAgriculture, Commerce, Defense,and Energy, as well as NASA andthe National Endowment for theHumanities, have offered funds foreducational technology. Thesefederal efforts have supportededucational television program-ming and facilities, development ofcomputer-based instructionalmaterials, hardware and softwarepurchases, demonstration projects,educational technology centers,distance learning networks,conferences, evaluations, assistivetechnologies for disabled learners,and more recently, support fortelecommunications networks andeducational technology planning.7

Federal legislation passed in1994, both The Goals 2000:

Educate America Act and theImproving America’s Schools Act(IASA), authorized funds for stateand federal educational technologyplanning. Five million dollars havenow been distributed under Goals2000 to nearly all 50 states fordevelopment of state technologytask forces and plans. IASA hassupported federal leadership,regional technology centers, and43 large technology challengegrants to school-business-collegepartnerships for technology toimprove learning. It also autho-rized America’s TechnologyLiteracy Challenge, for which $200million were appropriated for FY1997. Title I of IASA providedsome $450 million, and Title VIsome $60 million, for support ofeducational technology in FY1996.

President Clinton and VicePresident Gore have madeeducational technology a highvisibility, high priority issue. In1996 Clinton called for connectingevery classroom in America to theinformation superhighway, “withcomputers and good software andwell-trained teachers.” The WhiteHouse announced four educa-tional technology goals:

1. All teachers in the nationwill have the training andsupport they need to helpstudents learn using com-puters and the informationsuperhighway.

2. All teachers and studentswill have modern multi-

media computers in theirclassrooms.

3. Every classroom will beconnected to the informationsuperhighway.

4. Effective software and on-linelearning resources will be anintegral part of every school’scurriculum.

Other White House technol-ogy initiatives include America’sTechnology Literacy Challenge, afive-year effort to help statesachieve the goals; a 21st CenturyTeachers program to recruitteachers to train others in tech-nology use; and the “Tech Corps”which involves volunteers helpingschools integrate technology intothe classroom.

A National Education Summitof governors and business,education, and community leaders,convened in Palisades, New Yorkin March 1996, also stressed theimportance of educationaltechnology. Conference leaderscommitted to helping educatorsovercome barriers, including“planning for the acquisition andintegration of technology inschools, the high cost of acquiringand maintaining technology, thelack of school technology policies,resistance to change, and the needfor staff development and curri-culum change.”8 The participantspledged to subject their states topublic scrutiny through annualreport cards on their progress.

The Federal Communica-tions Commission (FCC), underthe direction of Chairman ReedHundt, has been playing animportant role in makingtelecommunications servicesaccessible to schools, includingenabling schools to createwireless computer networks,allowing inexpensive access to theInternet and other advancedtelecommunications services. Asthis report goes to press, the FCCis developing provisions to meetthe Telecommunications Act of1996, which requires thataffordable service and access toadvanced telecommunicationsservices are provided to publicschools and libraries, includinghigher discounts for economicallydisadvantaged schools and thoselocated in high-cost areas. A finalFCC decision is expected in May1997.

The President has continuedhis support for educationaltechnology in 1997 by recom-mending in his State of the Unionaddress and budget request adoubling of the funding forAmerica’s Technology LiteracyChallenge. For FY 1998, $425million was requested as thesecond installment of a five-year,$2 billion investment to modern-ize schools to prepare studentsfor work in the coming century.

Some Milestones in Educational Technology

9

primarily to computer-based learning, andmost recently to learningenvironments establishedwith computer andcommunications tech-nologies. In short, educa-tional technology is aphrase used to refer tothe most advanced tech-nologies available forteaching and learning ina particular era.6

How are educationaltechnologies being usedin today’s classrooms?At one end of the spec-trum, computers areused to “deliver” tradi-tional instruction, e.g.,software provides drill-and-practice in multipli-cation tables. In otherinstances, computersprovide students withexperience in technolo-gies that adults use inmany work situations —word processors forwriting, data bases forcollecting and analyzinginformation, and desk-top publishing softwarefor publishing. Comput-ers are increasingly beingused to provide studentswith opportunities toexplore “microworlds,”enabling them to “con-struct” new knowledgeand learn basic skills inuseful contexts. Finally,Internet connectionsallowing electronic mail,file transfer, conferencing,and access to remote

expertise and informa-tion offer tantalizingpromise to educatorsseeking to preparestudents for the 21stcentury.

In assessing thestatus of educationaltechnology in ourschools, equity issuesare paramount. Somereformers argue thattechnology can be the“one” educationalchange that can reallymake a difference fordisadvantaged students,allowing them totranscend the bound-aries of their schools.Others warn that tech-nology could widen thegap between the educa-tion “haves” and “havenots.” Where available,data in this report arebroken out by demo-graphic categories tohelp determine whichway we are heading.

While many educa-tional technology issuescontinue to be debated,the presence of technol-ogy in schools continu-ally expands. Thisexpansion will continue,whether one believesthat computers shouldbe an integral part ofeducation for pedagogi-cal reasons, or that theiruse is justified simplybecause of the technicalrequirements of theworld in which today’s

students will work.Meanwhile, those con-cerned about theseissues — the public,teachers, educationaltechnology planners,and policymakers at thefederal, state, district, andschool level need currentinformation about howtechnology is being usedin classrooms today andwhat are its effects.

This report attemptsto meet that demand forinformation. The aim isto provide a “snapshot”of where the U.S. is interms of technology inclassrooms. We assembledata to answer thefollowing questions:

● How much technologyis in our schools and isit allocated fairly?

● How are computersused in schools? Isaccess equitable?

● What do we knowabout the effectivenessof educational technol-ogy and what are theevaluation problems weface?

● How can teachers andtechnology be betterconnected?

● What is the quality ofcurrent educationalcourseware and how isit related to currenteducational standards?

● What are the costs ofdeploying technology inour schools?

1 Quotations from Nira Hativa andAlan Lesgold, “Situational Effects inClassroom Technology Implementa-tions: Unfulfilled Expectations andUnexpected Outcomes,” in StephenT. Kerr (ed.), Technology and theFuture of Schooling, Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1996.

2 Larry Cuban, “Revolutions thatFizzled,” Washington PostEducation Review, October 27,1996.

3 Education Week, Quality Counts: AReport Card on the Condition ofPublic Education in the 50 States,January 22, 1997.

4 Tom Loveless, “Why Aren’tComputers Used More in Schools?”Educational Policy, Volume 10,Number 4, December 1996.

5 Gavriel Salomon and DavidPerkins, “Learning in Wonderland:What Do Computers Really OfferEducation?” in Stephen T. Kerr (ed.),Technology and the Future ofSchooling, Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1996.

6 Roy Pea, “Learning and Teachingwith Educational Technologies,” inH.J. Walberg & G.D. Haertel (eds.),Educational Psychology: EffectivePractices and Policies, Berkeley, CA:McCutchan Publishers, 1996.

7 Office of Technology Assessment,Power On! New Tools for Teachingand Learning, Washington, DC:1988.

8 National Education Summit, “1996National Education Summit PolicyStatement,” Sponsored by theIBM Corporation, the NationalGovernors Association, and theEducation Commission of the States,Palisades, New York, March 27,1996.

10

Two of the four Technol-ogy Literacy Challengegoals are related to thepresence of hardware inour schools:

● All teachers and studentswill have modern multi-media computers in theirclassrooms.

● Every classroom will beconnected to the informa-tion superhighway.

Computers arebecoming ubiquitous intoday’s elementary andsecondary schools — 98percent of schools reportowning a computer.1 Butdo all students haveequal access to technol-ogy? This section of thereport examines thepresence of varioustypes of technologies inschools in the 1995-1996school year and focuseson whether differenttypes of students, orstudents in differenttypes of schools, havedifferent access to thesetechnologies.

This analysis includesgauging the access totechnology of studentsreceiving Title 1 services(a federal program forour most economicallydisadvantaged students)and for minority students(students who are ofAfrican-, Asian-, His-panic-, or Native-Ameri-can origin).2 In addition,we show the variation

that exists across the 50states.

Figure 1 shows anoverall picture of technol-ogy penetration in U.S.public schools in the1995-96 school year.Nearly all schools havecomputers and videocassette recorders (VCRs),and three-quarters ormore of all U.S. schoolsown multimedia comput-ers and cable television.Sixty-four percent ofschools have Internetconnections. About halfown CD-ROM drives andapproximately one-third

are equipped with localarea networks (LANs) andvideodisc players. Aboutone-fifth of schools usesatellite technology. Eachof these technologies isdiscussed in the follow-ing sections.

School Accessto Technology

Computers

VCRs

Multimedia Computers

Cable TV

Internet Access

CD-ROM

Networks

Videodisc

Satellite

0 25 50 75 100

98

97

85

76

64

54

38

35

19

Percentage of Schools

Figure 1: Technology Penetration in U.S. Public Schools,1995-96

Source: QED, 1997.

11

COMPUTERS

There are 4.4 millioncomputers in America’sclassrooms, with thetypical school owningbetween 21 and 50. TheApple platform still leadsin K–12 computing with ashare of 60 percent (41percent Macintosh and 19percent Apple II andIIGS). DOS machineshave 40 percent of themarket.

As shown in Figure 2,the ratio of students tocomputers has declinedfrom 125 students percomputer in 1984 to thecurrent ratio of 10 stu-dents per computer, theall-time low.

The ratio of studentsto computers decreases asthe grade level increases.Elementary schools havea ratio of 11 to 1; middle/junior highs have a ratioof 9.7 to one; and seniorhighs have a ratio of 8.4to 1. The rate of com-puter growth has slowedas districts and schoolshave invested in networkand telecommunicationtechnology. Moderniza-tion also has had an effectas older equipment isretired and replaced.

Technology penetra-tion can also be exam-ined by the amount ofdiscretionary dollars adistrict spends per stu-dent. Discretionary dollarsare dollars spent forinstruction less salaries

and fringe benefits. Asexpected, high-spendingdistricts ($500 or moreper pupil) have morecomputers per student,on average, than otherdistricts. High-spendingdistricts have an averageof 9.7 students per com-puter, compared to 10.2students per computerfor medium-spendingdistricts, and 10.6 stu-dents per computer forlow-spending districts.

What about therelationship between theavailability of computersand student need? Thedata show that studentswith the most need getthe least access. As seenin Figure 3, the ratio ofstudents to computersgoes up as the percent-age of Title 1 studentsincreases. Thus, studentsin schools with thelargest percentage ofeconomically disadvan-taged students have thehighest ratio. Addition-ally, as seen in Figure 4,schools with large pro-portions of minoritystudents also have thehighest ratios. Whileschools with less than25 percent of suchstudents have a student-to-computer ratio ofabout 10 to one, stu-dents in schools with 90percent or more ofminority students have aratio of 17.4 to one.

Figure 2: Trends in the Number of Students perComputer

Source: QED, 1997.

Source: QED, 1997.

Source: QED, 1997.

1-24 25-49 50-74 75-89 90+8

10

12

14

16

18

Percentage of Minority Students

Stu

dent

s pe

r C

ompu

ter

’84 ’86 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’960

20

40

60

80

100

120

Stu

dent

s pe

r C

ompu

ter

Figure 3: Relationship between the Number ofStudents per Computer and the Percentage of Title 1Students

1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-998

9

10

11

12

13

Percentage of Title 1 Students

Stu

dent

s pe

r C

ompu

ter

Figure 4: Relationship between the Number of Studentsper Computer and the Percentage of Minority Students

12

This pattern of inequityis persistent in the data thatwill follow. Previousanalyses have shown apositive relationshipbetween the percentage ofTitle 1 students and com-puter availability.3 Thegeneral trend was moretechnology in poorerschools. This no longerappears to be the case.While Title 1 funding isdesigned to help poorschools, these targetedresources are apparentlyineffective in getting theseschools up to par techno-logically with otherschools. Since much of thetechnology that currentlyresides in poor schools isprobably due to Title 1funds, it is hard to imaginewhat the technology levelin these schools would belike without this federalprogram.

Figure 5 shows thestudent-to-computer ratiofor each state. While stateaverages can mask dif-ferences that exist amonga state’s school districts,averages can be useful inrecognizing the differencesthat exist among the states.Florida, Wyoming, Alaska,North Dakota, Nebraska,South Dakota, and Kansaslead the states with aboutsix students per computer,on average. At the otherend, Massachusetts, Missis-sippi, Delaware, andLouisiana have student-to-computer ratios of 14 toone or more.

0 5 10 15 20 25

5.95.96.16.26.56.66.87.1

7.67.98.18.28.48.68.68.88.99.29.39.39.49.59.59.6

10

10.110.210.310.410.5

111111.111.411.711.812.112.112.212.312.712.9

13.413.713.713.814.114.4

15.316

FloridaWyoming

AlaskaNorth Dakota

NebraskaSouth Dakota

KansasNorth Carolina

MontanaColorado

IowaIndiana

WashingtonMinnesota

New MexicoGeorgia

WisconsinTexas

ArizonaUtah

West VirginiaMaine

OregonKentucky

Idaho

OklahomaVirginia

ArkansasNew York

South CarolinaMissouriMichiganMaryland

ConnecticutPennsylvania

NevadaAlabama

New JerseyIllinois

VermontNew Hampshire

TennesseeOhio

CaliforniaHawaii

Rhode IslandMassachusetts

MississippiDelawareLouisiana

Students per Computer

U.S. Average 10

Figure 5: Number of Students per Computer, by State

Source: QED, 1997.

13

MULTIMEDIA COMPUTERS

Multimedia systemsinclude high-speedcomputers with largememory and storagecapacities that areaugmented with variouscomponents and periph-erals that provide sound,graphics, and video.Multimedia computersare important in takingadvantage of learningopportunities providedby the Internet and theWorld Wide Web. While85 percent of thenation’s schools havesome multimedia com-puters, in the averageschool the ratio ofstudents to multimediacomputers is about 24to one. According tothe U.S. Department ofEducation, the optimumratio is five to one,nearly five times lessthan the current nationalratio.4

High-spendingdistricts generally pro-vide students with betteraccess to multimediacomputers. The ratio inlow-spending districts isalmost 29 to one, com-pared to a ratio of 23 toone in high-spendingdistricts.

Students attendingschools with largeconcentrations of poorand minority studentshave more limited accessto multimedia computers

Figure 6: Relationship between the Number of Studentsper Multimedia Computer and the Percentage of Title 1Students

Source: QED, 1997.

Source: QED, 1997.

1-24 25-49 50-74 75-89 90+20

25

30

35

40


Stu

dent

s pe

r M

ultim

edia

Com

pute

r

1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-9920

25

30

35

40

Percentage of Title 1 StudentsS

tude

nts

per

Mul

timed

ia C

ompu

ter

than other students.Figures 6 and 7 showthe dimensions of thisproblem.

The figures showconsistent differences inthe student-to-multime-dia computer ratio inschools educating largeproportions of Title 1and minority students. Asshown in Figure 6, as thepercentage of Title 1students goes up, sodoes the ratio of studentsto computers. Schoolswhere less than 20percent of the studentsqualify for Title 1 have aratio of about 22 studentsper computer, comparedto a ratio of about 32students per computer inschools where 81 per-cent or more of thestudents are eligible forTitle 1.

Schools with morethan 50 percent ofminority students havehigher student-to-multi-media computer ratiosthan other schools. Ascan be seen in Figure 7,most striking is that inschools with 90 percentor more minority stu-dents, the ratio is about30 students per com-puter, compared to aratio of about 22 to onefor schools with between25 and 49 percent ofminority students.

The ratios by stateare shown in Figure 8.Differences across states

Figure 7: Relationship between the Number of Studentsper Multimedia Computer and the Percentage ofMinority Students

14

Figure 8: Number of Students per Multimedia Computer, by State

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

8.511.211.512.21314.114.214.614.915.1

16.417.61818.419.119.320.32121.621.722.623.5

25.325.8

2727.127.827.9

30.330.330.530.83131.7

33.533.7343434.935.5

36.937.5

44.946.647.247.4

50.952.1

55.562.7

FloridaAlaska

NebraskaNorth Dakota

KansasNorth Carolina

WyomingSouth Dakota

ColoradoGeorgia

WashingtonMontana

UtahIndianaArizona

IowaOregon

New MexicoTexas

MinnesotaWisconsin

Nevada

MaineIdaho

OklahomaKentucky

VirginiaMarylandVermont

New YorkIllinois

MichiganTennessee

South CarolinaNew Hampshire

AlabamaMissouri

ConnecticutPennsylvania

ArkansasCalifornia

New JerseyRhode Island

HawaiiOhio

MassachusettsMississippi

DelawareWest Virginia

Louisiana

Students per Multimedia Computer

U.S. Average 23.7

Source: QED, 1997.

are large. Florida leadsall states with a ratio ofstudents to multimediacomputers of 8.5 to one,compared to ratios ofmore than 50 to onein Mississippi, Delaware,West Virginia, andLouisiana.

15

CABLE TV

Cable television hasbeen used as an instruc-tional tool due to itsavailability, price, andprogramming options.Educational channelssuch as the LearningChannel and the Dis-covery Channel, as wellas off-hour program-ming which can be pre-recorded make cable avaluable instructionalsupplement for a varietyof school subjects.

Ninety-four percentof the nation’s studentsare enrolled in schooldistricts where cable TVis used in at least onedistrict building. Cur-rently, 76 percent of ourschools have cable TV,up 31 percent over thelast four years.

District size is astrong predictor of cableuse. As with mosteducational technolo-gies, the use of cableTV increases withdistrict size, reaching 99percent of the schooldistricts with 25,000 ormore students. Onlyamong districts withfewer than 1,000 stu-dents does cable usagefall, reaching only 55percent. These smalldistricts are likely to belocated in rural areaswhere cable access maynot be available.

Figure 9: Relationship between the Percentage ofSchools with Cable TV and the Percentage of Title 1Students

Source: QED, 1997.

Source: QED, 1997.

Low Medium High70

72

74

76

78

80

Per

cent

age

of S

choo

ls


Poor Average Rich70

72

74

76

78

80

Per

cent

age

of S

choo

ls


Figure 10: Relationship between the Percentage ofSchools with Cable TV and the Percentage of MinorityStudents

There is also ahigher likelihood thatmore advantagedschools will have cableTV available. As shownin Figure 9, the availabil-ity of cable was lower inpoor schools than inaverage and rich schools.In addition, schools withlow percentages ofminority students weremore likely to have cableTV than other schools(Figure 10).

State rankings onschool access to cableTV are shown in Figure11. Cable TV appears tobe prevalent in moststates’ schools. Alaskaand Vermont appear tobe exceptions.

16

9190

8787

868686

858484

828181818181

8079

78777777

76767676

757474

73737373

7272

7170

6969

686868

67676767

6159

3936

25 50 75 100

ConnecticutMassachusetts

New JerseyHawaii

Rhode IslandIowa

ColoradoWashington

MarylandWisconsin

MichiganDelaware

OhioFlorida

North CarolinaOregon

ArkansasVirginia

MinnesotaKansasGeorgia

New YorkPennsylvania

KentuckyIllinois

Alabama

NevadaNew Hampshire

TennesseeWest Virginia

MissouriSouth Dakota

IndianaWyoming

New MexicoOklahoma

North DakotaCalifornia

UtahSouth Carolina

IdahoMississippi

LouisianaMaineTexas

NebraskaArizona

MontanaAlaska

Vermont


U.S. Average 76

Source: QED, 1997.

Figure 11: Percentage of Schools with Cable TV, by State

17

INTERNET ACCESS5

The availability ofInternet access allowsstudents and teachers tocommunicate with otherstudents and teachersand to expand their useof teaching and learningresources. Nearly all ofthe states have createdsome form of educationalnetwork for teachers,administrators, andstudents.

Sixty-four percent ofU.S. schools had Internetaccess in the Fall of1996, a gain of 15 per-centage points in each ofthe last two consecutiveyears. Large schools weremore likely to haveaccess than smallschools, and secondaryschools were more likelyto have Internet accessthan elementary schools.

Only 14 percent of allpublic school instruc-tional rooms (classrooms,computer or other labs,and library media cen-ters), however, hadInternet access. This ismore than a four-foldincrease since the fall of1994, when only 3percent of all instruc-tional rooms had Internetaccess.

Data on Internetaccess reveal disadvan-tages for schools enroll-ing large proportions ofpoor and minoritystudents. Figure 12

Figure 12: Relationship between the Percentage ofSchools with Internet Access and the Percentage of PoorStudents

<6 6-20 21-49 50+50

60

70

80

90

100


Per

cent

age

of S

choo

ls

shows the percentageof schools with Internetaccess broken out bythe percentage of poorstudents in thoseschools. While aboutthree-quarters ofschools with smallerpercentages of poorstudents have Internetaccess, the percentagedrops to slightly morethan half of schoolswith high levels of poorstudents.

Figure 13 showsthe percentage ofschools with Internetaccess broken out bythe proportion of aschool’s minority stu-dents. A similar trendline occurs — thehigher the proportionof minority studentswithin a school, the lesslikely it is to haveaccess to the Internet.

Internet access bystate is shown in Figure14. While all schools inDelaware, Hawaii, NewMexico, and SouthCarolina have Internetaccess, one in five orless of the schools inOhio, California, Illi-nois, Oklahoma, andTexas have access.

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced Telecommu-nications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996,February 1997.

<11 11-30 31-70 71+50

60

70

80

90

100

Percentage of Poor Schools*P

erce

ntag

e of

Sch

ools

Figure 13: Relationship between the Percentage ofSchools with Internet Access and the Percentage ofMinority Students

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Advanced Telecommuni-cations in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, Fall 1996,February 1997.

*NCES defines poor as eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch.

18

0 25 50 75 100

100100100100

999898

959595

909090

8585

818080

7978

7675757575

7372

7070

6765

64

64

626060

5550505050

4543

383333

2015

131010

DelawareHawaii

New MexicoSouth Carolina

TennesseeGeorgiaNevada

AlabamaFlorida

VermontMinnesota

Rhode IslandUtah

ArizonaIndiana

ArkansasIowa

VirginiaOregon

North DakotaColorado

KansasMaine

New HampshireWisconsinNebraska

New JerseyAlaska

LouisianaWest Virginia

North CarolinaConnecticut

U.S. Average

WyomingMassachusetts

MichiganWashington

KentuckyMissouri

New YorkSouth Dakota

MontanaMaryland

MississippiIdaho

PennsylvaniaOhio

CaliforniaIllinois

OklahomaTexas


Figure 14: Percentage of Schools with Internet Access, by State

Source: QED, 1997.

19

Figure 15: Relationship between the Percentage ofSchools with CD-ROM and the Percentage of Title 1Students

Source: QED, 1997.

Source: QED, 1997.

Low Medium High40

45

50

55

60

Per

cent

age

of S

choo

ls


Poor Average Rich40

45

50

55

60


Per

cent

age

of S

choo

ls

CD-ROM

CD-ROM is the fastestgrowing educational tech-nology. This growth hasbeen spurred by theincreasing availability ofmultimedia computers andthe decreasing cost ofsoftware available onCD-ROM. Fifty-four per-cent of the nation’sschools now have thistechnology.

CD-ROM ownershipis related to enrollment,although the difference isgetting smaller. The largerthe school district, themore likely it is to beusing a CD-ROM drivefor student instruction inat least one of its schools.

Poor schools are lesslikely than rich or averageschools to have CD-ROMtechnology. These data areshown in Figure 15. Therelationship betweenCD-ROM ownership andthe percentage of minor-ity students in a school isshown in Figure 16. Ingeneral, the more diversea school’s student popula-tion, the less likely it is toown a CD-ROM.

Figure 17 showsthe variation in schoolCD-ROM ownershipacross the states. NorthCarolina appears at thetop of the chart, with 91percent of its schoolsowning this technology.Fewer than one-third ofHawaii’s and Vermont’sschools, on the otherhand, own a CD-ROM.

Figure 16: Relationship between the Percentage ofSchools with CD-ROM and the Percentage of MinorityStudents

20

25 50 75 100

9179

7675

737070

666666

6463

626161616161

6060

59585858

5756

545454

5352

50494949

4847

4542

4140

39383838

373737

3229


North CarolinaColorado

UtahGeorgia

IowaAlaska

NebraskaTennessee

South DakotaNorth Dakota

KansasMontana

MaineAlabama

WashingtonNew Mexico

New YorkVirginia

MinnesotaWisconsinWyoming

OregonArizona

MarylandIndiana

KentuckyIdaho

South CarolinaNew Hampshire

TexasArkansas

IllinoisMissouri

OklahomaMichigan

ConnecticutCalifornia

PennsylvaniaMississippi

LouisianaFlorida

West VirginiaMassachusetts

DelawareNew Jersey

OhioNevada

Rhode IslandHawaii

Vermont

U.S. Average 54

Figure 17: Percentage of Schools with CD-ROM, by State

Source: QED, 1997.

21

Figure 18: Relationship between the Percentage ofSchools with Local Area Networks and the Percentage ofTitle 1 Students

Source: QED, 1997.

Source: QED, 1997.

Poor Average Rich30

35

40

45

50


Per

cent

age

of S

choo

ls

Low Medium High30

35

40

45

50


Per

cent

age

of S

choo

ls

and North Carolinahave LAN access, thepercentage drops toone-quarter or less ofthe schools in Louisi-ana, Delaware, Massa-chusetts, Hawaii, andVermont.

NETWORKS

While Local Area Net-work (LAN) technologyhas been available formany years, districts haveonly recently begunimplementing networks intheir schools. Districts usenetworks to connectmultiple computers toshare information andresources. Thirty-eightpercent of the nation’sschools are usingnetworks for studentinstruction.

Large districts andlarge schools are the mostlikely to use networks. Inaddition, network owner-ship rates increase withgrade level — 56 percentof senior high schools usenetworks, compared to 43percent of middle/juniorhigh schools, and 31percent of elementaryschools.

Poor schools are lesslikely than average andrich schools to use net-works. These data areshown in Figure 18. Figure19 shows the relationshipbetween networks and thepercentage of minoritygroup students. As shown,schools with high percent-ages of minority studentshave less access to LANtechnologies than otherschools.

Figure 20 showsvariation across the states.While 57 percent of theschools in Colorado, Utah,

Figure 19: Relationship between the Percentage ofSchools with Local Area Networks and the Percentage ofMinority Students

22

0 25 50 75

575757

56525252

5150

494949

4848

4747

4645

4342

414141

4038

373737

363535

3433

323131

30303030

2929

282828

2523

2221

16


ColoradoUtah

North CarolinaNorth Dakota

AlaskaWisconsinMinnesota

AlabamaMontanaWyoming

GeorgiaSouth Carolina

TexasKentucky

KansasWashington

MaineIowa

ArizonaIndiana

ArkansasNew Mexico

West VirginiaMaryland

Oregon

IdahoNebraska

TennesseeMississippiOklahoma

ConnecticutVirginia

New YorkNevada

PennsylvaniaMichigan

FloridaMissouri

IllinoisSouth DakotaRhode Island

OhioNew Jersey

CaliforniaNew Hampshire

LouisianaDelaware

MassachusettsHawaii

Vermont

U.S. Average 38

Source: QED, 1997.

Figure 20: Percentage of Schools with Local Area Networks, by State

23

Figure 22: Relationship between the Percentage ofSchools Owning Videodiscs and the Percentage ofMinority Students

Figure 21: Relationship between the Percentage ofSchools Owning Videodiscs and the Percentage of Title 1Students

Source: QED, 1997.

Low Medium High30

35

40

45

50


Per

cent

age

of S

choo

ls

Poor Average Rich30

35

40

45

50


Per

cent

age

of S

choo

ls

VIDEODISC

Videodisc technologyhas been available fornearly two decades andhas changed little com-pared to other technolo-gies. What has changedis how this technology isused in schools. Onceused in conjunction witha computer, videodiscsare now often used as apresentation tool. Just 35percent of U.S. schoolsown videodisc players.

As with many of theother educational tech-nologies discussed here,ownership increases withdistrict and school size.Ownership also increaseswith grade level.

As shown in Figure21, there is little differ-ence in videodisc owner-ship among poor andrich schools. Figure 22shows that schools withmedium and high per-centages of minoritystudents are more likelyto own videodisc playersthan schools with lowpercentages of minoritystudents.

Figure 23 showsschool videodisc owner-ship by state. Ninety-fivepercent of Florida’sschools own videodiscplayers, compared to lessthan one-quarter of theschools in the bottom-ranking 15 states.

Source: QED, 1997.

24

Figure 23: Percentage of Schools with Videodisc Players, by State

0 25 50 75 100

9574

6561

5148

4645

4342

4038

37

3434

3332

3131

3029

282828

2727

26262626

25252525

2424

2322

2121

1817

16151515

1312

10


FloridaNorth Carolina

UtahTexas

TennesseeColorado

VirginiaWyoming

New MexicoWashington

GeorgiaArizonaIndiana

California

MarylandMissouri

IowaAlaska

MinnesotaOhio

WisconsinNebraska

North DakotaSouth Dakota

HawaiiAlabama

DelawareMichigan

West VirginiaNew York

KansasOregon

KentuckyConnecticut

South CarolinaNevada

MontanaNew Jersey

PennsylvaniaArkansas

MassachusettsNew Hampshire

LouisianaIllinois

Rhode IslandIdahoMaine

OklahomaVermont

Mississippi

U.S. Average 35

37

Source: QED, 1997.

25

tions. While 21 percentof schools with lowminority percentagesown satellite dishes,only 15 percent ofschools with highminority concentrationsown this technology.

Figure 26 shows thevariation among thestates. About half of theschools in Missouri,Kentucky, and Montanaown satellite dishes,compared to 5 percentor less of the schoolsin Rhode Island, NewYork, Maryland, Ver-mont, and Hawaii.

Figure 24: Relationship between the Percentage ofSchools with Satellite Technology and the Percentageof Title 1 Students

Source: QED, 1997.

Low Medium High15

20

25

30

35


Per

cent

age

of S

choo

ls

Poor Average Rich15

20

25

30

35


Per

cent

age

of S

choo

ls

SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY

Satellite use inelementary and second-ary education grew as aresult of increased inter-est in distance learningand the increased avail-ability and variety ofcourses and staff devel-opment programs. Nine-teen percent of U.S.schools had satellitesystems in 1995-96.

Unlike most othertechnologies, satellite usefor student instruction iscomparatively high insmall school districts.And while larger schoolsare more likely to takeadvantage of learningopportunities via satel-lite, this method is alsoused frequently in smalland medium-sizedschools. Like most othereducational technologies,usage increases withgrade level.

As shown in Figure24, schools that areaverage in terms of thepercentage of theirstudents who qualify forTitle 1 services are morelikely to have satellitedishes than either poorschools or rich schools.Figure 25 shows thatschools with low propor-tions of minority studentsare more likely to ownthis technology thanschools with average orhigh minority concentra-

Source: QED, 1997.

Figure 25: Relationship between the Percentage ofSchools with Satellite Technology and the Percentageof Minority Students

26

Figure 26: Percentage of Schools with Satellite Technology, by State

0 25 50

5049

4539

373636

3332

3129

2826

2423

212121

202020

19191919

1818

17171717

161515

111111

9999999

75

43

21

MissouriKentuckyMontana

ArkansasGeorgia

OklahomaTexas

AlaskaNew Mexico

IdahoAlabama

MississippiArizona

ColoradoTennessee

West VirginiaNebraska

South CarolinaKansas

OhioNorth Dakota

WyomingVirginiaOregon

Washington

UtahMassachusetts

South DakotaMichigan

IowaPennsylvania

LouisianaWisconsin

IndianaDelaware

MinnesotaIllinois

North CarolinaNew Jersey

MaineNew Hampshire

NevadaConnecticut

FloridaCalifornia

Rhode IslandNew YorkMarylandVermont

Hawaii

U.S. Average 19


Source: QED, 1997.

1 Most of the data in this section ofthe report is drawn from Tech-nology in Public Schools, 15thEdition. Installed Base Technologyin U.S. Public Schools, Covering1981-1996. Denver, CO: QualityEducation Data. This annualpublication is a census studyof public school ownership ofeducational technologies forstudent instruction. To ordercopies of the report, call QEDat 1-800-525-5811, [email protected], or visithttp://www.qeddata.com.

2 There are some differences in thepoverty and minority measuresfrom one type of technology toanother. For computers andmultimedia computers, QEDprovides actual percentagegroupings. For the othertechnologies, with the exceptionnoted below, QED providesbroader groupings of schools —poor, average, rich; and low,medium, and high minority. Thedata on Internet access are fromtwo sources. The state data arefrom QED and the poverty andminority data are from the NationalCenter for Education Statistics. Forthis measure, NCES defines poorstudents as those who are eligiblefor free or reduced-price lunch.

3 Thomas K. Glennan and ArthurMelmed, Fostering the Use ofEducational Technology: Elementsof a National Strategy, SantaMonica, CA: RAND, 1996.

4 U.S. Department of Education,Getting America’s Students Readyfor the 21st Century, Meeting theTechnology Literacy Challenge,June 1996.

5 The state data on Internet accessare from QED, 1997. The data forpoor and minority students arefrom Advanced Telecommunica-tions in U.S. Public Elementary andSecondary Schools, Fall 1996, U. S.Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics,February 1997.

27

This section of the reportexamines data that allowus to see whether andhow computers arebeing used in America’sclassrooms. Some of thedata in this section isdrawn from the mostrecent assessments thatare available from theNational Assessment ofEducational Progress(NAEP). These NAEPdata provide nationallyrepresentative informa-tion and allow us toexamine differencesamong groups of stu-dents at different gradeand age levels.1

This section providesanother perspective onstudent computer use bypresenting data for themore than one millioncollege-bound seniorswho took the SAT in1996. In addition tohighlighting their highschool experiences andcourses related to com-puters, we can examinedifferences between boysand girls and amongracial/ethnic groups.Changes over the decadeare also described.

SCHOOL COMPUTER USE

INFORMATION FROM NAEP

NAEP is the onlynationally representativeand continuing assess-ment of what America’sstudents know and cando in various subjectareas. In 1994, NAEP

examined the ability ofstudents in U.S. history,geography, reading, andmathematics. A keycomponent of the assess-ment was the contextualinformation collectedfrom students, teachers,and administrators.Topics included thefrequency with whichstudents are instructedusing technology, andparticularly, whethertechnology is used in theteaching of varioussubjects. This informa-

tion is reported fordifferent groups ofstudents so that compari-sons can be made.

STUDENT USE OF COMPUTERS

AT HOME AND SCHOOL

Students were askedabout the contexts inwhich they used comput-ers at home and inschool. Their answers areshown in Figure 1 foreach of three gradelevels. Among fourth andeighth graders, playing

Student Useof Computers

Play games

Learn things

Write stories/papers

Use at home

Use at library

Use at friend’s home

Play games


Learn things

Use at library

Use at home



Play games

Learn things

Use at library

Use at home


30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

87

82

68

50

48

43

87

82

76

57

50

43

87

77

71

61

51

39

Percentage of Students

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 11

Figure 1: Students’ Use of Computers at Home andSchool, 1994

Source: Jay R. Campbell and others, NAEP Trends in Academic Progress,prepared by Educational Testing Service under contract with theNational Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education,November 1996.

28

games at home andschool was a prevalentcomputer use, followedby using the computerfor learning things, andfor writing stories orpapers. The most fre-quent use among elev-enth graders was writing.About half of the stu-dents said that they useda computer at home. Asizable proportion of thestudents indicated thatthey used a computer ina library. Fourth graderswere more likely than theolder students to use thecomputer to learn things.On the other hand, eighthand eleventh graderswere more likely to usethe computer for writing.


FOR SCHOOL WORK

In the 1994 NAEPreading assessment,students were asked howoften they used a com-puter for school work.Figure 2 shows thebreakdowns for eachresponse category, foreach grade level.

Computer use forschool work increases ateach grade level. At thefourth grade, 9 percent ofstudents reported using acomputer in schoolalmost every day, com-pared to 10 percent ofeighth graders, and 19percent of twelfth grad-ers. Twelfth graders weresignificantly more likely

than the other studentsto report almost dailyuse of the computer forschool work.

There are somestatistically significantdifferences amongdifferent groups ofstudents.

● Black and Hispanicfourth graders weremore likely than theirWhite and Asianclassmates to reportalmost daily use ofcomputers in theirschool work.

● Fourth graders receivingTitle 1 services weremore likely to reportdaily computer use thanwere students notparticipating in thisprogram.

● Fourth graders attendingschools that ranked inthe bottom third onNAEP reported morefrequent use of comput-ers than students inhigher-scoring schools.

● White, Black, andHispanic twelfth graderswere more likely thantheir Asian classmates toreport almost dailycomputer use.

● Twelfth graders receiv-ing Title 1 services weremore likely to reportfrequent use thanstudents not receivingthese services.

● Twelfth graders attendingrural/small town schoolswere more likely toreport almost daily com-puter use than otherstudents.

THE USE OF COMPUTERS INTEACHING READING, U.S.HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES,AND GEOGRAPHY

Teachers of fourthand eighth graders wereasked whether they usedcomputer software forinstruction in reading,

U.S. history/socialstudies, and geography.Figure 3 shows thepercentage of studentswhose teachers said thatthey use computersoftware for instructionin these subjects. About40 percent of the stu-dents in fourth gradehad teachers whoreported using thecomputer for instructionacross the three sub-jects. In eighth grade,about a third reportedcomputer use in teach-

Almost daily

Once/twice a week

Once/twice a month

Never

Almost daily

Once/twice a week

Once/twice a month

Never

Almost daily

Once/twice a week

Once/twice a month

Never

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

9

21

11

60

10

16

23

51

19

18

26

37


Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 12

Figure 2: Students’ Reports on the Frequency of Com-puter Use for School Work, 1994

Source: 1994 NAEP Reading Assessment Electronic Data Almanac,Student Questionnaire.

29

ing U.S. history/socialstudies and geography,and 17 percent reportedusing the computer toteach reading.

There are somestatistically significantdifferences among thesegroups of students:

● Computers were used toteach reading more infourth grade than ineighth grade.

● White fourth graderswere more likely than

Black fourth graders tohave teachers who usedcomputers to teachgeography.

● Fourth graders whoseteachers indicated thattheir class was in thelowest ability groupwere the least likely tohave teachers who usedcomputers to teachgeography.

● White eighth graderswere more likely thantheir Black and Hispanic

classmates to haveteachers who usedcomputers to teach U.S.history/social studies.


IN MATHEMATICS

Thirteen and 17-year-olds were asked a num-ber of questions aboutthe availability and useof computers in math-ematics instruction.These data are shown inFigure 4. About half ofthe nation’s students, at

both age groups, hadaccess to a computer tolearn mathematics in1994. Thirteen-year-oldswere more likely than17-year-olds to studymathematics throughcomputer instruction andto use a computer tosolve mathematics pro-blems. Nearly a third ofthe nation’s 17-year-oldshad taken a computerprogramming course.

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 4

Grade 8

Grade 4

Grade 8

0 10 20 30 40 50

43

17

38

32

42

34


Reading

U.S. History/Social Studies

Geography

Figure 3: Percentage of Students with Teachers Reportingthe Use of Computers in Teaching Reading, U.S. HIstory/Social Studies, and Geography, 1994

Source: 1994 NAEP Reading, History, Geography Assessment ElectronicData Almanacs, Teacher Questionnaire.

Age 13

Age 17

Age 13

Age 17

Age 13

Age 17

Age 13

Age 17

30 40 50 60 70

70

62

50

34

48

52

29


Used a computer to solvemath problems

Studied math throughcomputer instruction

Had access to computer tolearn mathematics

Took a course incomputer programming

Question not asked

Figure 4: Students’ Reports on the Availability and Use ofComputers in Mathematics, 1994

Source: Jay R. Campbell and others, NAEP 1994 Trends in AcademicProgress, Prepared by Educational Testing Service under contract withthe National Center for Education Statistics, November 1996.

30

COMPUTER COURSEWORK

AND EXPERIENCE OF

COLLEGE-BOUND SENIORS

The College Boardannually publishes dataon the coursetakingpatterns of college-bound seniors.2 A lookat these data over thelast 10 years can give ussome information on thelevel of coursetakingrelated to computers,and some informationon trends. Students wereasked whether they hadany coursework orexperience in certainareas. The responseoptions (verbatim) wereas follows:

● I have had no coursework or experience inthis area

● Computer literacy, aware-ness, or appreciation

● Data processing● Computer programming

(BASIC, COBOL, FOR-TRAN, PASCAL, etc.)

● Use of the computer tosolve math problems

● Use of the computer tosolve problems in thesocial sciences

● Use of the computer tosolve problems in thenatural sciences

● Use of the computer inEnglish courses

● Word processing (use ofthe computer in writingletters or preparingpapers)

A PROFILE OF THE CLASS OF

1996

Figure 5 shows theoverall frequencies foreach type of computer-related course or experi-ence. For the Class of1996, there were differ-ences for types of com-puter coursetaking andexperience. Figure 6shows computer course-taking in 1996 brokenout by gender and race/ethnicity.

Word processingexposure was the mostfrequent — nearly three-quarters of the studentshad experience. Therewas little differencebetween boys and girls,but members of certainminority groups wereless likely to have wordprocessing experiencethan were White andAsian students.

About half of theClass of 1996 had course-work or experiencein computer literacy.Females and minoritygroup students were lesslikely than males andWhite students to havesuch experience. While54 percent of Whitestudents had computerliteracy experience, only41 percent of Black andPuerto Rican students did.

Forty-four percent ofthe Class of 1996 hadused a computer in theirEnglish course, withfemales (45 percent)slightly ahead of males

Word Processing

Computer Literacy

Use in English Courses

Math Problems

Data Processing

Computer Programming

Natural Science Problems

None

Social Science Problems

0 20 40 60 80 100

72

51

44

27

26

24

12

9

8

Percentage of College-bound Seniors*Who Took the SAT

Figure 5: Percentage of College-Bound Seniors*Reporting Computer Use or Experience, 1996

Source: 1996 College-Bound Seniors: A Profile of SAT Program Test Takers,The College Board, 1996

(42 percent). The biggestdifference was thatMexican/American,Hispanic/Latino, Black,and Puerto Rican stu-dents were less likelythan students from otherracial/ethnic groups touse a computer inEnglish class.

Computers wereused in school to solvemath problems by 27percent of the seniors.Males (30 percent) wereahead of females (25percent). And again,Black, Mexican Ameri-can, Puerto Rican, and

Hispanic/Latino seniorswere the least likely touse a computer in classto solve math problems,although this differencewas small.

Data processing wastaken in high schoolby about one-quarterof the Class of 1996.While the differencesbetween the racial/ethnic groups weresmall, this was an areawhere students fromminority groups weremore likely than Whitestudents to take thisparticular coursework.

31

Word ProcessingFemale

WhiteAsian American

AllOther race/ethnicity

American IndianMale

Mexican AmericanHispanic/Latino

Puerto RicanBlack

0 25 50 75

757473

727069696867

6463

Computer LiteracyMale

WhiteOther race/ethnicity

AllAmerican Indian

FemaleMexican American

Asian AmericanHispanic/Latino

BlackPuerto Rican

0 25 50 75

5554

52

5151

48484747

4141

Use in English CourseWhite

FemaleAll

Asian AmericanAmerican Indian

Other race/ethnicityMale


BlackPuerto Rican

0 25 50 75

4745

4444434342

373332

30

Math ProblemsMale

WhiteAll

American IndianAsian American

Other race/ethnicityBlack

FemaleMexican American

Puerto RicanHispanic/Latino

0 25 50 75

3028

272727272625252423

Data ProcessingAsian American

BlackAmerican Indian


MaleOther race/ethnicity

AllFemale

Puerto RicanWhite

0 25 50 75

29292828272727

26262525

Computer ProgrammingAsian American

MaleBlack

Hispanic/LatinoMexican American

Other race/ethnicityAll

Puerto RicanWhite

American IndianFemale

0 25 50 75

3129

25252525

24242322

20

Natural Science ProblemsMale

Asian AmericanOther race/ethnicity

WhiteAll

American IndianFemale

Hispanic/LatinoBlack

Mexican AmericanPuerto Rican

0 25 50 75

14131313

1212

109888

Social Science ProblemsAmerican IndianAsian American

MaleOther race/ethnicity

AllWhiteBlack

FemaleHispanic/Latino

Mexican AmericanPuerto Rican

0 25 50 75

9888

7766655

Percentage of Students Percentage of Students*Who took the SAT

Figure 6: Computer-Related Coursework or Experience of College-Bound Seniors* by Gender andRace/Ethnicity

Source: College-Bound Seniors unpublished data, The College Board.

32

Along with dataprocessing, computerprogramming was a sub-ject more likely to betaken by minority groupstudents, although thedifferences are not large.There is quite a differencebetween boys and girls intaking computer program-ming, however — thiscoursework was taken by29 percent of the boysand only 20 percent ofthe girls.

Fewer students usedcomputers to solvenatural science and/orsocial science problems.Only 12 percent ofcollege-bound seniorsused computers innatural science — 14percent of the males and10 percent of the females.Asian and White studentswere more likely thanother students to usecomputers this way. Only7 percent used computersto solve social scienceproblems. Again, minoritygroup students were lesslikely than other studentsto have this experience.

While not shown inthe figure, only 9 percentof the Class of 1996reported no computerexperience in highschool. Puerto Rican stu-dents (13 percent) weremore likely to report noexperience than otherstudents.

CHANGE OVER THE DECADE

Figure 7 shows aline graph for each areaof computer course-work or experiencefrom 1987 until 1996.In general, studentsused technology moreas the decade wore on.The percentage ofcollege-bound seniorsreporting no computerexperience droppedfrom a high of 26percent in 1987 to only9 percent in 1996. Thepercentage of studentsreporting courseworkor experience in com-puter programmingdropped 20 percentagepoints — from 44 to 24percent. There was asmall drop in thepercentage of studentsusing technology tosolve math problems —from 30 to 27 percent.

Increases wereregistered during thedecade in all otherareas. The largestincreases were in wordprocessing (up 36percentage points, from36 percent in 1987 to 72percent in 1996) and inusing computers inEnglish courses (up 32percentage points, from12 percent in 1987 to 44percent in 1996).Smaller increases areseen in computerliteracy (up 10 percent-age points), data pro-cessing (up 7 points),

natural science problems(up 6 points), and socialscience problems (up3 points).

1 Because NAEP data provided in thissection of the report are both cross-sectional and trend, students areassessed at different ages andgrades. Thus, some data reportedare for 17-year-olds, eleventhgraders, and twelfth graders.

2 These data are for 1996 high schoolgraduates who participated in theSAT program during their highschool years. Composed of overone million students, this grouprepresents about 93 percent ofstudents entering four-yearinstitutions and about 48 percentof all first-year students who entercollege each year.

33

Com

pute

r P

rogr

amm

ing

’87

’90

’93

’96

0204060

Com

pute

r Li

tera

cy

’87

’90

’93

’96

0204060

Wor

d P

roce

ssin

g

’87

’90

’93

’96

0204060

Mat

h P

robl

ems

’87

’90

’93

’96

0204060

Dat

a P

roce

ssin

g

’87

’90

’93

’96

0204060

Use

in E

nglis

h C

ours

e

’87

’90

’93

’96

0204060

Nat

ural

Sci

ence

Pro

blem

s

’87

’90

’93

’96

0204060

Soc

ial S

cien

ce P

robl

ems

’87

’90

’93

’96

0204060

No

Com

pute

r E

xper

ienc

e

’87

’90

’93

’96

0204060

*Who

took

the

SA

T.

Percentage of StudentsPercentage of Students Percentage of Students

Fig

ure

7: P

erce

nta

ge

of C

olle

ge-

Boun

d S

enio

rs*

Rep

ortin

g C

ours

ewor

k in

Va

rious

Sub

ject

s or

Exp

erie

nce,

199

6

Sou

rce

: 199

6 C

olle

ge

-Bo

un

d S

en

iors

: A P

rofil

e o

f SA

T Pr

og

ram

Te

st T

ake

rs, T

he

Co

lleg

e B

oa

rd, 1

996.

34

Will the use of comput-ers in teaching funda-mentally change theway we educate chil-dren, preparing them tolive and work produc-tively as the new millen-nium begins? What isthe evidence that usingeducational technologycan transform teachingand learning andimprove student achieve-ment? This section of thereport provides a briefand select summary ofthe research on theeffectiveness of educa-tional technology inelementary and second-ary education. Reviewsof this research areavailable from othersources as well, andthe findings are fairlyconsistent.1

Rudimentary uses ofcomputers in teaching,e.g., using drill-and-practice software toteach addition andsubtraction, appear to beeffective and efficient.More pedagogicallycomplex uses of thecomputer, e.g., using theInternet in small groupsto conduct collaborativeresearch, often showinconclusive results,while sometimes offeringpromising and invitingeducational vignettes.

To further complicatematters, it appears thatthe more complex andsophisticated the instruc-tional design, the more

difficult the evaluation.This section alsodescribes some of themethodological problemsthat arise in attempting toevaluate the impact oftechnology on teachingand learning.

WHAT THE RESEARCH

SHOWS

The first part of thissection describes theevidence on the effec-tiveness of technologyused for computer-assisted instruction,basic skills instruction,and drill-and-practicetypes of software. Thenext section considersevidence available onthe impact of moreeducationally complextypes of technologyapplications. Until newand ongoing evaluationsof cutting edge technol-ogy applications areavailable, the projectsdescribed here representsome of the best avail-able evidence.

RudimentaryTechnology Applica-tions. Computer-basedinstruction can individu-alize instruction andgive instant feedbackto students, evenexplaining the correctanswer. The computeris infinitely patient andnon-judgmental. Thismotivates students tocontinue.

In trying to deter-mine what is knownabout the effectivenessof educational technol-ogy, the RAND Corpora-tion held a workshop forboth researchers whohad studied the effec-tiveness literature andpractitioners who wereinvolved in schools thatmade extensive useof technology. On thisbasis, RAND drewthe following broadconclusion:2

Numerous studies of awide variety of specificapplications of technol-ogy show improvementsin student performance,student motivation,teacher satisfaction, andother important educa-tional outcomes.

James Kulik, aconference participantwho has spent morethan a decade analyzingstudies of the use ofcomputers for instruc-tion, summarized hisfindings. A researchapproach called meta-analysis allowed him toaggregate researchfindings of many studiesof computer-basedinstruction. Kulik sum-marized these findingsas follows:

At least a dozen meta-analyses involving over500 individual studieshave been carried out to

Evaluating theImpact of

EducationalTechnology

35

answer questions aboutthe effectiveness ofcomputer-based instruc-tion. The analyses wereconducted indepen-dently by research teamsat eight different re-search centers. Theresearch teams focusedon different uses of thecomputer with differentpopulations, and theyalso differed in themethods they used tofind studies and analyzestudy results. Nonethe-less, each of the analysesyielded the conclusionthat programs of com-puter-based instructionhave a positive recordin the evaluationliterature.3

Kulik drew thefollowing conclusionsfrom this work:

● Students usually learnmore in classes in whichthey receive computer-based instruction.

● Students learn theirlessons in less timewith computer-basedinstruction.

● Students also like theirclasses more when theyreceive computer help inthem.

● Students develop morepositive attitudes towardcomputers when theyreceive help from themin school.

● Computers do not,however, have positiveeffects in every area inwhich they were studied;the average effect ofcomputer-based instruc-tion in 34 studies ofattitude toward subjectmatter was near zero.

It is important tonote that, for the mostpart, the programsreviewed by Kulik weredeveloped prior to 1990and tended to emphasizedrill and practice. Kulik’sfindings are similar tothose of J.D. Fletcher,who studied the costeffectiveness of usingtechnology in militarytraining. In short,Fletcher’s studies ofcomputer-based instruc-tion in military trainingrepeatedly show gainsof about one-third intraining time.4

More recently, theSoftware PublishersAssociation commis-sioned an independentconsulting firm to pre-pare a meta-analyticreport on the effective-ness of technologyin schools. Researchfrom 1990 to 1995 wasincluded, and 176 studieswere analyzed. Thisreport concludes “thatthe use of technology asa learning tool can makea measurable differencein student achievement,attitudes, and interactionswith teachers and other

students.” With respectto achievement, positiveeffects were found for allmajor subject areas, inpreschool through highereducation, and for bothregular education andspecial needs education.Student attitudes towardlearning and student self-concept were both foundto be increased consis-tently in a technology-rich environment acrossthe studies included. Ingeneral, (although notnecessarily for low-achieving students whotended to require morestructure) student control(self-pacing) was foundto be one of the morepositive factors relatingto achievement whentechnology was used.5

Numerous studieshave demonstrated thattechnology is particularlyvaluable in improvingstudent writing.6 Forexample, the ease withwhich students can edittheir written work usingword processors makesthem more willing todo so, which in turnimproves the quality oftheir writing. Studieshave shown that studentsare more comfortablewith and adept at critiqu-ing and editing writtenwork if it is exchangedover a computer networkwith students they know.And student writing thatis shared with otherstudents over a network

tends to be of higherquality than writingproduced for in-classuse only.

Technology has alsobeen shown to haveother effects on students.The use of technology inthe classroom improvesstudents’ motivation andattitudes about them-selves and about learn-ing. Technology-richschools report higherattendance rates andlower dropout rates thanin the past. Students arefound to be challenged,engaged, and moreindependent when usingtechnology. By encour-aging experimentationand exploration of newfrontiers of knowledgeon their own through theuse of technology,students gain a greatersense of responsibilityfor their work — produc-ing higher-quality assign-ments that reflect theincreased depth andbreadth of their knowl-edge and talent. Andtechnology energizesstudents, because theyoften know more aboutits operation than dotheir teachers.7

More CognitiveApplications of Tech-nology. The RANDreport goes on to saythat the “more cognitive”applications of technol-ogy are more difficult toevaluate — the researchdata are less extensive,

36

the data that exist areharder to organize, andnew evaluation designsare often needed. Thesemore cognitive applica-tions can engage stu-dents in authentic tasks,often with other stu-dents, using computernetwork software anddatabases that areintended not only toimprove subject matterlearning, but to developskills in cooperation,communication, andproblem solving. Evi-dence on the effective-ness of some of thesetechnology applicationsis provided below.

A recent report byBeatrice Berman andher colleagues at theAmerican Institutes forResearch providesdescriptions and findingsof several recent studiesand ongoing projectsthat investigate theimplementation, effec-tiveness, and role oftechnology with largenumbers of teachers andstudents in the contextof educational reformefforts.8 Until new andongoing evaluations ofcutting-edge educationaltechnology projects areavailable, the findingsfrom the projects citedbelow represent the bestof currently availableresearch.

● The Role of Online Com-munications in Schools:A National Study. Thisproject, conducted byCAST (Center for AppliedSpecial Technologies), isbased on the premisethat online use is bestintroduced into schoolswithin the context ofwhat is already happen-ing in the classroom. Thestudy compared thework of 22 fourth- andsixth-grade classes inseven urban schooldistricts — half withaccess to online commu-nications and the Inter-net and half without. Thestudent work was part ofa semi-structured instruc-tional unit completedover a two-month per-iod. The goal was for allclasses to study issues ofcivil rights by research-ing civil rights topics,sharing information, andcompleting a final pro-ject. CAST researchersfound that:

— Fourth-grade studentswith online accessscored significantlyhigher on two of ninelearning measures

— Sixth-grade studentswith online accessscored significantlyhigher on four of ninelearning measures

The CAST researchersargue that the studyprovides additional

evidence that onlineaccess can help studentsbecome independent,critical thinkers, able tofind information, orga-nize and evaluate it, andthen effectively expresstheir new knowledgeand ideas in compellingways.9

● Technology’s Role inEducation Reform. Thisis a four-year nationalstudy conducted byBarbara Means andKerry Olson and theircolleagues, which seeksto understand howtechnology can supportconstructivist teaching atthe classroom level, andto describe and analyzetechnology implementa-tion factors. Schools orprojects were selectedfor study which servedsubstantial numbers ofpoor students. Themost common effectson students were anincrease in motivationand improvements inacademic performance.Overall, the researchersreported that the use oftechnology in their casestudy schools had apositive effect. Of theeight single-school sites,seven reported lowerthan average rates ofteacher turnover, sixreported higher studentattendance rates, andfive had higher testscores than a compari-son group. Fewer

disciplinary incidentswere also reported.10

● Union City InteractiveMultimedia EducationTrial. The Union City,New Jersey, schooldistrict implemented afive-year plan thatincluded a significantinvestment in technologyto support its curriculumreform goals. BellAtlantic worked with thecity, the state board ofeducation, and theEducation DevelopmentCenter’s Center forChildren and Technologyto carry out a technologytrial at two schools.While the district’scomprehensive reformprogram has yieldedsubstantial gains instudent progress, resultsat Christopher ColumbusIntermediate School areeven more encouraging.

— Columbus studentshad the highest overallpass-rates of anydistrict school onpractice administrationsof New Jersey’s EarlyWarning Test.

— More Columbusstudents qualified forthe ninth-grade honorsprogram than didstudents from any othercity school.

— The Columbus Schoolhas held the district’sbest attendance record

37

for both students andfaculty for the past twoyears.

— The school had thehighest number oftransfers in and thefewest numbers oftransfers out between1993 and 1995.11

● Higher Order ThinkingSkills Program (HOTS).Begun in the early 1980sas an alternativeapproach to Title 1,HOTS has evolved into awidely used and effectiveintervention for disad-vantaged fourth- throughseventh-graders. HOTS isa pull-out programcreated to build thethinking skills of studentsthrough exposure to acombination of comput-ers, drama, and Socraticdialogue, which arecombined via a detailedand creative curriculum.Recent reports note thefollowing results:

— Increased thinking andsocial confidence ofparticipating students

— Doubled national aver-age gains on readingand math test scores

— Ten to 15 percent of theTitle 1 and learningdisabled students madethe honor roll in 1994,suggesting a transfer ofthe students’ cognitivedevelopment to learn-ing specific content

— Increased perfor-mance on measuresof reading compre-hension, meta-cognition, writing,components of IQ,transfer to noveltasks, and GPA

— HOTS students alsooutperformed acontrol group ofstudents in a tradi-tional Title 1 programon all measures12

● Assessing the Growth:The Buddy ProjectEvaluation, 1994-95.The state of Indiana,along with the LillyEndowment andAmeritech, sponsoredthis project thatsupplied students withhome computers andmodem access to theschool. An assessmentof the project indicatedsignificant differencesbetween seven BuddyProject classroomscompared to threenon-Buddy Projectclassrooms in differentschools. Positive effectsincluded:

— An increase in allwriting skills

— Better understandingand broader view ofmath

— More confidence withcomputer skills

— Ability to teach others

— Greater problem-solving and critical-thinking skills

— Greater self-confidenceand self-esteem

● Apple Classrooms ofTomorrow (ACOT).ACOT focused on thechanged instructionalpractices and studentlearning that occurredwhen extensive accessto technology wasprovided at the class-room level. In its initialyears (before laptops),each student andteacher was given twocomputers, one forhome and one forschool. Over 10 years ofresearch, the ACOTproject says that inde-pendent researchersfound that ACOTstudents not onlycontinued to performwell on standardizedtests but were alsodeveloping a numberof competencies notusually measured.According to thisresearch, ACOTstudents:

— Explored and repre-sented informationdynamically and inmany forms

— Became socially awareand more confident

— Communicatedeffectively aboutcomplex processes

— Used technologyroutinely andappropriately

— Became independentlearners and self-starters

— Knew their areas ofexpertise and sharedthat expertise sponta-neously

— Worked well colla-boratively

— Developed a positiveorientation to thefuture13

● CHILD (ComputersHelping Instruction andLearning Develop-ment).14 This projectwas a five-year investi-gation in nine Floridaelementary schools thatbegan in 1987. Over1,400 students partici-pated and their teachersreceived training whichincluded not only thetechnological compo-nents of the program(three to six computerswere placed in eachclassroom) but alsoemphasized establishinga team environmentwith other teachers inthe project. Much of thestudents’ daily routineinvolved self-pacedinteractions in a learn-

38

ing station environment.“Student empowerment”was a key concept of theproject. Standardized testscores indicated a posi-tive and significant resultacross all grades, schools,and subjects, with thelargest effects appearingfor students who hadbeen in the program formore than one year.When surveyed, noneof the nine schoolsexpressed dissatisfactionwith the project, fivewere planning to expandtheir level of participa-tion, and nine newschools were about tobecome involved.

EVALUATION ISSUES

When we try todetermine the effective-ness of educationaltechnologies we areconfronted by a numberof methodological andpractical issues. First, weneed to remember thattechnology is only onecomponent of an instruc-tional activity. Assess-ments of the impact oftechnology are reallyassessments of instruc-tion enabled by technol-ogy, and the outcomesare highly dependent onthe quality of the imple-mentation of the instruc-tional design.

According to RoyPea, the “social contexts”of technology uses arecrucial to understanding

how technology mayinfluence teaching andlearning. Whatever elseis “effective,” it is noteducational technolo-gies per se. The socialcontexts are all impor-tant. They include notonly the technology butits content, the teachingstrategies used both“in” the software and“around it” in theclassroom, and theclassroom environmentitself. It is a recurrentfinding that the effectsof the best software canbe neutralized throughimproper use, and thateven poorly designedsoftware can be cre-atively extended toserve important learn-ing goals.15

There are also ahost of methodologicalissues to confront. First,standardized achieve-ment tests may notmeasure the types ofchanges in students thateducational technologyreformers are lookingfor. New measures,some of which arecurrently under devel-opment, would assessareas that many believecan be particularlyaffected by using newtechnologies, such ashigher order thinking.

There is also aneed to include out-come measures that gobeyond student achieve-ment, because student

achievement may beaffected by students’attitudes about them-selves, school, andlearning, and by thetypes of interactions thatgo on in schools.

In addition, techno-logical changes arelikely to be nonlinear,and may show effectsnot only on studentlearning, but also on thecurricula, the nature ofinstruction, the schoolculture, and the funda-mental ways that teach-ers do their jobs.16

Ellen Mandinachand Hugh Cline haveexplored many of thechallenges to the scien-tific examination oftechnology’s impact oneducation and suggestthe need to focus onlongitudinal design,multiple methods,multiple levels of analy-sis, and systems analysisin lieu of traditionalmethodologies. Tradi-tional research designsare inadequate, inappro-priate, and often ask thenaive question, “Does itwork?” The impact oftechnology is too multi-faceted for such a simplequestion. There isimpact on: students’learning and motivation;classroom dynamics,including interactionsamong students, teach-ers, and the technology;and schools as formalorganizations. Perhaps

the most importantevaluative lesson is theabsolute necessity forresearchers to remainflexible in applying theirmethodological knowl-edge in a field setting,i.e., to make continuousadjustments in allaspects of implementa-tion and assessmentefforts to gain a morethorough understandingof technology’s impacton teaching and learn-ing activities.17

A final issue is thatevaluators are oftenchasing a moving target.While policymakers andthe public may want toknow whether investingin a particular type ofstatewide computernetwork is worthwhile,by the time evaluationdata are collected andanalyzed, the particularnetwork may be obso-lete and another invest-ment opportunitypresents itself that needsto be explored.

AN EXAMPLE FROM

THE FIELD

Finally, this sectiondescribes the experi-ences of a team ofresearchers at Educa-tional Testing Service(ETS) that is currentlygrappling with the issuesinvolved in documentingand evaluating the NewJersey NetworkingInfrastructure in Educa-

39

port, and teacherbackground.

2. It is simplistic tosuggest that the intro-duction of technology,given variations instarting points andimplementation, canproduce comparableoutcomes amongclasses and students.

3. While the motivationaland attentional benefitsof technology forstudents have beenwidely reported, thecognitive and achieve-ment effects have notbeen as consistentlycataloged. There is aneed for scholars andteachers to:

— work together todevelop hypothesesabout how students’cognitive processesand school achieve-ment might be affectedby the consistent andinnovative applicationof technology

— test these hypothesesin small and con-trolled studies

— design larger-scalefield studies that testthe results under arange of classroomand school conditions

4. Finally, although it iscommon practice to actas though change in

tion Project, funded bythe National ScienceFoundation, which isaimed at enhancingelementary and second-ary science educationthrough the use of theInternet.18

The project’s goal isto connect 500 schools tothe Internet, to trainteachers to access anduse the Internet and,ultimately, developscience curricula thatdraw from the Internetand its wealth of real-time data. Gita Wilder,who heads the evalua-tion effort, has identifiedfour issues that havearisen from the NewJersey project and prob-ably apply to any effortto evaluate technology-based innovation inschools and classrooms.

1. It is impossible tosystematically assesscognitive and achieve-ment outcomes forstudents withoutaddressing variations intheir starting points anddifferences in programimplementation. Suchissues include the varietyof forms that projectimplementation takes,the rapid rates of changein hardware and soft-ware, and the inevitableneed for additionalinformation on the pro-gram, e.g., in changes ininfrastructure, budget,school or district sup-

teaching practice isrelatively unimportant inthe catalog of expectedoutcomes, it is importantto realize that theteacher is the constantin the equations. Stu-dents move on and areaffected by conditionsthat are both cumulativeand changing; teachersremain to influencemany generations ofstudents. Teacher effectsshould be considered asimportant as studenteffects, and probablymore influential in thelong run.

1 See, e.g., http://www.mcrel.org/impact. Also see John Cradler,“Summary of Current Researchand Evaluation Findings onTechnology in Education,”(http://www.fwl.org/techpolicy/refind.html).

2 Thomas K. Glennan and ArthurMelmed, Fostering the Use ofEducational Technology: Elementsof a National Strategy, SantaMonica, CA: RAND, 1996.

3 See James A. Kulik, Meta-AnalyticStudies of Findings on Computer-based Instruction,” in E.L. Bakerand H.F. O’Neil, Jr. (eds.),Technology Assessment inEducation and Training, Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994.

4 J.D. Fletcher, D.E. Hawley, andP.K. Piele, “Costs, Effects andUtility of Microcomputer AssistedInstruction in the Classroom,”American Educational ResearchJournal, 27, 1990, pp. 783-806.

5 Jay Sivin-Kachala and Ellen R.Bialo, Report on the Effectiveness ofTechnology in Schools 1990-1994,Washington, DC: SoftwarePublishers Association, 1994.


7 U.S. Department of Education,1996.

8 Beatrice F. Birman and others, TheEffectiveness of Using Technologyin K–12 Education: A PreliminaryFramework and Review,Washington, DC: AmericanInstitutes for Research, January1997.

9 For more information on thisproject, see Center for AppliedSpecial Technology, The Role ofOnline Communications inSchools: A National Study,Peabody, MA: CAST, 1996. Also,see http://www.cast.org/stsstudy.html.

10 For information on this project,see Barbara Means and KerryOlson, Technology’s Role inEducation Reform: Findings froma National Study of InnovatingSchools, Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, Officeof Educational Research andImprovement, 1995.

11 For more information on thisproject, see M. Honey and A.Henriquez, Union City InteractiveMultimedia Education Trial: 1993-95 Summary Report, Princeton, NJ:Educational Development Center,Inc., Center for Children andTechnology, 1996.

12 For more information on HOTS,see S. Pogrow, “Using Computersand Other Visual Technology toCombine Process and Content,” inA. Costa and R. Liebman (eds.),When Process Is Content: TowardRenaissance Learning, CorwinPress, 1996.

13 For more information, see AppleComputer, Inc., Changing theConversation about Teaching,Learning, and Technology: AReport on Ten Years of ACOTResearch, Cupertino, CA: 1995.

14 This description is drawn fromElizabeth Wellburn, The Status ofTechnology in the EducationSystem: A Literature Review (http://www.etc.bc.ca/lists/nuggets/EdTech_report.html).

15 Roy Pea, “Learning and Teachingwith Educational Technologies,” inH.J. Walberg & G.D. Haertel(eds.), Educational Psychology:Effective Practices and Policies,Berkeley, CA: McCutchanPublishers, 1996.

16 U.S. Congress, Office ofTechnology Assessment, Teachersand Technology: Making theConnection, OTA-EHR-616,Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, April 1995.

40

17 E. B. Mandinach, and H. F. Cline,Methodological Implications forExamining the Impact of Technol-ogy-based Innovations: TheCorruption of a Research Design.Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educa-tional Research Association,Chicago, 1997.

18 This information was provided in apersonal communication betweenGita Wilder and Richard Coley ofETS, March 5, 1997.

41

Goal 1 of PresidentClinton’s National Tech-nology Literacy Chal-lenge states that:

● All teachers in the nationwill have the trainingand support they needto help students learnusing computers andthe information super-highway.

This goal reflects thegrowing recognition thatstaff development andongoing technical assis-tance are prerequisitesfor effective and sus-tained applications oftechnology in education.To achieve this goal,technology training willneed to reach teachersand administrators aswell as future educatorsin preservice programs.There is also an increas-ing awareness of theneed for preservice andinservice training that isinformed by research oneffective instructionalpractices and emphasizesteaching strategies thatdraw on a variety oftechnologies across thecurriculum.

The importance ofteacher training in theuse and integration oftechnology is docu-mented by empiricalresearch conducted inCalifornia schools thatwere recipients of tech-nology grants. The studyconcluded that at least 30

percent of any educa-tional technology budgetshould be earmarked forteacher staff develop-ment with follow-upsupport and assistance.Similar findings havebeen reported in otherstates.1

This section of thereport begins with a briefoverview of teachers’preparation to useeducational technologyin the classroom. Itdiscusses barriers tohelping teachers usetechnology in theirteaching, and describessome current thinkingabout and practices instaff development,including the use oftelecommunications andthe involvement ofadministrators. Finally,based on current re-search and experience,several suggested direc-tions for staff develop-ment are offered.

CURRENT STATUS OF STAFF

DEVELOPMENT FOR

TECHNOLOGY USE

If our ambition is toprovide technologytraining and support forall teachers, a fair ques-tion seems to be, howfar are we from reachingthat goal? Results from arecent survey shown inFigure 1 delineate thepercentage of teachers,by state, who hadreceived at least nine

hours of educationaltechnology training in1994. The percentages,by individual states,range from a low of 8percent to a high of 28percent with most statesranging between 10 and20 percent. The nation-wide average is 15percent. And as shownin Figure 2, 32 statesrequire teacher candi-dates to take courses ineducational technologyin order to obtain alicense.2

A recent survey fromthe National Center forEducation Statisticsprovides additionalinformation about cur-rent levels of teacheraccess to technologytraining. Thirteen percentof all public schoolshave mandated telecom-munications training forteachers either by localregulations or statestatute. The surveyindicates that a third (31percent) of the statesprovides incentives fortelecommunicationstraining, and only about16 percent of teacherscurrently use telecommu-nications for professionaldevelopment across thecountry. However, therapid increase in schoollevel access to theInternet — from 35percent in 1994 to 65percent in 1996 to 87percent projected for2000 — may signal new

ConnectingTeachers and

Technology

42

opportunities for teacheraccess to professionaldevelopment throughtelecommunications.3

In 1995, the Office ofTechnology Assessment(OTA) conducted acomprehensive study ofteachers and the effectiveuse of technology inschools. The key findingsof this study include:

● Most teachers have nothad suitable training toprepare them to usetechnology in theirteaching.

● In a majority of schools,there is no onsite supportperson officially assignedto coordinate or facilitatethe use of technologies.

● To use technologyeffectively, teachers needmore than just trainingabout how to work themachines and technicalsupport.

● Schools and schooldistricts are using anumber of differentapproaches for trainingteachers and implement-ing technology.

● Lessons from experiencedimplementation sitessuggest that those whowish to invest in technol-ogy should plan to investsubstantially in humanresources.Source: Education Week, Quality Counts: A Report Card on the Condition of Public Education in the 50

States, January 22, 1997

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2828

2322

2121

20202020

1818181818

1717

161515151515151515151515

15

15141414

1313

121111111111

10101010101010

88

WashingtonKentucky

HawaiiNorth Carolina

AlaskaSouth Dakota

UtahWyoming

FloridaColoradoVermontGeorgia

TennesseeMontana

TexasNorth DakotaWest Virginia

WisconsinNebraska

ConnecticutMaryland

KansasIowa

OregonCalifornia

MinnesotaMassachusetts

New YorkIdaho

U.S. Average

NevadaVirginia

MaineNew Hampshire

ArizonaIndiana

AlabamaMississippi

South CarolinaRhode Island

New JerseyLouisianaDelaware

New MexicoMichigan

PennsylvaniaMissouri

IllinoisArkansas

OhioOklahoma

Percentage of Teachers

Figure 1: Percentage of Teachers Who Had at Least Nine Hours of Training inEducation Technology in 1994

43

ALASKA

CALIFORNIA

IDAHO

OREGON

WASHINGTON

MONTANA

WYOMING

UTAH

COLORADO

ARIZONA

NEW MEXICO

TEXAS

OKLAHOMA

KANSAS

NEBRASKA

SOUTH DAKOTA

NORTH DAKOTA MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

IOWA

ILLINOIS

OHIOIN

KENTUCKY

WV

VIRGINIA

NO. CAROLINA

GEORGIA

FL

ALABAMA

MS

MISSOURI

ARKANSAS

LA

NEVADA

HAWAII

MICHIGAN

PENNSYLVANIANJ

NEW YORKCT

MA

VTNH

MAINE

TENNESSEE

CAROLINASO.

MD

DE

RI

States requiring courses or equivalent

Figure 2: States Requiring Courses in Educational Technology for a Teaching License,1996

Source: Education Week, Quality Counts: A Report Card on the Condition of Public Education in the 50States, January 22, 1997.

● Support for technologyuse from the principaland other administrators,from parents and thecommunity, and fromcolleagues can create aclimate that encouragesinnovation and sustaineduse.

● Although sites havemade significantprogress in helpingteachers learn to usegeneric technology,tools such as wordprocessors, databases,and desktop publishingprograms, many stillstruggle with how tointegrate technology intothe curriculum.

●Schools should avoidacquiring technology fortechnology’s sake.Developing a technologyplan at the local site insupport of schoolimprovement goals andinvolving teachers in theplanning process areimportant steps inensuring that the technol-ogy will be used by thoseit is intended to support.4

Given the speed withwhich technology ischanging and changingour lives, the researchand survey data make itclear that the task oftraining the current andfuture teaching force isformidable.

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE

TECHNOLOGY USE

The OTA study foundthat helping teacherslearn how to integratetechnology into thecurriculum may be oneof the most criticalfactors for successfulimplementation oftechnology applicationsin schools. The studyalso identified somemajor challenges facingteachers as they try tocome up to speed withtechnology applications:

● Many teachers encountertechnical and logisticalproblems and often lack

the training and/orsupport needed toresolve the problems.

● Many feel the need formore technical andpedagogical knowledge —not just about how to runthe machines, but alsoabout what software touse, how to integrate itinto the curriculum, andhow to organize classroomactivities using technology.

● Many school, district, and/or state assessmentsystems rely heavily onstandardized achievementtests, which can be abarrier to experimentationwith new technologiesbecause teachers are notsure whether the resultsthey are seeking will bereflected in improvedstudent test scores.

● Issues created by technol-ogy itself are also factorsto be dealt with, includingthose related to copyrightand intellectual propertyrights, privacy of studentrecords, and control ofstudent access to objec-tionable materials.

Inevitable technicaland logistical problemsthat are part and parcelof using technology arewhy teachers consistentlyemphasize the need foronsite assistance. Com-mon problems includemachines that won’t workas promised, restricted

44

access to locked closetsfilled with equipment,media carts that must bescheduled and sharedamong many classrooms,equipment that remainsbroken for weeks or evenmonths because no oneknows how to fix it, andthe long time taken toprocess repair requests.When teachers were askedto cite the one factor thatwould most likely deter-mine whether or not theywould use a computer inteaching, one teachersummed it up:

If I could have a few hoursone-to-one with a reallycompetent teacher that hasused it—just let me askquestions [about] what I’mafraid of about a com-puter, what I don’t under-stand.5

MODELS FOR CONNECTING

TEACHERS AND TECHNOLOGY

The challenge ofintegrating technology intoschools and classrooms ismuch more human than itis technological. It is notfundamentally abouthelping people to operatemachines. Rather, it isabout helping teachersintegrate these technolo-gies into their teaching astools of a profession thatis being redefined throughthe process.6

The National StaffDevelopment Council(NSDC) recently com-

pleted a comprehen-sive study of thelessons learned aboutstaff development inthe past 20 years.From this study, NSDCdeveloped a set ofstaff developmentguidelines that can beapplied to the devel-opment of teachercapacity to implementany educationalinnovation or initia-tive, including theeducational applica-tion and integration oftechnology.7

These guidelinesreflect a constructivistperspective. Ratherthan receiving knowl-edge from expertsin training sessions,teachers and administra-tors should collaboratewith peers, researchers,and students to makesense of the teachingand learning process intheir own contexts.Staff developmentwould include activi-ties such as actionresearch; conversa-tions with peers aboutthe beliefs andassumptions that guideindividual instruction;reflective practicessuch as journal keep-ing; projects involvingfamilies and commu-nity members instudent learning; andactively contributing tothe growing body ofknowledge about the

nature of teaching andlearning in the techno-logical age. While theseare activities that manyeducators may not evenview as staff develop-ment, new paradigms ofprofessional develop-ment that reflect newunderstandings aboutteaching and learningare gradually becominga reality.8

Using Telecom-munications. Thesenew staff developmentparadigms are supportedby the resources andtools made availablethrough telecommunica-tions and other newtechnologies. In the past,educators were limitedto opportunities theycould access in person.Now, with a computer,telecommunicationsaccess, and video-conferencing, educatorsfrom all over the countrycan interact with eachother, take onlinecourses, and readilyaccess the latest researchin their discipline.

In fact, educatorsare increasingly usingtelecommunications forprofessional develop-ment activities. A studyby the Center for Tech-nology in Educationfound that collegialexchanges, includingcommunicating viae-mail to colleaguesand posting questions orexchanging ideas on

forms and bulletinboards, are the servicesmost frequently used forprofessional purposes.

Working as the only com-puter specialist in theschool and district, it isinvaluable to me to havecontact with other pro-fessionals using comput-ers in new and innova-tive ways. Informalquestions can be asked.Help can be received inan inexpensive way.Discussions on software,equipment, and pro-grams can be generated.

District ComputerSpecialist 9

Educators report arange of incentives forusing telecommunica-tions as a professionalresource. Networkingactivities play a criticalrole in increasing pro-fessionalism and reliev-ing the isolation typi-cally experienced byteachers. Teachers viewthe opportunity tocommunicate with otherteachers and share ideasas one of the majorbenefits of this technol-ogy. Obtaining rapidfeedback on curricularissues and other topicsof professional interest,and keeping current onsubject matter, peda-gogy, and technologytrends are also impor-tant incentives.

45

I have been able to meetand work and learn withsuch a variety of educa-tional professionals that itis rather like being incontinuous attendance ata large internationalconference.

High SchoolScience Teacher10

A Variety ofApproaches. Educationinstitutions across thecountry are developingapproaches to helpingteachers use technologyfrom which others canbenefit. The approachesdiffer, depending uponthe existing resources(human and technologi-cal) at a site, the visionsthe sites have developedfor how technologies areto be used and whatproblems they canaddress, and the leader-ship and support that areavailable to meet thosegoals. These approachesinclude the following:

● Developing technology-rich classrooms, schools,or districts, in which localexpertise in variousapplications of technol-ogy can be developedand shared

● Training master teachers,who then serve asresources or mentorsfor their colleagues

● Providing expert resourcepeople from other dis-

ciplines, such aslibrarians, computercoordinators, or volun-teers from business,parent, and studentgroups

● Giving every teacher acomputer, Internetaccess, and the trainingand time to developpersonal confidenceand expertise

● Training administratorsso they can serve astechnology supportersand guide efforts with-in their schools orjurisdiction

● Establishing teacher ortechnology resourcecenters, ideally withease of teacher accessthrough online services

● Establishing telemen-toring programs

● Incorporating technol-ogy into existing staffdevelopment programs

● Promoting individual-ized planning for staffdevelopment

● Delivering interactivestaff development viasatellite and Internet

Many schools com-bine several of theseapproaches, and thereis no clear evidencethat any one model ismore successful than

others. There arenumerous additionalexamples of effectivestrategies for supportingteachers’ needs forprofessional develop-ment in this age oftechnology and tele-communications. Thefollowing projectshave been or are cur-rently being studied toinform the educationalcommunity of effectivepractices.

● Challenge Grants forTechnology in Educa-tion. Forty-four Chal-lenge Grants have beenfunded in the first twoyears of this program.These federally fundedresearch projects aretesting innovative waysof using technology andtelecommunications toinvolve teachers andcommunities in thedevelopment of newcurricular resources, useof telecommunicationsto deliver courses tostudents throughoutthe United States, trainteachers in new techno-logical skills, and createonline learning commu-nities for teachers acrossthe projects. In the firstyear, over one millionstudents were servedand thousands ofteachers were trained tomake effective use ofcomputers in theirclassrooms.

● Vanguard for Learning.The National ScienceFoundation (NSF) andthe Department ofDefense DependentSchools (DoDDS) arestudying strategies forcreating learning com-munities of students,educators, families, andmilitary base personnelrelated to the uniqueneeds and resources ofthe particular commu-nity, and for integratingthese strategies into theschool system. Theprofessional develop-ment model is one ofaction research in whichcollaborative teams ofteachers are designingclassroom-based projectswhich integrate newtechnologies withresearch-based instruc-tional practices. Supportis provided in-personand online and includesan online universitycourse.11

● The Well ConnectedEducator. The goals ofthis NSF-funded projectinclude creating anarena for educators topublish; disseminatinglessons learned; provid-ing a forum for thediscussion of educa-tional technology issues;encouraging reflectivepractice and collabora-tion; and promotingthinking among teach-ers, administrators, andothers in the education

46

community about theimpact of technology onlearning and educationreform. All elements ofThe Well ConnectedEducator are peer-reviewed. The articles areread by an editorialboard supervised by theeditorial director of theInternational Society ofTechnology in Education(ISTE). Forums arecarefully moderated andmonitored by a team ofexpert moderators.

● The Cupertino (CA) ModelTechnology SchoolsProject. This projectdeveloped and studiedthe Personalized LearningPlan (PLP) — a strategyfor professional develop-ment. The PLP wasdeveloped by individualteachers to identify thespecific staff developmentand technology-basedtraining they needed tomore effectively integratetechnology into theirteaching. The evaluationof the PLP processshowed that whenteachers identified theirstaff development needsand when these needswere met throughcustomized training, therewas a positive impact onclassroom instruction andthere was a significantincrease in the useof technologies in themodel schools. Further,teachers became moreinnovative in developing

curriculum and applica-tions of technology.

● The Apple Classroom ofTomorrow (ACOT). Thisproject lasted nearly adecade and has pro-vided information onthe support teachersneed to integratetechnology in order tofoster new ways ofstudent learning.Strategies for supportingthe professional needsof teachers includedteam teaching andplanning, modifiedschool schedules forplanning and instruc-tion, technology skillsdevelopment related tospecific teaching needs,use of source materialsto support curriculumplanning, and reflectionon student progress tomodify teaching prac-tice. This project and itsoutcomes are describedin another section ofthis report.

● Telementoring Pro-grams. These programsare numerous and aresupported by states aswell as research grants.The state of Hawaii hasused telementoring forthe past several yearsto foster collegialtraining across islands;California’s TelemationProject uses telecommu-nications to bringteachers together fromall regions of the state;

NSF’s National SchoolNetworking Project usestelecommunications tosupport hundreds oftelementors around thecountry. The MilkenFamily Foundation issupporting statewidetelementoring projectsestablished as part ofstate Technology LiteracyChallenge Fund plans.

INVOLVING

ADMINISTRATORS

Research on theadoption of innovationsin schools consistentlypoints to the key role ofadministrative leaders insuccessful implementa-tion. Involved andsupportive superinten-dents are essential todistrict-wide reformefforts, and principalsare key to implementa-tion within the schoolbuilding.12 Research hasconsistently found thatwhen administrators areinformed about andcomfortable with tech-nology, they becomekey players in leadingand supporting technol-ogy integration activitiesin their schools.13

Some technologyimplementation effortsare building on theselessons by includingprincipals or other keyadministrative staff intraining opportunitiesoffered to teachers. Onesuch approach is to

include principals inschool-based teamschosen to receiveintensive training intechnology use. Forexample, the AppleClassroom of TomorrowTeacher DevelopmentCenter Project looks atthe commitment of theprincipal when selectingteacher teams for train-ing. Not only are princi-pals encouraged toattend portions of thetraining program withthe teacher team, butthey also must committo the following condi-tions: release time forteachers to attendproject training sessions;time for teachers tomeet and plan each day;time for teachers toreflect on practice; andacknowledgment of theimportance of theirteachers’ efforts to therest of the staff.

Since 1990, Indianahas sponsored a state-wide training programspecifically for princi-pals. In its first twoyears, the Principals’Technology LeadershipTraining Program servedalmost 400 Indianaprincipals. Over thecourse of a year, eachprincipal takes four daysof professional trainingwith other principals ata central site. By sched-uling sessions at differ-ent points in the year,the program built in

47

time for principals to goback to their schools,practice what theylearned, and talk to staffand better define whatthey needed and wanted.In the workshops,principals learned abouta broad range of technol-ogy and software avail-able for classroom andoffice use and had achance for hands-onexploration of a largecollection of equipment.

Participating princi-pals have been veryenthusiastic about theTechnology LeadershipProgram. In addition toreporting increasedknowledge and confi-dence with respect totechnology use, partici-pating principals saidthey were more capableof creatively using capitalproject funds, writinggrants, or justifyingexpenditures to schoolboards. After the training,many principals con-ducted training for theirteachers; others reportedthat they were betterequipped to thinkcomprehensively aboutthe technology in theirschools and how best touse it. Principals rated anupdate session, held thefollowing year, as veryvaluable, and mostprincipals endorsed theneed for some kind ofongoing “refresherprograms.”

In summary, theoverriding theme of thissection of the report hasbeen the importance ofstaff development foreffective use of technol-ogy in schools. Frominterviews with teachersand educational tech-nology leaders and areview of the literature,we begin to see thateffective technologytraining for teachersreaches beyond profi-ciency in using comput-ers and draws onlessons learned aboutimplementing effectivestaff development andinstructional reform inschools. To tap into thepower of technology asan educational tool,research and experienceindicate that staffdevelopment should:

● Be driven by a clearunderstanding of thelocal needs of teachers

● Emphasize hands-onexperience, especiallyfor technology usetraining

● Use peer coachingrather than lectureformat

● Integrate technologytraining into other staffdevelopment programsin the school anddistrict

● Involve administrators asparticipants with teach-ers in staff developmentprograms on technologyuse and integration inthe curriculum

● Provide the release timeneeded for teachers toapply what they learnedin training

● Provide follow-upsupport for implementa-tion of technology skillslearned in training

● Give teachers access toresources needed toimplement what waslearned in training

● Facilitate communica-tions among teachers —use telecommunicationstechnologies to helpteachers communicateand share their profes-sional experiences

1 John Cradler, et al., The Analysis ofthe Impact of California Educa-tional Technology Regional andLocal Assistance Programs,conducted for the California StateDepartment of Education, WestEdRegional Laboratory, 1992.

2 Education Week, “Quality Counts: AReport Card on the Condition ofPublic Education in the 50 States,”January 22, 1997.

3 National Center for EducationStatistics, Advanced Telecommuni-cations in U.S. Public Elementaryand Secondary Schools, Fall 1996,U.S. Department of Education,Office of Educational Research andImprovement, February 1997.

4 U.S. Congress, Office of TechnologyAssessment, Teachers andTechnology: Making the Connec-tion, OTA-HER-616, Washington,DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, April 1995.

5 Janet Schofield, Computers andClassroom Culture, New York:Cambridge University Press, inpress.

6 Barbara Means, et al., UsingTechnology to Support EducationReform, Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, 1993.

7 Dennis Sparks, “A Paradigm Shift inStaff Development,” EducationWeek, March 1994.

8 John Cradler and Elizabeth Parish,Telecommunications andTechnology in Education: WhatHave We Learned by Research andExperience?, WestEd RegionalLaboratory, October 1995.

9 Margaret Honey and AndresHenriquez, Telecommunicationand K-12 Educators: Findings froma National Survey, New York, NY:Center for Technology inEducation, Bank Street College ofEducation, 1993.

10 OTA, 1995.

11 John Cradler, Ruthmary Cradler andPeggy Kelly, Vanguard Profes-sional Development QuarterlyReport, October 15, 1996. (Report isavailable via email [email protected]).

12 OTA, 1995.

13 U.S. Congress, Office of Technol-ogy Assessment, Power On! NewTools for Teaching and Learning,Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1988.

48

Assessing theContent and

Quality ofCourseware

Goal 4 of PresidentClinton’s National Tech-nology Literacy Chal-lenge is that:

● Effective software andon-line learningresources will be anintegral part of everyschool’s curriculum.

Computer software,video, distance learningcourses, and onlineresources are expandingrapidly. The U.S. Depart-ment of Educationestimates that over20,000 educational soft-ware titles have beendeveloped (includingCD-ROM and multimediapackages), more than amillion students takecourses through distancelearning via networksevery year, and everyday hundreds of newhome pages are added tothe Internet’s WorldWide Web.1 Theseinstructional resources(hereafter referred to as“courseware”) have thepotential to improvelearning by engagingstudents in experiencesnot previously accessibleon a large scale.

The rapidly increas-ing access to and use oftechnology in education,as shown in previoussections of this report,are creating a corre-sponding need for thedevelopment of course-ware that exploits the

potential of technologyas a tool for teaching andlearning. The challengeis two-fold: To developproducts that extendlearning opportunitiesbeyond what can alreadybe offered with tradi-tional instructionalmedia, and to provideresources and processesto enable educators toselect and use course-ware in ways that helpstudents meet highstandards.

Research consistentlyshows that curriculumcontent, instructionalstrategies adjusted tolearner needs, along withsufficient incentives andopportunities to learn arethe major “keys” toeffective teaching andlearning. Consequently,when technology isbrought into the instruc-tional equation, it iseffective to the extentthat it supports andenhances these “keys.”In other words, if tech-nology is applied toinadequate content andinstructional strategies,the desired educationaloutcomes will be elusive.

Any examination ofthe impact of coursewareon learning must startwith an assessment ofthe extent to which suchresources are designed totarget specific learningobjectives and curricu-lum standards. Productsthat are carefully

designed to supportspecific learning objec-tives with considerationfor the research on howstudents learn have thehighest probability ofproducing desired learn-ing outcomes.2 Next,courseware needs to bematched to national, state,district, or local standards.Finally, the coursewaremust be integrated intothe teaching and learningactivities of the classroom.

This section providesan overview of a processfor the effective design,selection, and integratedutilization of technologyin order to maximize itsimpact on learning.Figure 1 describes thisprocess visually. The“road map” illustrates theprocess suggested for,first, evaluating course-ware based on definedstandards and priorities,and second, selectingand integrating course-ware into instructionalpractice.

The following sec-tions of this reportaddress several issuesregarding the currentstatus of courseware anddescribe current effortsto evaluate courseware.A recent assessment ofthe “quality” and contentemphasis of coursewarein several subjects is alsoprovided. The sectionconcludes by suggestingseveral actions shown byresearch and experience

49

Evaluate coursewareagainst guidelines

Devise coursewareevaluation guidelines

and rubrics

Educational standardsand instructional

priorities

Select coursewarefor instruction

Determineinstructional needs

Review and selectcourseware suited

to local needs

Develop plans tointegrate and use

courseware

Deploy coursewareand measure impact

on learning

Courseware Evaluation and Selection

Courseware Application

Figure 1: Courseware Evaluation and Application “Road Map”

to be effective in course-ware development.

THE INSTRUCTIONAL

DESIGN OF COURSEWARE

In 1988, PolicyAnalysis for CaliforniaEducation (PACE) com-missioned an analysis oftechnology in educationand the conclusions ofthat report remain validtoday.3 For the past 15years, research hasshown that all types ofinstructional materials aregenerally more effectivewhen their developmenthas been informed bylearning research. Forexample, a study ofteaching and learningfound that carefulinstructional planning,clearly defined objec-tives, clear presentation,student interaction,opportunities for feed-

back, and time engagedin on-task behaviortogether have the great-est probability ofincreasing learning.4

Further studies byRobert Slavin foundthat instructional pro-grams were effectivewhen they adoptedmodels or validatedpractices that presentedconsistent and convinc-ing evidence of instruc-tional effectiveness.5

Research-basedcriteria for the develop-ment of effective cur-riculum and instructionalstrategies should also beapplied to the develop-ment and selection ofeducational courseware.Research has found that,“too often softwaredesigners focus on thetechnical qualities oftheir programs ratherthan attending to the

kind of learning experi-ence that should becreated.”6

Other research hasconcluded that materialsare often selected fortheir broad content ortopic with little consid-eration for their fit withlearners’ needs, or forthe delivery systemmost appropriate for thelearning objectives.Without serious integra-tion into the curriculum,technology may bringchange without im-provement.7

The criteria forcourseware develop-ment should reflect thecomponents for effec-tive curriculum andinstructional strategiesand the software shouldbe field tested foreffectiveness in produc-ing desired effectsbefore being widely

distributed. It is thecontent and instructionaldesign rather than thecourseware per se thatwill influence learning.The following sectionsdiscuss a tested processfor applying content andinstructional design toboth the selectionand development ofcourseware.

THE CALIFORNIA

INSTRUCTIONAL

TECHNOLOGY

CLEARINGHOUSE

In 1985, the Califor-nia State Department ofEducation determinedthat technology couldserve as a catalyst forimplementing the statecurriculum frameworksand student perfor-mance standards. Inorder to utilize technol-ogy for this purpose it

50

was necessary to estab-lish and determine theextent to which existingcourseware had thepotential to support theframeworks and stan-dards. What emergedfrom this process was astatewide courseware“consumer’s guide” foreducators. The conceptevolved into the estab-lishment of the state-funded CaliforniaInstructional TechnologyClearinghouse (CITC) in1987.

Today, the CITC is amajor and uniqueresource for coursewareevaluations and was theonly source found bythis report’s authors thatconducts and dissemi-nates analyses andevaluations of course-ware based on educa-tional standards.8 Mostcommercially developedcourseware is submittedto the CITC. The U.S.Department of Edu-cation’s Office of Educa-tional Technologyrecommends the CITC asa national resource forcourseware reviews andevaluations.

Over the past 12years, the CITC hasinvolved curriculumspecialists and teachersin the development andapplication of guidelinesfor analyzing coursewarewith respect to content,quality, and technicalfeatures. These guide-

lines are used to bothinform the selection ofexisting courseware and influence thedevelopment of newcourseware.

The CaliforniaCurriculum Frameworksand national educationstandards are the basisfor the content guide-lines.9 And becausemost textbook publish-ers heed California’scurriculum standards,due in part to the size ofthe California market,the CITC is as close to anational clearinghouseas exists today. Thissection describes theCITC and its evaluationprocess.

THE CITC EVALUATION

STRATEGY

The CITC uses afive-step strategy thatbegins with the devel-opment of guidelinesand continues on toinclude training, course-ware reviews, identify-ing courseware needs,and dissemination. Thisstrategy includes thefollowing steps:

1. Develop CoursewareEvaluation Criteriaand Guidelines.These guidelines wereinformed by state andnational curriculumstandards and instruc-tional requirements aswell as student, staff,

community, and system-wide needs. The guide-lines also includestandards for technicalfeatures, user features,training and supportneeds of teachers, aswell as legal compliance.These guidelines arelisted in the box on thenext page.

2. Establish CoursewareAssessment Training.A training programbased on the CoursewareEvaluation Criteria andGuidelines was devel-oped. The training isdesigned to provideeducators with thecapacity to conductin-depth coursewareevaluations and to testthe courseware withstudents in classroomsto determine studentreaction.

3. Conduct CoursewareReviews. Evaluatorsnext assess the commer-cial courseware madeavailable by mostpublishers. The majorsteps in the reviewprocess are outlinedbelow:

a. All courseware are pre-screened to determine ifthey meet the basicessential criteria. Theseinclude:

— appears to coverCalifornia curriculumand performancestandards

— program objectives areclear

— technology used is aneffective medium forthe content

— content is current andaccurate

— presentation design istechnically accurateand can maintainstudent interest

— support materials pro-vided are helpful

— audio and visualfeatures are clear andappropriate forclassroom viewing

— technical quality andpublisher support areadequate

b. Products are theneach reviewed by two“experienced” reviewersto determine the extentto which the productsmeet the CITC guide-lines or rubrics.

c. Products that pass stepsa) and b) are then triedout with students.

d. Curriculum specialistsreview the products todetermine appropriatematch to the contentrecommended in theCalifornia instructionalresources evaluationinstruments (which areapplied to all state-

51

adopted materials,including textbooks), thestate curriculum frame-works, and the statecontent and performancestandards.

e. Products are given a finalrating.

f. Descriptive annotationsfor programs rated asexemplary or desirableare prepared and enteredin the CITC database foraccess on the Web,CD-ROM, or in printedform.

4. Identify CoursewareNeeds. After the review-ers determine the specificcourseware that meet theCITC Guidelines, thisinformation may be usedto determine needs andpriorities for the develop-ment of new coursewareto fill the “gaps” wherethere are not existingproducts.

5. Clearinghouse Infor-mation Dissemination.The CITC provideselectronic access toinformation aboutcourseware that meetsthe CITC Guidelines. Theexemplary products aredisplayed at selectedcounty offices of educa-tion and regional serviceagencies.

Recently, the CITC revised and expanded the guidelines for the evaluation of courseware. Theguidelines are designed to provide a single set of rubrics that can be applicable to the evaluation of all typesof courseware used in schools today, including rubrics for evaluating educational resources on the Internet.The guidelines are intended to define criteria of excellence that can provide suggested directions for thosepublishers and producers who strive to improve their products.10

The new guidelines are organized into five sections, each with several subsections:

1) Content curriculum content, including match with standards and curriculum frameworks legal compliance (not racially or gender biased, etc.)

2) Instructional Design creative teaching and learning approaches are embedded critical thinking and decision making activities are embedded information literacy such as online searches is emphasized stereotypes are avoided, variety of cultures and career roles are included English learners (ESL) are supported challenged learners’ needs are addressed in specific ways

3) Program Design objectives and pedagogy are clear and relevant effective use of technology for the content interactive strategies allow focus on instruction, not program mechanics motivating for all students customizing features for teachers and/or students online access, as appropriate skills-building programs involve learners beyond drill-and-practice

4) Assessment classroom management methods to chart student progress assessment strategies are well-designed for a wide range of needs

5) Instructional Support Materials presentation and organization of materials is clearly written support materials are provided in print or printable form

Each of the guidelines is evaluated by three categories of evaluation rubrics or ratings:11

● Exemplary — makes an excellent case for recommendation● Desirable — makes a good case for recommendation● Minimal — makes a minimal case for recommendation

Only courseware judged to be “exemplary” or “desirable” are recommended for use in the schools.Excellence in technical and instructional quality is expected, but that alone is not enough to recommendany program for schools.

The CITC rubrics provide educators with a description of what to look for when applying each of therating criteria to each of the rubric categories. For example, to have an excellent rating for curriculumcontent the evaluator must observe that. . . .

“. . .the program covers the content recommended in California’s instructional resources evalua-tion instruments, curriculum frameworks, and content and performance standards.”

THE CITC EVALUATION GUIDELINES

52

GUIDANCE FOR COURSE-WARE DEVELOPERS

Like textbook pub-lishers, software publish-ers consult existingcurriculum frameworksand standards to informthe design of course-ware. Several states havetranslated their curricu-lum frameworks andstandards into softwaredevelopment guidelines.Such guidelines wereused to help guide thedevelopment of severalexemplary multimediaprograms. These includeVital Links, Science2000, and others devel-oped as part of theSoftware DevelopmentPartnership Programjointly funded by Florida,Texas, and California.Earlier partnershipsincluded products suchas Voyage of the Mimi,which combined the useof video and computerprograms, and the StarSchools distance learningprograms.

Because theseprograms were devel-oped in close partner-ship with state and localcurriculum designers,researchers, and teach-ers, they emerged assome of the most com-prehensive and sustain-able programs to bedeveloped to date. Thesefindings are supported

Table 1. Number and Percentage of Courseware Rated as Exemplary,Desirable, and Not Recommended by the CITC from 1991 to 1995

29-1991 39-2991 49-3991 59-499159-19

egarevA

dnarebmuNtnecreP # % # % # % # % # %

"yralpmexE" 02 8 21 8 01 6 12 9 61 8

"elbariseD" 87 33 47 74 07 93 98 04 87 93

toNdednemmoceR

831 85 17 54 101 65 311 15 601 35

smargorPdetaulavE

632 751 181 322 002

.su.ac.21k.oc-nats.cit//:ptth,esaBataDMOR-DC/erawtfoSCTIC:ecruoS

by a statement from asoftware publisher:

We definitely needteachers to help identifygood software—to putsome models out therethat producers canemulate. Teachers needto be involved in separat-ing the wheat from thechaff. 12

The recent U.S.Department of Educationreport, Getting America’sStudents Ready for the21st Century, says that“states and districts havean important role to playin ensuring that effectiveeducational software isavailable for students andtheir teachers. To ensurethat suitable software is

available, states anddistricts can work closelywith software producersto develop software thatmeets the needs andgoals of their students.”

THE QUALITY OF CURRENT

COURSEWARE

CITC data are consis-tently showing thateffective coursewarevaries greatly in availabil-ity. The most recentfindings about thequantity of coursewarerecommended by theCITC for each subjectarea, for multidisciplinaryuse, and for cross-gradeapplications are providedbelow.13 The implicationsof these findings for thefuture planning and

development of softwareand online resources arediscussed.

As Table 1 shows,only between 6 and 8percent of the course-ware across all subjectareas were rated asexemplary by the CITCand from 33 to 47 per-cent as desirable from1991 to 1995. The pro-grams evaluated wereonly those that passedthe initial screeningprocess which rejectsprograms that are clearlyout of alignment with thecurriculum frameworks,do not meet legal com-pliance criteria, or clearlylack the technical qualityfor consideration by thereviewers. About 42percent of all course-

53

programs reviewed. Thedifferences betweensubjects in terms ofratings are probably notsignificant as the range isfrom 74 to 82 percent fordesirable and 21 to 26percent for programsrated exemplary.

Data are not yetavailable to examine theratings by grade levelgroupings. However,such an analysis is beingconducted as part of aneffort to determinespecific subject areas forspecific grade levelswhere there are “holes”in terms of availableproducts.

In general, it appearsthat there is a need, asreported by the CITCreviewers, for moreexemplary or desirable

programs at all gradelevels in all subjectareas. Reviewers oftencomment that morecourseware is neededthat provide more in-depth treatment ofsubjects, and that utilizemultiple technologies —especially the Internet.

Future researchshould identify thespecific reasons thatprograms were notaccepted for in-depthreview and analysis andwhat needs to be doneto correct the weak-nesses in such prod-ucts. Also, data shouldbe collected on theareas in the curriculumwhere there is a lack ofexemplary and desir-able programs, alongwith recommendations

about the types ofproducts needed to fillthese “holes.”

Once acceptableproducts are identified,research needs to beconducted on thecomparative impact ofexemplary and desirableprograms vs. otherprograms in terms ofimpact on teaching andlearning. The CITCassumes that exemplaryprograms will producea greater impact onlearning than desirableor non-acceptableprograms. However,research does not existto either support orrefute this assumption.Presently, a study beingconducted for theDepartment of DefenseSchools (DoDDS) will

ware submitted to theCITC passed the initialscreening. Changes incurriculum prioritiesalong with advances intechnology necessitatean annual re-evaluationof programs. However,many 1991 programs arestill in the database sincethey were advancedenough to remain asdesirable or exemplary.These data suggest anoverall need for addi-tional courseware thatmeets content-basedcriteria as defined by theCITC, as well as furtherstudy on this issue.

Table 2 providesdata on the numbersand percentages ofcourseware accepted forreview and then rated asexemplary and desirablefor mathematics, sci-ence, English/languagearts, and history/socialstudies.

As the data indicate,the highest percentageof courseware acceptedfor CITC review wasclassified as emphasizingscience, with English/language arts second,followed by history/social studies andmathematics. It shouldbe noted that someprograms are cross-curricular and are ratedas more than one sub-ject. This accounts forthe fact that the totalprograms across subjectsis greater than the total

Table 2. The Number and Percentage of Programs Rated as Exemplary andDesirable for Science, Mathematics, History/Social Science, and English/LanguageArts, 1995

detpeccAlatoT elbariseD yralpmexE

mulucirruCcipoT rebmuN tnecreP rebmuN tnecreP rebmuN tnecreP

scitamehtaM 531 12 701 28 82 12

ecneicS 592 74 532 08 06 02

-gnaL/hsilgnEstrAegau

242 83 191 97 15 12

laicoS/yrotsiHseidutS

802 33 351 47 55 62

latoTdetpeccA 736 615 18 121 02

.su.ac.21k.oc-nats.cit//:ptth,esaBataDMOR-DC/erawtfoSCTIC:ecruoS

54

be testing the hypo-thesis that greater studentbenefits will result withcourseware that meetsCITC and DoDDSstandards.14

INTEGRATING EFFECTIVE

COURSEWARE

The most highlyrated courseware is onlyeffective to the extentthat it is effectivelyintegrated into instruc-tion. A lesson learnedfrom numerous modeltechnology schoolprojects, including theCalifornia Model Tech-nology Schools and theApple Classroom ofTomorrow (ACOT), isthat the successfulintegration of technologyin classrooms implies achange in the underlyingstrategies of classroomteaching. These innova-tions require a clearvision and an implemen-tation plan based onavailable resources,student needs, andschool goals. Educatorsneed to develop a “roadmap” or plan to achievethe desired goals.15

A systematic processfor integrating technol-ogy into the curriculumwas developed andvalidated within severalprojects over the past 10years. The processinvolves the develop-ment of a classroomlevel Technology Integra-

tion Plan (TIP) wherebythe teacher individuallyor as part of a teamdevelops a detailedplan for the integrationand use of technologywithin the context ofclassroom curriculumand instruction. Inapplying this process,educators select course-ware that has alreadybeen recommended bythe CITC and thenincorporated intoschool and classroom-level TIPs (see Figure2). In general, the TIPprocess identifies needsand desired outcomesfor students and teach-ers and describes a planthat supports districtand local schoolimprovement planpriorities.16

The TIP also identi-fies materials and staffdevelopment resourcesneeded and an evalua-tion plan to determineongoing changesneeded to adjust theplan. The completedTIP provides a carefullydeveloped set of indi-vidual staff develop-ment needs for teachersto pursue when imple-menting technology.

The TIP processevolved from extensiveresearch on the applica-tion and integration oftechnology into teach-ing and learning. Theprocess was developedin the South San Fran-

cisco and MontereyPeninsula Unified SchoolDistricts and thenadapted to the ModelTechnology Schools inCalifornia and theStatewide TelemationProject. Currently the TIPprocess is being appliedto the NSF-supportedmodel technologyschools project inDoDDS, as well as theDoDDS President’sTechnology Initiativetestbed sites. TIPs applynational, state, or localcurriculum standardswith some application ofselected desirable orexemplary courseware tosupport and expandlearning related to thosestandards. Each TIP isalso based on the spe-cific instructional needsof teachers and studentsand supports the localschool-wide instructionalimprovement plan. TheTIP can be viewed as aseparate “mini-project”with its own evaluationto be conducted byteachers.17

INCENTIVES FOR RESEARCH

AND DEVELOPMENT

Funding for R & D incourseware developmenthas been inconsistent anduncoordinated. Therecent legislation knownas the Technology Lit-eracy Challenge Grants ispromoting partnershipswith business in the

development of course-ware with an emphasison online resources. TheDepartment of Defensehas recently fundedPresident Clinton’sCourseware DevelopmentProject within DoDDS atapproximately $20million. This project isdesigned to promoteevaluation and researchon existing and emerg-ing courseware andonline resources. It ishoped that this willresult in an array of newstate-of-the-art learningtechnologies and integra-tion strategies that canbe adapted on a nationalbasis. The program mayalso support expansionand scaling up of K–12courseware emergingfrom NASA, NSF, DARPA(Defense AdvancedResearch ProjectsAgency, which fundsresearch in DoDDSschools), and others.

NEXT STEPS

An examination ofthe current status ofcourseware suggeststhat the followingactivities may be pro-ductive in increasing thedevelopment of andaccess to effectiveeducational courseware.

● A national coursewareclearinghouse couldbe established thatincludes both commer-

55

Stu

dent

s

Inst

ruct

iona

lN

eeds

Det

erm

ined

Dis

tric

t Prio

ritie

s &

C

urric

ulum

Sta

ndar

ds

Des

ired

Out

com

esE

stab

lishe

dS

choo

l Im

prov

emen

t P

lann

ing

Prio

ritie

s

TIP

Rev

isio

n

Sel

ectio

n of

Des

irabl

e &

Exe

mpl

ary

Pro

gram

s

Rec

omm

enda

tions

base

d on

TIP

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Inst

ruct

iona

lT

echn

olog

yC

lear

ingh

ouse

Cou

rsew

are

Pro

cure

men

tB

ased

on

Rev

iew

sIm

pact

Eva

luat

ion

Sof

twar

e &

Onl

ine

Res

ourc

e R

evie

ws

Sch

ool/C

lass

room

Lev

el

Tec

hnol

ogy

Inte

grat

ion

Pla

nnin

g

CM

SStu

dent

s

• In

stru

ctio

Res

ourc

• H

ardw

ar•

Sta

ff D

ev•

Com

mun

Sch

ool S

Com

mu

TIP

TIP

Inte

grat

ing

and

Impl

emen

ting

Rec

omm

ende

d T

echn

olog

y in

to

Cur

ricul

um a

nd

Inst

ruct

ion

Rev

iew

of

Inst

ruct

iona

l T

echn

olog

yR

esou

rces

Sta

ndar

ds-

base

dG

uide

lines

for

Sof

twar

eE

valu

atio

n

Eva

luat

ion

CM

S

Fig

ure

2: In

teg

ratin

g T

echn

olog

y in

to th

e C

urric

ulum

56

cial and public domainresources.

● Additional incentivescould be provided to thecourseware industry toproduce additionalproducts in partnershipwith national, state, andlocal education agencies.

● Interagency developmentof courseware couldinclude the Departmentof Education, Departmentof Defense EducationalActivities, NationalScience Foundation,NASA, and others asappropriate.

● The specific developmentneeds for courseware thatwould meet current andemerging curriculum andinstructional priorities atthe national, state, andlocal levels could bedetermined.

● Assessment strategiesshould be embedded intonew products and shouldreflect the tasks andapplications intended bythe products and that arelinked to educationalstandards.

● A national informationand support system couldbe used to enableeducators to access anduse the courseware beingmade available throughrecent national and stateeducational technologyinitiatives.


2 John Cradler and Elizabeth Parish,Telecommunications Technologyand Education: What Have WeLearned from Research andExperience?, WestEd RegionalLaboratory, October 1995.

3 John Cradler, Policy Recommenda-tions for Program Improvementwith Educational Technology inCalifornia Schools, Policy Analysisfor California Education, 1988.

4 C.W. Fisher and others, “TeachingBehaviors, Academic LearningTime and Student Achievement:An Overview, in Time to Learn,Washington, DC: National Instituteof Education, 1980.

5 Robert E. Slavin, “Making Chap-ter 1 Make a Difference,” PhiDelta Kappan, October 1987.

6 W. Harvey, Designing EducationalSoftware for Tomorrow, SRIInternational, May 1985.

7 D. Considine, “Media, Technology,and Teaching: What’s Wrong andWhy,” School Library MediaQuarterly, Summer 1985 and C.Mojkiwski, “Technology andCurriculum: Will the PromisedRevolution Take Place?” NASSPBulletin, February 1987.

8 A few other states and somenational agencies provideclearinghouses that serve as acatalogue of resources withoutreference to curriculum standardsand alignment. These clearing-houses do not rate the coursewareagainst a set of criteria, but doprovide annotations anddescriptions of the courseware.

9 The curriculum frameworks weredeveloped over the last decade byteachers and subject area expertsand were designed to articulaterigorous academic content andexemplary teaching strategies.These voluntary frameworks arelinked to staff development, thestate assessment program, and thestate textbook adoption process.National education standardsinclude those of the NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathemat-ics, the National Science TeachersAssociation, and the NewStandards Project.

10 CITC Guidelines for the Evaluationof Instructional TechnologyResources for California Schools,1997.

11 The rubrics with completeoperational definitions can be

found in the “CITC Guidelines forthe Evaluation of InstructionalTechnology Resources for CaliforniaSchools (1997).”

12 U.S. Department of Education, 1996.

13 The CITC data base is availablefrom http://tic.stan-co.k12.ca.us.The CITC is directed by John Vaileand Ann Lathrop.

14 More information is available [email protected].

15 Eva Baker, Joan Herman and MarylGearhart, “Does Technology Workin Schools? Why Evaluation CannotTell the Full Story,” in CharlesFisher and others (eds.), Educationand Technology: Reflections onComputing in Classrooms, SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1996.

16 School improvement plans are theschool-wide plans used in moststates to annually define a school-wide instructional program.

17 For more information on TIP, seeJohn Cradler and Elizabeth Parish,“Planning and InstructionalIntegration,” in Telecommunicationsand Technology in Education: WhatHave We Learned from Researchand Experience?, WestEd RegionalLaboratory, October 1995.

57

Two of the TechnologyLiteracy Challenge goalscall for installing comput-ers in all Americanpublic schools andconnecting them to theinformation superhigh-way. This will requiresignificant resources. Buthow much will it cost?Some of the answerscan be found in severalsophisticated studieswhich model costs.

In this section of thereport we review severalmajor national studies,the experience of thestate of California, as wellas that of two schooldistricts to estimate costsfor different scenarios oftechnology deployment.We also discuss somecost and practical issuesrelated to cable andwireless technologies,and consider some of thecost concerns of ruralparts of the country.Finally, some informationon how various schooldistricts have reducedtechnology costs isprovided.

ESTIMATING THE COSTS OF

TECHNOLOGY IN OUR

SCHOOLS

Technology costsdepend on a numberof factors, such as thequality and quantityof purchases of hard-ware — e.g., computers,local area networks(LANs), servers, routers,

and other connections —the quality and fre-quency of teacher andstaff training, and thetime period over whichthe deployment occurs.Courseware (such asinstructional software,CD-ROMs, videos, orelectronic services), thebandwidth of the con-nection (see the box on

this page), and the typeof connectivity (e.g., tele-phone lines, cable, orwireless) also affectcosts.

Other cost factorsinclude improvements tothe existing schoolinfrastructure (e.g.,electrical heavy-ups,retrofitting for asbestosremoval, cooling and

The Costs ofEducationalTechnology

THE BANDWIDTH FACTOR

Bandwidth refers to the amount of information that can be transmittedover a network within a given time. The concept is often illustrated by apipe that permits only a certain amount of water to flow through it. Onlya certain amount of digital information, or “bits,” can be transmittedthrough wires or cables per second. Typical telephone lines mostcommonly move information at 14.4 thousand bits per second (kbps),which means about a 30-second wait for one full-color computerscreen of information from the Internet. This capacity falls within thedefinition of narrowband.

Higher phone line speeds, ranging from 56 kbps up to 1.5 million bitsper second (mbps), are referred to as wideband. Included in thisrange are the ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) lines whichprovide for speeds from 56 to 128 kbps, significantly reducing the timerequired to receive information, and T–1 lines at over 1.5 mbps, whichallow 24 students fast, concurrent access to networks.

Although definitions vary, broadband generally refers to speedsgreater than 1.5 mbps and is associated with fiber optic or coaxialcable. It permits rapid transmission of data, voice, and video foradvanced technology uses such as desktop videoconferencing,networked simulations. and virtual field trips.1 Authors of the TIAPreport (see below) use Tolstoy’s War and Peace to distinguish betweenwideband and broadband transmission rates. Transmitting the entirecontents of that classic work requires 26 seconds via wideband, butonly one second by broadband.2

The cost of broadband is, as expected, significantly higher than lowercapacity access, and until fairly recently was considered an unnecessaryluxury for schools. Widespread deployment of broadband to schools,however, is now a serious and more available option. Some cablecompanies are offering free services, and the telephone industry isdeveloping next-generation Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Lines(ADSL), challenging cable speed, quality, and flexibility.

58

ventilation systems),ongoing technical support,maintenance, and repairs,hardware and softwareupgrades, as well as theinitial cost of telecommu-nications connections andongoing usage fees (fortelephone, cable or wire-less) and for Internetaccess.

The following sectiondescribes several modelsthat have recently beenused to estimate the costsof providing technology inour schools under severaldifferent scenarios andschedules. While themodels and studies gener-ally include the costs ofhardware, teacher profes-sional development,changes in buildinginfrastructure, and wiringand LAN connections,there is considerablevariation among the costfactors and pricing of themodels. Readers whodesire more than a generalcost comparison areencouraged to consult thestudies referenced.

COST MODELS

RAND Research. Thomas Glennan andArthur Melmed, on behalfof RAND’s Critical Tech-nology Institute, and insupport of the WhiteHouse’s Office of Scienceand Technology Policy,developed a broad esti-mate of the costs ofintroducing technology

into schools.3 Begin-ning with technologycurrently in place,RAND developed arough estimate of thecost of existing tech-nology in schools in1994-95:

● $3.2 billion, about $70per pupil, or a littlemore than 1.3 percentof total expenditures

To project costs ofa nation of technol-ogy-enabled schools,they examined thetechnology costs ofeight schools consid-ered exemplary usersof technology, whichwere reported uponearlier by Keltner andRoss.4

The selection ofexemplars was basedon their breadth oftechnology used ininstruction, the use oftechnology as aneducational tool, andcommitment to devot-ing the resourcesnecessary to transformthe school for fulltechnology use. Theschools, althoughnot representative ina statistical sense,included a spectrumof student populationsand grade levels. Theirstudent-to-computerratios ranged from 11to 1, to 2 to 1. Find-ings are as follows: 5

● Per-student costs fortechnology-rich schoolsrange from $180 to $450,or from 3 to 8 percent ofcurrent per-pupil expen-ditures. The authors con-sider $300 per student,or 5.3 percent of schoolbudgets, as a plausibletarget.

● The costs of providingtechnology-rich learningenvironments are notinconsequential. Totalcosts to the nation rangefrom $10 to $20 billionper year, or from threeto six times what iscurrently spent.

● The cost of equipment,especially computerdensity, is the primaryfactor affecting costs.

● A second major factoraffecting total cost ispersonnel. These schoolsneeded full-time staffdevoted to technologyoperations. In somecases they were newlyhired; in others existingteachers took theresponsibility.

● Staff development costsare about $25 perstudent, assuming thatteachers are compen-sated for this time, eitherby hiring a substitute orby a stipend for extratime spent.

● Per-student softwarecosts are low, between 4

and 10 percent of totaltechnology costs.

● Decisions to fundeducational technologyare not necessarilycorrelated with ability topay. Determinations thattechnology is importantcan lead states anddistricts to allocateincreased proportionsof their resources totechnology.

The McKinseyModels6. The McKinsey& Company manage-ment consulting firmreported in 1995 on thecosts and feasibility ofproviding all of thenation’s K–12 publicschools access to thenational informationinfrastructure (NII)over the next five to10 years.

The report describesfour deployment modelsthat assume differenttime-frames (by the year2000 and by the year2005) and differentlevels of technologyinfrastructure, frommultiple computers ineach classroom to onemulti-media lab perschool. The modelsrepresent typical choicesthat schools are actuallymaking and also pointout the fundamentaleconomic breakpointsamong options. Thehighest capacitiesassumed are wideband

59

wireline WAN (WideArea Network) connec-tions (T–1 lines of 1.5mbps) to schools in mostcases, although somewireless radio costs wereestimated for ruralschools.

The four computer-based models and theiraggregate costs aredescribed below:

— The Lab: one lab with25 networked PCs perschool by the year 2000.

— The Lab Plus: theabove lab plus onecomputer and modemper teacher by the year2000.

— The Partial Class-room: assumes one-halfof each school’s class-rooms are connectedwith networked com-puters by the year 2000at a ratio of one PC tofive students. Eachschool has a 1.5 mbpsconnection and anEthernet LAN acrossand within all class-rooms.

— The Classroom: allof the above with allclassrooms having a1 to 5 computer tostudent ratio.

Costs for each modelare shown in Table 1.All four models includea district server andLAN; school server and

peripherals; professionaldevelopment; and sup-port. The deploymentphase is five years forthe first three modelsand 10 years for thefourth model. Highlightsare provided below:

● The cost of even themost ambitious scenariois a relatively smallportion of the publiceducation budget.

● Depending on thescenario selected andspeed of its deployment,the costs of connectingall K–12 public schoolscould range from 1.5percent to 3.9 percentof the total K–12 budgetnationwide.

● The biggest financialtradeoff hinges on howfar into the school thetechnology is deployed,i.e., to a lab, a classroom,

or all the way to eachstudent’s desk.

● Annual per-school costsrange from $45,000 to$165,000 for the lab andclassroom models,respectively, and annualper-student costs are $80to $275, respectively.Initial deployment costsper school are $125,000for the lab and $555,000for the classroom model.Similarly, per-studentinitial costs are $225 and$965, respectively.

● The largest upfront costis the purchase andinstallation of hardware.Computers constitutedabout 55 percent of totalhardware costs; printers,scanners, security sys-tems, and furniturestations make up 25percent; and 20 percentgoes for retrofitting(upgrades for electrical,

heating, ventilation, andair conditioning).

● The largest ongoing costis support and develop-ment of teachers andother school professionals.

● The cost of connectionto the school (e.g., Inter-net access, telephonebills) is a relatively smallportion of overall expen-ditures (e.g., from 4percent to 7 percent ofinitial and ongoing costs,respectively, for theclassroom model).

The MIT Models.Lee McKnight andRussell Rothstein, ofMIT’s Research Programon CommunicationsPolicy, have collaboratedfor several years on thedevelopment of cost-benefit models for K–12networking. The presentdiscussion is based on

Table 1: Costs of Four Technology Deployment Models

stsoClanoitaN

snoilliB$

egarevArePtsoCloohcS

sdnasuohT$

dellornErePtsoCtnedutS

sralloD

fotnecreP21-K

,stegduB0002

ledoM laitinI gniognO laitinI gniognO laitinI gniognO tnecreP

baL 11 4 521 54 522 08 5.1

sulPbaL 22 7 552 58 064 051 0.3

laitraPmoorssalC

92 8 043 09 016 551 4.3

moorssalC 74 41 555 561 569 572 9.3

,ynapmoC&yesniKcM:ecruoS yawhgihrepuSnoitamrofnIehtotsloohcS21-KgnitcennoC .5991,

60

their most recent publica-tions.7 These authorsdeveloped five modelsfor connecting schoolsto the information super-highway using no greaterthan wideband connec-tivity (i.e., neither inter-nal nor external connec-tions exceeded 1.5megabits per second).

The models proceedfrom stand-alone com-puting to ubiquitous net-working, each with adifferent level of techni-cal complexity, cost, andfunctional capability.They were built usingdata from a sample oftechnologically advancedschool districts andschools. For each model,a range of one-time andannual costs was com-puted, from which onenational cost to networkall U.S. schools wasextrapolated.

Each successivemodel presents anexpansion of the featuresand capabilities availablewith expanded digitaltelecommunicationsinfrastructure. All modelsuse a “star” networkarchitecture, wherebytwo to 10 schools areconnected to a hub,which typically resides atthe school district office.In large districts, multipleclusters of four to sixschools are each con-nected to a group hubthat is likely housed atthe district office. Each

school’s LAN is thusconnected to a districtoffice hub, and everyclassroom is connectedto every other classroomin the school as well asto the central office.

The models arebased on costs for atypical school and schooldistrict and representaverage costs of all U.S.schools and districts.Schools’ existing com-puter and networkingcapacities are taken intoaccount in estimatingcosts. Costs of softwareare not included, assum-ing that “freeware”browsers and E-mailapplications are down-loaded from the Internet.The authors acknowl-edge that cost analysisof other software shouldbe included in futuremodels.

Five models are listedbelow, and described inthe Appendix, which

provide increasingquality of serviceto schools. The lessadvanced models requirerelatively few computersper student and lowernetwork connectionspeeds. As they increasein complexity, themodels require morecomputers per studentand higher connectionspeeds. Figure 1 illus-trates the most complex,high-speed model.

— Single PC Dialup

— LAN with SharedModem

— LAN with Router

— LAN with Local Serverand Dedicated Line

— Ubiquitous LAN withLocal Server andHigh-Speed Line(Figure 1)

Analyses of the modelsshow that:

● The most significanthurdle a school will facein implementing a high-level model is the initialinvestment cost of thenetwork and computers.

● The largest one-timecosts for building thenetwork are training andretrofitting.

● Support of the network isthe largest ongoingannual cost. Over the firstfive years, support andtraining comprise 46percent of the total costsof networking schools.

● There are two majorjumps in the costs ofnetworking a school: Thefirst arises when theschool installs a LAN, tomeet the $20,000 to$55,000 installation costsper school, and to

Figure 1: Ubiquitous LAN with Local Server and High-Speed Line Model

Source: Rothstein (1994).

Internet

Homes andOffices

SchoolSchools

Schools

DistrictOffice

LAN LAN

Server Server

Router Router1.5 Mbps1.5 Mbps

61

employ full-time supportstaff at $60,000 to $150,000per school district. Thesecond jump occurs whenPCs to support widespreadconcurrent network accessare purchased. Hundredsof thousands of dollarswill likely be needed toprovide multiple PCs inevery classroom. Inaddition, many schoolswill need major electricalwork, possibly exceeding$100,000.

● Start-up costs increase ata faster rate than ongoingcosts as network com-plexity increases. One-time start-up costs of lesscomplex models are twoto three times ongoingcosts, but for the morecomplex fourth and fifthmodels, one-time costsare five to 15 times theongoing costs.

● The cost of the networkhardware is only a smallfraction of the overallcosts for connecting tothe NII.

● Since costs for telecom-munications lines andservices represent only 11percent of the total costs,tariff rate reductions willhave a relatively smallimpact.

The TIAP Models.Models and costs ofproviding fiber-opticbroadband access topublic schools via local

telephone companieswere developed by theTelecommunicationsIndustries AnalysisProject (TIAP).8 Thetype of high-speedbroadband referred toin these models(greater than 45 mbps)provides enoughbandwidth for datatransfer, faxing, voicecommunications, andtwo-way video services.

Three access-to-technology scenarios(for one, seven, or 26computers per class-room) provided accord-ing to two schedules(five years and 20years) were modeledand costed out. Onecomputer per class-room is called the“teacher-only access”scenario; seven com-puters per classroom iscalled the “cluster-of-students” scenario; and26 computers perclassroom is called the“universal access” plan.

The first deploy-ment schedule is a five-year accelerated plan. Itassumes that schoolswill have broadbandaccess and equipmentwithin five years andthat the deploymentwill be uniformthroughout the period.

In this scenario, newaccess technologies areprovided to schoolslong ahead of theirdeployment to the rest

of the nation. For compa-rability with the 20-yearplan, costs for the subse-quent 15 years have beenincluded in the five-yearplan estimates. The20-year schedule assumesthat all schools will beequipped by the end of20 years, matching thepattern of deployment tothe nation. Both sched-ules assume a nation-wide, ubiquitous deploy-ment over a 20-yearperiod.

Costs to both schoolsand local telephone com-panies are estimated bythis study, unlike thosepreviously discussed.These are admittedly“bare bones” models thatfocus on installation costsand do not includeongoing expenses formaintenance and opera-tions. The currentinstalled based of PCs inthe classroom is not takeninto account. Unknownor speculative costs, suchas telecommunicationsrates based on possiblefuture discounts toschools are also notincluded.9 Estimatesinclude costs for hard-ware and teacher devel-opment, expenses forsoftware and Internetaccess, and costs for localtelephone companies toupgrade their networks toprovide broadbandservices to schools.Findings of the studyshow that:

● Acceleration of deploy-ment to the schoolsproduces significantlyhigher costs. This is dueto the fact that moreequipment is purchasedin the early stages whenprices are higher andthere will be little sharingof common facilities withother customers.

● Most of the cost ofproviding new technolo-gies is driven by twofactors: deploying tech-nologies too fast, andproviding schools withcomputing equipment,wiring, and training.

● Total costs for the five-year accelerated deploy-ment plan (extended toinclude costs over 20years and averaged forcomparison purposes)are $1.43 billion per yearfor the “teacher-onlyaccess” scenario, $3.5billion for the “cluster ofstudents” model, and$10.2 billion per year forthe “universal access”scenario (Figure 2)

● Total costs for the20-year deploymentplan averaged over 20years would be $735million per year for the“teacher-only access”scenario. The averageannual cost of the“cluster of students”model is $1.9 billion;and the “universalaccess” plan would

62

average $5.9 billion peryear (Figure 2).

● As expected, the higherthe density of computersper classroom, the higherthe cost. TIAP’s estimatesshow that, regardless ofthe deployment plan, the“universal access” scenariocosts approximately threetimes as much as the“cluster-of-students”scenario and seven to eighttimes as much as the“teacher-only” scenario.

● The average incrementalinvestment cost perstudent over the 20-yearperiod of each deploy-ment plan ranges from$387 for the “teacher-onlyaccess” scenario over the20-year deployment plan,to $4,019 per student for“universal access” underthe accelerated five-yearplan.

CALIFORNIA’S EXPERIENCE

The California Educa-tion Technology TaskForce released a reportin July 1996 calling foran investment of nearly$11 billion to integratetechnology into K–12classrooms across thestate over the next fouryears. The detailed costwork sheet, developed indetermining the four-yearbudget, is included in thereport.10 The fundsrequired were to beapportioned into thethree major categories:

● Hardware and Telecom-munications Infrastruc-ture ($5.7 billion or52 percent)

● Learning Resources andServices ($2.9 billion or27 percent)

● Staff Development andSupport ($2.3 billion or21 percent).

The Task Forcecalled for equippingevery classroom andschool library withcapability for interactive,high-speed transmissionof full-motion video,voice, and data. Six toeight networked multi-media computers wouldbe provided for everyclass, along with ascanner, printer, TV,telephone, and otherequipment. Every fiveclassrooms would havea color printer, VCR,video camera, video discplayer, and LCD panel.High speed copiers andfax machines would beavailable for every 15classrooms. In additionto school and districttechnical staff, $2,000per person would beprovided for staffsupport, Software valuedat $2,000, upgrades at$200, and other multime-dia resources at $500per classroom werebudgeted. Connectioncharges of $1,265per month were alsoincluded.

For details on twotechnologies that arerelevant to considerationsof technology deploy-ment in schools — cableand wireless communica-tions — with the experi-ence of two schooldistricts with wirelesstechnologies, see boxeddescriptions.

URBAN/RURAL COST ISSUES

Telephone and cableconnections to the NIIare much more costlywhen extended to thevast expanses of ruralAmerica, with its fewer

and smaller schools. Ananalysis that illustratesthese cost disparitieswas conducted by theRural Policy ResearchInstitute (RUPRI) at theUniversity of Missouri-Columbia.21 This studywas initiated to informthe Federal Communica-tions Commission of thenegative cost disparitiesin telephone ratesexperienced by ruralschools and to suggest away to determineequitable discounts, asrequired by the Tele-communications Act of1996.

Universal Access

Teacher Only Access

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

$10.2 Billion

$3.5 Billion

$1.43 Billion

$5.9 Billion

$1.9 Billion

$.74 Billion

Cluster-of-StudentsAccess

Universal Access

Teacher Only Access

Cluster-of-StudentsAccess

Billions of Dollars

5-Year Accelerated Plan*

20-Year Rollout Plan

Figure 2: Average Annual Costs for Fiber-Optic BroadbandDeployment to all U.S. Public Schools with Three Scenariosand Two Deployment Schedules

*For comparability with the 20-year plan, costs for the subsequent 15 years have been included in thefive-year plan estimates.

Source: Telecommunications Industries Analysis Project, “Schools inCyberspace: The Cost of Providing Broadband Services to PublicSchools.” Presentation to the NARUC Meeting, San Francisco, California,1995.

63

RUPRI researchersexamined the numbers ofschools in seven states22

that fall into “high-cost”telephone service areasas defined by theNational ExchangeCarriers Association.(“High-cost” refers toservice areas where costsare greater than 114percent of the nationalaverage cost per loop.)The schools in the high-cost areas were thencategorized according totheir location in a metro-politan area or non-metropolitan area.

As shown in Figure3, 31 percent of schoolsin high-cost areas arelocated in metropolitanareas, compared with 46percent in non-metro-politan areas. In metro-politan areas, only 21percent of large centralcity schools are in high-cost areas, compared to58 percent of urbanfringe, mid-size centralcity schools. In the non-metropolitan areas, 56percent of the ruralschools are in high-costareas.

ECONOMIES IN EDUCATIONAL

TECHNOLOGY FUNDING

Several studiesreported on how someschool districts reducededucational technologycosts. These include:

● adopting the star archi-tecture design whereby

multiple schools connectthrough a single hub,schools share networkcosts, and each schoolpays less for its share

● sharing resourcesbetween multiplenetworks (data, voice,video). There is littleadditional cost foradding needed tele-phone lines when aschool installs a LANand puts computer dataconnections in class-rooms

● coordinating purchasingat the state level.Schools in NorthCarolina and Kentuckywere reported to havesaved 20 to 50 percentby purchasing servicesand equipment at thestate level

● negotiating volumediscounts and sharinglinks and staff at thedistrict level

● taking advantage oftechnical supportavailable to K–12schools from nearbycolleges and universities

● taking advantage of freeservices offered byvarious telecommunica-tions carriers such asfree wireless phoneservice or free Internetconnectivity

● taking advantage ofspecial industry pro-

Metropolitan Areas

Rural

Large Town

Small Town

0 20 40 60

31

58

34

22

21

46

56

47

35


Urban FringeMid-size Central City

Mid-size Central City

Urban fringeLarge Central City

Large Central City

Non-metropolitanAreas

Figure 3: Percentage of Schools in High-Cost Areas, byLocality

Source: Rural Policy Research Institute, Preliminary Data Analysis of aNational Merged Data Base as Applied to Implementation of the Schooland Library Discount Matrix in Sec. 254 of the Telecommunications Act of1996, Columbia, MO: University of Missouri-Columbia, to be published,May 1997.

grams such as: “Cable’sHigh Speed EducationConnection” program orAT&T’s $150 million1995 pledge to spend$150 million over fiveyears to help connectschools to the network

● benefiting from localcable franchise agree-ments or “social con-tracts” with the FCCwhich require cablecompanies to providefree Internet connectionsor services as a conditionof franchise renewal orspecial rates

1 McKinsey & Company, ConnectingK–12 Schools to the InformationSuperhighway, Palo Alto, CA: 1995.

2 However, the TIAP authors definebroadband as greater than 45mbps.

3 Thomas K. Glennan and Arthur A.Melmed, Fostering the Use ofEducational Technology. Elementsof a National Strategy, SantaMonica, CA: RAND, CriticalTechnologies Institute, 1996.

4 B. Keltner, and R.L. Ross, The Costof School-Based EducationalTechnology Programs, SantaMonica, CA: RAND, CriticalTechnologies Institute, 1996.

5 Note that Glennan and Melmedused annualized cost figures andamortized, rather than actual costsof hardware, software, teacherpreparation, special furniture, andcabling. They acknowledge thatignoring significant one-time costsof rapid deployment does notprovide an accurate picture of the

64

level of front-end investment andestimate that if schools start withvirtually no equipment and phasethe equip-ment and training inover three years, costs might beabout 70 percent greater in eachof the first three years.

6 McKinsey & Company,Connecting K–12 Schools to theInformation Superhighway.Report prepared for the NationalInformation InfrastructureAdvisory Council, 1995.

7 R. Rothstein, “Networking K–12Schools: Architecture Models andEvaluation of Costs and Benefits,”Master’s Thesis, MIT Sloan Schoolof Management and the Tech-nology and Policy Program,Cambridge, MA, 1996, and R.Rothstein and L. McKnight,“Technology and Cost Models ofK–12 Schools on the NationalInformation Infrastructure,”Computers in the Schools, 12(1/2)1996.

8 Telecommunications IndustriesAnalysis Project, Schools inCyberspace: The Cost of ProvidingBroadband Services to PublicSchools. Presentation at theNARUC Meeting, San Francisco,CA, July 1, 1995.

9 Telephone conversation withCarol Weinhaus, TIAP Director,January 16, 1997.

10 California Department ofEducation, Connect, Compute,and Compete: The Report of theCalifornia Education TechnologyTask Force, Sacramento, CA,1996.

11 Lady Kereford, “Area Schools toGet Glimpse of Future Thanks toCable’s Internet Modem Offer,”Nashville Banner, July 10, 1996.

12 “Cable Industry to Give SchoolsFree Internet Access,” The NewYork Times on the web, July 9,1996.

13 “Cable Firms to Wire Schools toInternet,” Orange County Register,July 10, 1996.

14 Remarks by Stagg Newman ofBellcore at the FCC BandwidthForum, Washington, D.C., January23, 1997.

15 Conversation with Wendell H.Bailey, Vice President for Science& Technology, National CableTelevision Association, February28, 1997.

16 Communication with DewayneHendricks of Warp SpeedImagineering, Fremont, CA., and

CABLE CONNECTIONS

The lines which deliver cable television to homes, schools, and businesses can also connect to the NII.A cable modem is used to link computers to cable lines in much the same way ordinary modems connectcomputers to telephone lines. These modems provide very fast, digital access to the Internet — hundreds oftimes faster than conventional telephone modems. The cable industry uses the example of downloading apicture of the Mona Lisa, that would take 1.4 hours to transfer over typical phone lines. Via cable modem,this down-load takes only 18 seconds. Cable modems cost about $500 each and allow the transmission offull-motion video.11

Cable in the Classroom, a $420 million industry public service effort was launched in 1989. Freecable connections, commercial-free educational programming, and teacher training workshops wereoffered to schools across the country. In July 1996, the cable television industry announced a new commit-ment, “Cable’s High Speed Education Connection.” The industry would equip, free of charge, at least onesite in every consenting elementary and secondary school that is passed by cable with a cable modem. Thiscable modem provides 100 personal computers with basic high-speed access to the Internet.12 Sixteencable companies pledged to provide 3,000 schools in about 64 communities with Internet connections. Theactual implementation of the program, however, has been slow, and is expected to take place gradually.

In addition to the cable modem to the school, each individual computer requires a cable modem at acurrent, but declining, cost of several hundred dollars. The industry estimates a cost of $125 for wiring anindividual classroom, assuming the school already has a basic cable connection. An amplifier would cost anadditional $60. Trenching, if required to connect classrooms in separate buildings, would increase the costto about $700 per classroom.

There are technical and financial hurdles with cable that still must be resolved, and analysts havemixed views about the business’s prospects.13 Experts report considerable “noise” with less than the highestquality cable modems. Difficulties occur in the two-way interactivity on cable that is essential for educationalpurposes.14 Telephone lines are still necessary in the vast majority of systems to allow for student response.Upstream amplifiers must be installed for every 2,000 feet of cable in order to enable interactivity.15 Thusschools would need to install a double infrastructure until two-way cable can be activated.

WIRELESS CONNECTIONS

Wireless radio connections are another option for schools to obtain NII access. Both internal wirelessLANs and external wireless connections are being used to solve problems and save money under certaincircumstances.

Old buildings, for example, where the hefty cost of asbestos removal required for wiring greatlyexceeds that of wireless LANs, are particularly appropriate candidates. Wireless LANs, however, are generallynot very popular in schools because of their relatively high cost compared to wired alternatives. An ethernetcard for a PC now costs about $20, whereas the average wireless LAN card costs $500–$700 and providesless than equivalent performance.16

The unobstructed terrain and less heavily used radio spectrum desired for effective wireless communi-cations are most frequently found in non-urban or suburban areas. Rural schools, therefore, that oftenencounter prohibitively high prices for installing and sustaining dedicated circuitry due to their geographi-cal isolation, are likely to benefit from wireless technology solutions. In urban or suburban environments,however, fixed wireless solutions can be limited due to possible low reliability, requirements for a clear line

65

of sight, the fact that only data and digitized video can be transmitted, and the potential for overloading thenetwork due to heavy usage.17

The only data found to illustrate cost comparisons of wireless and wired connectivity solutions forschools were case studies from the National Science Foundation (NSF)-supported Wireless Field Test forEducation. This project is intended to provide comparative data on Internet connectivity by incorporatingwireless links into existing or extended wired networks and Internet services in order to collect realistic dataunder operating conditions. The investigation is being conducted among rural school districts in Colorado’sSan Luis Valley and the urban district of Colorado Springs.

The Air Academy School District in Colorado Springs provides the best cost comparison data to date.This district of 14,000 students and 28 buildings completed installation of a nearly totally wireless wide areanetwork in late August 1996.

Links between 20 of its sites permit communication among schools and to and from the Internet. Of twobids received, one was from a telephone company for an all-fiber T–1 installation providing between-schoollinks, the servers and LANs, for $1.5 million plus $75,000 per year in monthly service costs via a requiredfive-year, $375,000 contract. The other bid, which was accepted, was $601,000 for no-communications-costwireless links between the buildings and the servers and wired LANs within the buildings. The cost of wirelessequipment (a combination of microwave and spread spectrum radios plus antennas and cabling) was aboutone-third of the total cost.18 The district headquarters serves as the hub, which is linked to the Internet via twoT–1 wired circuits to the MCI Internet Point of Presence in downtown Colorado Springs. The cost per schoolfor the 20 sites was approximately $10,000. An NSF researcher reports that the first year’s operation found nofailures, robust signals, no degradation from weather, and ample bandwidth for Internet multimedia.

In summary, the district has a reliable, economical, high-bandwidth, Internet and Intranet, wirelesslylinked wide area network at one-quarter the initial cost of a wired telephone network and with no subsequentcosts except routine maintenance.19

A second case study, of the Belen, New Mexico, Consolidated School District, involved providing LANs toall eight schools, linking the schools to each other and to one hub school, and connecting to the Internet.Bids ranged from $800,000 for a microwave wireless solution, $550,000 for a hybrid wired solution, and$300,000 for a no-license wireless solution. The ultimate cost of the latter accepted bid was about $12,000per school to get the spread spectrum radio network operating at T–1 speeds, and connecting all eightschools and the district headquarters. Startup software and antenna problems encountered the first year ofoperation were resolved satisfactorily.20

The researcher estimates that wireless can save from 20 to 40 percent of the total cost of commercialtelephone Internet connectivity (the local loop cost comparison). The Wireless Field Test Project will producediagrams as well as cost and throughput comparisons in October 1997. In addition, a “cookbook” is beingdeveloped, so that schools and libraries can make better use of wireless than they have in the past.

Co-Principal Investigator of theNSF Wireless Field Test forEducation, on April 2, 1997.

17 McKinsey & Company, 1995.

18 Unlike most radios today, whichtransmit on just one frequency,spread spectrum radios transmiton many frequencies at the sametime. They can thus increaseefficiency by sending the sameamount of information asconventional radios, using muchless power.

19 David Hughes, Report on AirAcademy School District Micro-wave and Spread SpectrumSystem, August 28, 1996,http://wireless.oldcolo.com.

20 David Hughes, The ConnectedSchools of Belen, New Mexico. AWireless Success Story, May 20,1996, http://wireless.oldcolo.com.

21 The Rural Policy ResearchInstitute, Preliminary DataAnalysis of a National MergedDatabase as Applied to Implemen-tation of the School and LibraryDiscount Matrix in Sec. 254 of theTelecommunications Act of 1996.Columbia, Missouri: University ofMissouri-Columbia, to bepublished, May 1997.

22 The states included were: Florida,Maine, Missouri, Nebraska,Nevada, Texas, and West Virginia.

WIRELESS CONNECTIONS , CONT.

66

Appendix Costs in the McKinseyModels were evaluatedin detail across sixinfrastructure elements:

(1) the connection to theschool (i.e., the WANsthat will connectschools to each other,to their district offices,and to the NII). Theseare external connectioncosts including installa-tion, access and usagecharges for both theschool and district.Wireline connectionswere mostly assumed,but 27 percent of therural schools wereestimated with wirelessradio. Average currentRBOC tariffs, decreas-ing by 3 percent peryear, were the basis forcost estimates.

(2) the connection withinthe school (i.e., LANsthat will link computerswithin the givenschools). These internalconnection costs includematerials and labor forinstalling LANs, such ascabling and networkinterface cards, as wellas file servers (for bothschool and district),hubs, and routers. Bothwireline and wirelessLAN installation wereestimated at about $200per node. $63,500 perschool was assumed forasbestos removal andretrofitting for one-halfof the older buildings.

School servers (three inthe Classroom model)were priced at $3,200each and districtservers (two in theClassroom model) were10,000 each.

(3) the hardware, includ-ing the computers,printers, scanners, andother equipmentneeded for full func-tioning of the technol-ogy; Multimedia com-puters were costed at$1,700 each; printers(one per classroom)were $555 each;scanners (one perclassroom) were $675each; furniture stations(one per computer)were estimated at $355each; and securitysystems (one per room)were $350 each.

(4) content, includingsoftware and on-lineservice charges; Costsof periodic softwareupgrades wereincluded, and prepack-aged software costswere consideredinterchangeable withthose obtained throughonline services

(5) professional develop-ment for teachers.Costs include thoseof substitute teachers(@$100 per day)as well as supportresources — 1/4 FTE inthe Lab model and l.5

FTE in the Classroommodel — shared acrossthe district to helpteachers integratetechnology into theclassroom. Costs oftraining courses werealso included.

(6) ongoing systemoperations, includingresources shared acrossthe district dedicated todesigning and operat-ing the systems. Initialdeployment costs forthe Lab and Classroommodels were estimatedat $5,300 for designand l/4 FTE and l/2FTE respectively. Thesame FTEs continue onan ongoing basis.

For each element,costs of initial deploy-ment (including thepurchase and installationof equipment andfirst-year operatingexpenses), as well asongoing operationsand maintenance(including usage charges,equipment and contentupgrades, and profes-sional development andsupport) were estimated.Adjustments were madefor declining prices insome elements and forincreased costs in others,such as the greater costsof connecting olderschools requiring retro-fitting and asbestosremoval. The modelsalso took into account

67

the amount and quality ofexisting infrastructure foreach element. These costsaccounted for the growingstudent population, spreadequipment costs over a10-year period, andassumed three percentinflation.

MIT MODELS

Single PC Dialup.The lowest cost, mostbasic connectivity option,with no internal LAN anda single connection to thedistrict office over amodem and standardphone line. Only oneperson may use theconnection at a time, andmany of the benefits ofconnection to the informa-tion superhighway are notaccessible. One-timeinstallation costs rangefrom only $200–$500, andannual operating costsfrom $200–$1,150, perschool.

LAN with SharedModem. Each school hasa LAN, to which a 28.8Kbps modem is con-nected. This gives Internetaccess to every computeron the network throughthe district server’s 56Kbps connection. Themodel, however, supportsonly a few users at a time,limited by the number ofschool phone lines. As inthe previous model, onlytext-based Internet appli-cations (e.g., E-mail,telnet, gopher) can be

utilized. The signifi-cant LAN costs includethose of wiring(assuming category 5copper wire), networkcards for every net-worked computer, andhardware and labor,totaling $400–$500 perPC. For a school withtwenty classrooms and3-5 PCs in each, thetotal LAN costs are$20,000–$55,000. One-time installation costsrange from $22,300 to$66,000, and annualoperating costs from$3,600–$10,250 perschool.

LAN with Router.This model includes arouter in each school,instead of a modem,connecting to thedistrict office andproviding concurrentInternet access tomultiple users. Schoolsare connected to thedistrict and the districtto the Internet by 56Kbps lines. Morecomputers are nowusable in classrooms,so this model esti-mates the purchase of15 new PCs per schoolat favorable negotiatedprices of $1,000–$2,000 each. Supportand training costsincrease with addi-tional users, new dial-up lines are neededfor remote access, andsignificant retrofittingcosts are incurred for

electrical and climatecontrol systems andenhanced security. One-time installation costsrange from about$47,000 to $114,000, andannual operating costsfrom $3,500 to $18,250per school.

LAN with LocalServer and DedicatedLine. This model pro-vides a file server ateach school, allowingmuch of the informationto reside locally insteadof at the district office,thus improving perfor-mance. A higher band-width connection (1.5Mbps) from the districthub to the Internetpermits the entire schoolto be served. Higherspeed links enable theuse of limited video,graphical and text-basednetwork applications. Asa result, an extensivetraining program and awell-staffed supportteam are required. Costsare increased due to thelarger bandwidth con-nection and the need forretrofitting costs of theelectrical and climatecontrol systems and forincreased security. One-time installation costsrange from $95,600 to$222,000, and annualoperating costs from$4,000–$13,250 perschool.

Ubiquitous LANwith Local Server andHigh-Speed Line. Thismodel puts a PC on thedesktop of every studentand teacher and con-nects them to each otherand to the Internet. A1.5 Mbps line to theschool supports largenumbers of concurrentusers, who are similarlyconnected to theInternet via the districthub. Assuming 500students in an averageschool, every schoolrequires about 450 newPCs for this model. Thehigh speed line and thelarger file server anddial-up system, toaccommodate manystudents, teachers, andparents, who access thesystem remotely, signifi-cantly increase costs.Retrofitting, electrical,and air conditioning,and security costs arealso substantial. One-time installation costsrange from $565,700 to$1,277,000, and annualoperating costs from$14,000–$50,000 perschool.

Documents

Computers and Classrooms