Cornput. E&c. Voi. I?. No. 2. pp. 321-336. I988 0360-I 3 15 88 93.00 + 0.00 Pnnted m Great Britain Pergamon Press plc

LEARNING FROM TEACHERS: TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES OF RELEVANT COURSEWARE AND

TRAINING PROVISION

JOHN D’ARcY’ and JOHN GARDNER? ’ Northern Ireland Council for Educational Research, Belfast. Northern Ireland ‘School of Education, Queen’s University, Belfast BT7 INN, Northern Ireland

(Receiued 3 August 1987)

Abstract-The development of the use of the microcomputer in classrooms depends on many factors but perhaps the most important of these is the initial acceptance of its educational worth. There are a variety of ways to generate this acceptance including the provision of appropriate teacher education, the promotion of IT-related curricular initiatives, the development of quality materials and the spread of perceived good practice. Evidence from recent research in Northern Ireland schools is presented to highlight successes and weaknesses in current strategies of software design, courseware development and teacher education. The overall aim of the paper is to aid the process of software/courseware development by detailing for the designer the main issues as teachers perceive them.

1, INTRODUCTlON

The design of hardware and software for the business sector has undergone a significant change in recent years. As the users have become more “literate*’ the change has reflected a transition from “product-oriented” to “market-oriented” design. While product-oriented strategies are those which produce materials which the designers feel are good and then hope that the consumer will agree, market-oriented products are designed as a reflection of what the market wants and needs. This paper argues that in education too there is a demand from the market (i.e. the teachers) for a more market-oriented approach to the design of educational courseware.

I.1 What is courseware?

Before considering the various aspects of courseware design it is necessary to define what is meant by the term “courseware”. This paper is primarily concerned with computer based courseware (software). Although the definition of courseware may differ depending on the Ievel of education it is designed to support and, indeed, on the view one takes of computer assisted learning, it is possible to place the use of the microcomputer and its associated courseware on an applications continuum[l]. Put simply, courseware at one end of the spectrum may be designed to provide support for the teacher while at the other end it may be used in place of the teacher.

Although there are no hard and fast boundaries it can be argued that at primary and, to a large extent, secondary education level courseware is used to assist the teacher in creating a Iearning environment, stimulating and supporting class activities in creative or problem solving situations. In this type of application, learning often occurs away from the keyboard with the courseware providing stimulus for group discussion or project work. Good examples of this are provided by the use of packages such as MARY ROSE (Ginn) for project work, and PODD (ASK) for language development. This non-inst~ctional mode, however, is not fully understood by some workers in educational computing, particularly those from the domain of artificiat intelligence[2]. In contrast to this type of usage the trend in upper secondary, further and higher education sectors has been towards both an instructional-tutorial approach in areas as diverse as spreadsheet analysis, wordprocessing, decision analysis, expert systems, authoring packages and computer assisted design.

I.2 What types of courseware are in use?

Data from two surveys, one involving primary schools[3] and the other involving post-primary schools[4], have been combined to illustrate the kinds of courseware in current use.

321

JOHS D’ARCY and JOHN GARDXFI

0 PkWY LOWW UPPer

Secondary Secondary

- Type of schoot

Fig. I. Types of courseware used by teachers.

For convenience the courseware has been categorised into three broad types-drill and practice, content-free and “other” (which includes such uses as demonstration and “electronic blackboard”). Figure 1 illustrates the percentages of teachers in each sort of school using each category of courseware.

The most noticeable feature of the chart is the reduction in the use of content-free courseware in secondary school while drill and practice courseware retains a high profile. Derived from the programmed learning approach, this sort of courseware has often been criticised because it does not fully exploit the power of the computer and because it employs techniques which have been discredited in previous years[5]. Although there is much more use of content-free courseware at primary level, the incidence of drill materials is still high. O’NeilI[6] in a detailed examination of the MICRO-PRIMER courseware set (MEP) has shown that although the accompanying documentation emphasised and encouraged the creative use of the micro-computer over half of the programs examined were of the programmed instruction sort. This is not unusuai, however, and evidence from a survey of over 5000 educational courseware packages in the United Statesill shows that around half could be described as drill and practice while simulations, for example, made up only 5% of the total. It would appear then that although the desire might be towards using materials at the stimulatory end of the courseware spectrum most of the available materials are of an instructional type.

2. GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF COURSEWARE

There have been a number of pubhcations offering guidance on the design of courseware[7,8] but in the main these have addressed the problems of dialogue design for the instructional-tutoriat mode of computer assisted learning. Bialo and Ericksonf91 have analysed the instructional and technical merits of existing packages in the U.S. education market in an attempt to point out mistakes which have already been made. However, in pursuing the need for a market-oriented approach to courseware development, it is suggested that the views of teachers provide the most appropriate guidelines for courseware development.

2. I Teachers’ perceptions of good software

D’Arcy[lO] reports that, in a survey which was completed by over 60% of heads of mathematics departments in post-primary schools in Northern Ireland, over half of the respondents stated that the most important factor in encouraging the use of computer assisted iearning was the provision of “good software”. This is, of course, a rather hackneyed response which needs to be articulated before courseware developers can take full account of teachers’ needs. A thorough investigation

Learning from teachers

Tabie 1. Factors contributing to the perception of “good software”

323

Courseware must be:

(a) FLEXIBLE useful for a range of ages and abilities (b) ALTERABLE . . . allowing reasonable modification (c) RELEVANT content having curricular rclcvancc (d) VALID . . . educational methods having pedagogical validity (e) MOTIVATING _.. capable of attracting pupil interest (f) PORTABLE usable on a range of machines (g) FRIENDLY welt documented and easy to operate

Each of these important aspects are further illustrated and discussed in the text.

of teachers’ views has enabled a categorisation of the teacher’s perception of “good software” and the main characteristics of this are presented in Table 1.

2.1 (a) Flexibility. Most teachers teach a range of pupils, in terms of age and ability, so successful courseware should be largely content-free and capable of use with these different abilities and ages. Typical packages which display this characteristic include databases such as QUEST (AUCBE), wordprocessors such as EDWORD (Clwyd) and spreadsheets such as VIEW-SHEET (Acornsoft). Although these are clearly applications tools there are a number of papers which detail their use in creative or discussive environments[l1,12]. An example of a subject-specific yet content-free CAL package is TRAY (ILEA) for use in the English or Modem Language classroom.

2. I(b) Alterability. Courseware must be capable of reasonable modification to take account of different uses of terminology or different modes of use. An example of the importance of this aspect is afforded by the package LETRA (MUSE) for English teaching. A screen note at entry level in this package gives instructions for finding the answer and this makes individual pupil usage less valid. However, a simple coding change removes the offending text and alfows teachers to use it in this manner if they so wish.

2.1(c) Relevance. It is important that courseware which is not content-free should be clearly relevant to the curriculum it is required to support. An example of this type is provided by COLLISIONS (Homerton) a package which supports the teaching of reaction kinetics in Chemistry. Relevance should not be interpreted solely as syllabus relevance in the strict sense of a named topic for study, but may also include the development of basic skills. An example of a package of this latter type is MAKING CONNECTlONS (Medusa) which encourages the development of empathetic and interpretive skills in the History classroom[4].

2.1(d) nativity. Pedagogical validity is of paramount importance in ensuring that courseware is well received. This validity is at two levels: the correctness of the educational content and the justification for using the computer in the manner proposed. The former problem is exemplified by criticisms of the mathematics package VENNMAN[13] while the inappropriateness of a microcomputer in some circumstances is clearly evident in the use of WORLD (4mation). In this case the courseware displays an outline map of the world and the user is required to identify up to twelve oceans, cities, countries etc. as indicated by a flashing cursor. Aside from the problem of identifying a city with a cursor the relative size of Spain and Portugal combined, it is quickly clear to any geography teacher that a wallmap and pointer is much more appropriate than a collection of expensive technology.

2.1(e) Motivation. As far as the teachers in D’Arcy’s survey were concerned, the motivationa power of the courseware was an overriding criterion of “goodness”. Half of the respondents stated that this was a major factor in encouraging the use of the micr~omputer in their teaching. Malone[l4] has provided a checklist for courseware developers who wish to exploit the motiv- ational potential of courseware but one obvious factor, at least for the present, is related to the novelty of the computer in the classroom. However, as microcomputers become more pervasive this novelty is receding and software is coming under more pressure to provide its own means of captivating and sustaining the imagination and attention of the pupils. There are a number of ways of building in this effect including the appropriate use of sound, colour and animation(l51. More subtle methods include the use of what has been termed “omission design”[l6] where certain activities or items of information are deliberately omitted from the courseware in order to encourage a more active participation on the part of the pupils. In TRAY where this omission concept is combined with a competitive eiement, pupils are provided with a piece of text in which

C.&E. i? 2--E

JOHN D’ARCY and JOHN GARDSR

Table 2. Survey of reachers views one year after a series of CAL inservice courses

Since the courses the teachers had: Yes No

-Sought further help in using the computer 69 31 -Experienced difficulty in accessing the computer(s) 41 50 -Experienced difficulty finding in-school support 13 76 -Purchased software 36 48 -Borrowed software 34 63 -Used the computer in teaching 41 54

N = 91: all figures are percentages.

only the punctuation is visible. Through a process of discussion letters, words or phrases are guessed or predicted to reveal the hidden text. The resulting motivational power of TRAY in the classroom has been commented on by Johnson[l7]. Gaming approaches which aim to sustain a high level of pupil interest have become common over the years. Dunne[lS], in a study of 170 software packages found that the use of such gaming approaches had increased steadily from 1981 to 1983. However, he also found that while the number of games programs had increased their overall effectiveness had decreased. Adventure games such as L-A MATHEMAGICAL ADVEN- TURE (ATM) are particularly powerful examples of this mode of courseware which can be used in a wide range of school subjects.

2.1 (f) Portability. In many cases teachers are required to manage classes with a range of different machines procured from a variety of sources. For example, D’Arcy[lO] reports that in a survey of Northern Ireland’s post-primary schools, over twenty different microcomputers were found. Any diversity of equipment causes problems if courseware is not available for all of the machines and in such circumstances the teacher is less likely to choose that courseware. A number of courseware developers are aware of this problem and have published guidelines[l9] or subroutine libraries[20] to assist courseware developers to accommodate the main educational machines. In the future the use of the more standardised 16-bit MS-DOS machines in education, for example the Research Machines’ NIMBUS, should encourage greater portability in a variety of machine environments.

2. f(g) Friendliness. This is by far the most important consideration in defining good software. High in priority in teacher demands are ease of use with consistent driving methods and comprehensive documentation. Ease of use is of course a relative condition and a user who is familiar with a package may often give the impression that it is easy to use. For most teachers, however, first impressions are lasting and if a package is not easy “to get into” it is likely to be set aside. There is merit in the use of conventional driving methods such as menus or command structures which can help reduce the problems teachers face in exploring new packages. The recent increase in the use of mouse-driven iconised and windowed operation systems such as WINDOWS (Microsoft) will undoubtedly make 16-bit courseware more attractive while developments such as the mouse driven SUPERART (AMS) for Art teachers and the joystick-driven FLOATER (Homerton) for Physics teachers have shown that “friendly” systems are possible in g-bit environments.

3. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

The classification introduced in Section 2 highlights the quality criteria which teachers perceive as being of most importance. These criteria assume a sharper image, however, against the background in which computers are used in schools. In these circumstances several considerations assume importance and these include the level of teacher education, the level of hardware resourcing and the nature of courseware documentation.

3. I Teacher education

The role of training in the use and uptake of new developments in any industry is crucial to adoption and success and educational computing is no exception. D’Arcy[lO] provides evidence from mathematics teachers about the types of in-service computer education they have received. Figure 2 illustrates this evidence which is based on information supplied by I17 mathematics departments.

Learning from teachers 3’5

q Less than one week

i 3ne dag or less

•l Short part-time

q tong part time

a One year full-time

Fig. 2. The duration of in-service computer education courses.

Most of the courses provided are short-term and it is suggested that they are generally inappropriate for developing teaching schemes or for evaluating the likely curricular implications of using courseware in the classroom. Furthermore, there is evidence which shows that such courses are not necessarily effective in promoting the use of courseware.

A group of teachers who had attended courses on CAL in a range of subjects towards the end of 19831211, were asked how they had consolidated their CAL work since the courses. Table 2 shows some of the results of this survey.

Table 2 indicates that less than half of the teachers had actually used the computer since the course they had attended. Clearly there was no lack of support within the schools but access to hardware was problematical and may well have been an important factor for the 54% of the teachers who had not ventured into CAL.

Table 2 shows that although most schools have acquired numbers of computers, 41% of the teachers reported that they had difficulty in gaining access to the school’s resources. D’Arcy[lO] confirmed that teachers found these hardware access problems to be a fundamental barrier to computer assisted learning in mathematics. In schools with smaii numbers of machines, teachers often reported that they did not have enough computers especially for use with Iarge classes while in schools with seemingly large numbers of computers, teachers found that it was difficult to gain access to them.

The other aspect of “friendliness” mentioned above was that of the need for comprehensive documentation. If teachers are to continue with their own self-training and development in CAL then they must be provided with the proper level of courseware support. Courseware should be marketed in the same kind of professional format as packages for the commercial sector with introductory and advanced user guides, classroom support materials (wall charts, worksheets, viewfoiis), helpful audio tapes and where possible a video to illustrate classroom usage. Some producers such as Clwyd (EDWORD) and 4mation (GRANNY’S GARDEN) have already successfully adopted this approach.

4, CONCLUSIONS

The lesson for courseware developers is that they must give consideration to the constraints which teachers work within including the inadequate levels of hardware resources and in-service course support. On several occasions in this paper the authors have referred to computing practice outside the realm of education, in particular to the world of business. The need for educational software developers to pay close attention to their marketplace both in terms of what teachers perceive as the essential ingredients of good courseware and also the working environment in which their products will be used, is stressed. In particular, courseware developers must take a realistic view of the degree of computer expertise which teachers can be expected to have. It is strongly suggested that training and support materials be incorporated in the design of the compiete courseware package so that teachers can concentrate on the educational aspects of the product and not be hindered by an unf~endly interface.

326 JOHN D’ARCY and JOH?I GARDWS

5. COURSEWARE AND HARDWARE MENTIONED IN TEXT

COLLISIONS and FLOATER, Homerton College, Cambridge EDWORD, Clwyd Technics, Clwyd. Wales GRANNY’S GARDEN and WORLD 4mation Ltd; Barnstaple, Devon L-A MATHEMAGICAL ADVENTURE, Assoc. Teachers Math; Derby LETRA, MUSE Ltd; P.O. Box 43, Hull MAKING CONNECTIONS, Medusa Ltd; Newport, Lincoln MARY ROSE, Ginn and Co; Aylesbury, Bucks. MICROPRIMER and VENNMAN, MEP, Cheviot House, Newcastle NIMBUS, Research Machines Ltd; PG. Box 75, Oxford PODD, ASK Ltd; Upper Richmond Road, London QUEST, Advisory Unit for Computer Based Education, Hatfield SUPERART, Advanced Memory System Ltd: Warrington TRAY, Inner London Education Authority, London VIEWSHEET, Acornsoft Ltd; Cambridge WINDOWS, Microsoft Ltd; Windsor, Berkshire

REFERENCES

I. Komoski P. K., Educational Software and other learning materials: a look at the differences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans (1984).

2. O’Shea T., Evaluation of PGDD in the television programme-7%e Learning Machine: Why is Sofware so Bud? BBC TV, Episode 2 (March 1985).

3. Jackson A., Messer D. and Fletcher B., The use of microcomputers in Hertfordshire primary schools. Paper presented at CAL ‘85 Symposium on Computer Assisted fenrning, Un&ersity of Nottingham (1985).-

_ -

4. Davis S.. Pre-history skilfs and the cornouter. In Exaforina History with Microeomuuters (Edited bv Wilkes J.). Council for Educational T&hnology, London (1985). L - .

- .

5. Howe J. A. and DuBoulay B., Microprocessor assisted learning: turning the clock back? In Selected Readjngs in Computer-Besed Leurning (Edited by Rushby N. J.). Kogan Page, London (1981).

6. O’Neill W. G., The educational potential of the micr~omputer. Cornpuf~rs in Scftools a(4), 120-124 (1985). 7. Landa R. K., Creuring Comsewure -A Beginner’s Guide. Harper & Row, New York (1984). 8. Heines .I., Screen Design Straregfesfor Computer Assfsred Instruction. Digital Press (1984). 9. Bialo E. R. and Erickson L. B., Microcomputer courseware: characteristics and design trends. Presented at the American

Educational Research Association Annuaf‘Meeting, New Orleans (1984). _ IO. D’Arcv J. M.. Muthematics and the Micro. Northern Ireland Council for Education Research. Belfast (1985). Il. Freeman D. and Levett J., QUEST-two curriculum projects: perspectives, practice and eviden&. Corn&. Educ. 10,

54-59 (1986). 12. Hodgkinson D., Spreadsheets in Home Economics. Advisory Unit for Computer Based Education, Hatfield (1985). 13. Hughes B., Dann P., Fletcher T., Instone S., Perkins P. and Sweeton C,, Microcomputer software. Mathematics fn

Schools September, pp. 9-10 (1984). 14. Malone T. W., What makes computer games fun? Guidelines for designing educational computer programs. In

fntefffgent Schoolhouse: Readings on Computers and Learning. Reston, Virginia (1984). 1.5. Alderson G. and De Wolf M., Guide to E$%xtine Screen Display. Chelsea College, London (1984). 16. Benzie D., Omission design. In proceedings ofthe 4tk World ConJerence on Computers in Education (Edited by Duncan

K. and Harris D.). Nosh-Holland, Amsterdam (1985). 17. Johnson V. M., Intr~ucing the micr~omputer into English III-an evaluation of TRAY as a program using

problem-solving as a strategy for developing reading skills. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 16(3), 208-218 (1985). 18. Dunne J., Gaming Approaches in Educational Sojtware: An Analysis of Their Use and Efictiueness. Educational Products

Information Exchange, Columbia University (1984). 19. Tagg W., A Standard for CAL Dialogue. Advisory Unit for Computer Based Education, Hatfield (1980). 20. Millwood R., Subroutine Library Manual. Chelsea College, London (1985). 21. Gardner J. R., Computer assisted learning and inservice teacher training. Br. J. Educ. Tecknof. 15(3), 175-182 (1984).