For schools, the problems of implementing a technology based approach to improve student learning include teacher buy-in and preparation, a reorganization of the school day to allow time for student use,²⁶ and financing the cost. Focusing the technology implementation on individualization of instruction introduces issues of computer curriculum (i.e., courseware or content software), and assessment and monitoring of individual student progress towards the achievement of consensual learning goals. Refocusing the implementation on the regnant definition of school reform introduces the additional issues of an instructional strategy defined by a project approach to student learning and a portfolio approach to student assessment. Barbara Means, Martin Huntley and David Dwyer spoke to individual school implementation problems and strategies.

Barbara Means (SRI)

Means reviewed a U.S. Department of Education (Office of Educational Research and Improvement) sponsored study of social and organizational factors affecting technology and school reform.²⁷ The schools had various motivations for their bottom-up efforts to adopt technology, including:

• the belief that use of computer-based technologies could support the development of the student's thinking processes;

• the belief that use of computer-based technologies could stimulate student motivation for learning, and tend to elevate self-esteem for low-SES students especially;

• promote equity for students less likely to experience computer technology at home;

• prepare students for the world of work; and,

• support changes in school structure.

Means reviewed the implementation story for two of the nine schools, both middle schools, one arguably a success in its effort and the other a patent failure, for the lessons these different outcomes offered. The technology adoption goal was initially conceived at the school district level in both cases; both schools expended significant new resources on the implementation; both schools were new, opening in 1991 and 1989 respectively; and both schools served the children of mostly low-income families.

The approach towards the goal of technology adoption of one school was characterized by:

• careful planning, with a principal hired for the express purpose one year in advance;

• technology manager hired to manage the school network;

• a school schedule organized to give teachers 90 minutes a day for planning and collaboration;

• building renovation designed to support interdisciplinary teacher teams with common students and shared office space;

• technology distributed throughout regular classrooms; and,

• extensive teacher training provided before the school opening, and continuing regularly with faculty meetings and in-service training days;

with something like the following observed outcomes:

• the majority of teachers use technology for instruction;

• students and teachers take pride in their school;

• students value their teachers first, technology second;

• low teacher turnover;

• students have technology skills;

• students perform better than their counterparts in other schools on State assessments.

Perhaps by contrast, the approach of the second school towards the goal of technology adoption was characterized by:

• extensive planning at the school district level, with hand-picked lead teacher responsible for development of curriculum framework hired just before school opening;

• aim to individualize student educational program based on individual interests;

• a system for tracking student learning goals and accomplishments;

• innovative staffing concept with lead and associate lead teachers responsible for curriculum framework and curriculum design, and general classroom teachers added as newly opened school added grades;

• use of outside resources like museums and art galleries on a regular basis; and,

• specially designed spaces to support specific kinds of learning and instruction;

with something like the following observed outcomes:

• by five years after opening and initiation of technology adoption goal, excitement dissipated and period of very high staff turnover began;

• some hardware was dispersed to other schools, and much of the remainder lay idle on most days;

• many teachers did not use technology in their teaching; and,

• student test scores were lower than expected, and school acquired reputation as a "dumping ground".

In explanation of this unsatisfactory result, Means offered the following:

• a mismatch between district-selected technology and the staff's instructional philosophy;

• planned investment in training teachers was never carried out;

• schism developed between lead teachers responsible for curriculum framework and teachers responsible for classroom instruction;

• part-time technology coordinator had little contact with classroom teachers; and,

• publicity turned sharply negative after small, initial drop in student test scores.

Drawing on the nine case studies, Means ventured the following features required for a successful technology adoption:

• jointly developed school goals and technology's place in fulfilling them;

• adequate technology access provided in regular classes;

• technical support readily available and non-judgmental;

• professional growth opportunities, recognition, and rewards provided for exemplary technology use by regular teachers;

• technology use as a choice, not by fiat;

• mechanisms for teacher choice in what technology to use and how to use it;

• opportunities provided for teachers to work together; and,

• supported time for teachers to learn to use technology and to design technology-supported learning activities.

Martin Huntley (BBN)

Huntley briefly described phase 2 of a National Science Foundation sponsored testbed project aimed at assisting schools "to build the local information infrastructure (LII) in such a way that all participants in schools and local communities can actively construct networked services affecting all aspects of learning, teaching, administration and community access to education." Designed as a grass-roots effort, the project has attracted the participation of 95 member organizations, representing some 200 schools with Internet connectivity in 39 States; some state education agencies, regional education labs, museums, educational R&D organizations and universities; and some commercial firms like school publishers, service providers and system vendors.

Three key project assumptions are that:

• the school and community LII needs to be locally constructed to support the community educational mission;

• the construction must go hand in hand with creating a learning environment, which supports and promotes achievement with respect to new and emerging standards; and,

• the testbed activities will provide an environment for collaboration in addressing the daunting and complex array of issues faced by project members.

Year one project priorities are:

• teacher development: building a technology culture within the teaching community;

• funding, financing: helping communities develop strategies to foot the bill;

• collaboration mechanisms: tools and strategies for on-line collaboration for use within the testbed community and by members within their LIIs; and,

• evaluation: helping members tell whether their technology initiatives are making a difference.

David Dwyer (Apple Computer)

Dwyer reviewed the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT) project, initiated in 1986 in seven classrooms representing a cross section of U.S. education. Providing two computers (one for school and one for home use) to each student and teacher, and ample teacher support in a project that depended principally on teacher initiative, ACOT also initiated a long-term, university-based project to track developments and classroom change. Two years into the activity, findings included:

• Teachers were not hopeless technical illiterates.

• Students did not become social isolates.

• Student's interest in and engagement with the technology did not decline with routine use.

• Students, even young children, did not find the keyboard a barrier to fluid use of the computer.

• Software did not prove to be a limiting factor, even in high school classrooms where Macintosh computers were the machines of choice, and hardly any educational software existed.

• Attendance was up, and test scores were generally unchanged. At one site, where computers were purposefully used to raise student test scores, ACOT students outscores non-ACOT students significantly on the California Achievement Test in vocabulary, reading comprehension, language mechanics, math computation, and math concept/application.

• ACOT students wrote more, more effectively and more easily than non-ACOT students.

In the third and fourth years of the activity, as teacher comfort with the equipment was established, (some) teachers began experimenting with new tasks for students and most K-6 teachers had successfully modified daily schedules to permit students more time to work on computer-based projects. Teachers struggled with the issue of methods of assessment that would capture the novel ways in which students were demonstrating their mastery of skills and concepts.

Dwyer summarized the catalytic impact of technology in stimulating educational improvement and classroom change:

• Technology encourages fundamentally different forms of interaction among students and between students and teachers.

• Technology engages students systematically in higher-order cognitive tasks; and,

• Technology prompts teachers to question old assumptions about instruction and learning.

He concluded by remarking that successful classroom change catalyzed by the computer depended upon new methods of assessment of student and teacher performance, and required broad support by administrators in the school and school system in their role as instructional leaders.

²⁷ Details of nine case studies of schools, with high concentrations of students from low-income homes, using technology to support their education reform efforts may be found at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdTech/schoolstories.html.
-###-

Previous	Table of Contents	Next