Power On! New Tools for Teaching and

Learning

September 1988

NTIS order #PB89-114276
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On! New Took for Teaching and

Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-600551

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this report)
Foreword

It has been less than a decade since the first

cation scene. Schools have acquired computers

personal computers appeared on the edurapidly since then, but most elements of

the instructional process remain the same. This contrasts with other sectors of society, where

technology has changed the way business is transacted, medical problems are analyzed, and

products are produced. During this same decade, calls for improving the quality of education for all children have increased. To better understand the potential of new interactive

technologies for improving learning, the House Committee on Education and Labor, and

its Subcommittee on Select Education, asked the Office of Technology Assessment to do

this study.

Teachers, administrators, parents, software publishers, hardware manufacturers, researchers, policy makers at all levels of government, and students all play a role in turning on

the power of new tools for teaching and learning. This report examines developments in

the use of computer-based technologies, analyzes key trends in hardware and software development, evaluates the capability of technology to improve learning in many areas, and

explores ways to substantially increase student access to technology. The role of the teacher,

teachers’ needs for training, and the impact of Federal support for educational technology

research and development are reviewed as well.

Throughout this study, the Advisory Panel, workshop participants, and many others

played key roles in defining major issues, providing information, and championing a broad

range of perspectives. OTA thanks them for their substantial commitment of time and energy.

Their participation does not necessarily represent an endorsement of the contents of the

report, for which OTA bears sole responsibility.

. . . Ill
Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning

Advisory Panel

George Miller, Panel Chairman

James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of Psychology

Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

Grover Albers

Social Studies Teacher

Jamaica High School

Jamaica, New York

Barbara Bayha

Teacher

Stevens Creek Elementary

School

Cupertino, California

Richard Boyd

State Superintendent

Mississippi State Department

of Education

Jackson, Mississippi

Larry Cuban

Associate Dean of Academic

Affairs

School of Education

Stanford University

Stanford, California

James Dezell, Jr.

Vice President and

General Manager

IBM Education Systems

Atlanta, Georgia

John Eulenberg

Director and Associate Professor

of Special Education

Artificial Learning Laboratory

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan

Martha Fricke

School Board Member

Ashland, Nebraska

Josué González

Director

Resource Development

Chicago Public Schools

Chicago, Illinois

Richard Green*

Superintendent

Minneapolis Public Schools

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Richard Grefé

Director

Policy Development and

Planning

Corporation for Public

Broadcasting

Washington, DC

Joyce Hakansson

President

Hakansson Associates

Berkeley, California

Dean Jamison

Chief

Population, Health, and

Nutrition Division

World Bank

Washington, DC

Francis Keppel

Senior Lecturer

Harvard Graduate School

of Education

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Timothy Knight

Entrepreneur, Author,

Publisher, and Student

Santa Clara, California

Alan Lesgold

Associate Director

Learning Research and

Development Center

University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Carolyn Pollan

State Representative

Arkansas State Legislature

Little Rock, Arkansas

Norman Rice

Seattle City Councilman

Seattle, Washington

Albert Shanker

President

American Federation of Teachers

Washington, DC

Sherry Turkle

Associate Professor of Sociology

Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Delbert Yocam

Executive Vice President and

Chief Operating Officer

Apple Computer, Inc.

Cupertino, California

*Currently Chancellor, New York City Public Schools.

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning

OTA Project Staff

John Andelin,

Science, Information,

Assistant Director, OTA

and Natural Resources Division

Nancy Carson

Science, Education, and Transportation Program Manager

Linda G. Roberts, Project Director

Michael J. Feuer, Senior Analyst

Kathleen Fulton, Analyst

James St. Lawrence, In--House Consultant

Jeffrey Porro, Editor*

Jessica Richter, Research Assistant

Mia Zuckerkandel, Research Assistant

Marsha Fenn, Administrative Assistant

Christopher Clary, Administrative Secretary

Madeline Gross, Secretary

Leslie Ridenour, Administrative Secretary

Michelle Haahr, Secretary

*Contractor
Contractors

Acadia Educational Enterprises

John H. Strange, Susan A. Tucker,

George E. Uhlig, Philip Feldman

Henry J. Becker

Center for Social Organization of Schools

The Johns Hopkins University

Joanne Capper

Center for Research Into Practice

Cognitive Systems, Inc.

Roy D. Pea and Elliot Soloway

Earl Dowdy

University of Illinois, Urbana

Educational Turnkey Systems, Inc.

Charles Blaschke, Beverly Hunter, Andrew Zucker

Allen T. Glenn and Carol A. Carrier

University of Minnesota

Harvard University, Educational Technology

Center

Martha Stone Wiske and Philip Zodhiates

Henry Hertzfeld

Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc.

Ellen R. Bialo and Jay P. Sivin

Market Data Retrieval, Inc.

Picodyne Corp.

Dean Brown, Ted M. Kahn, Marvin M. Zauderer

W. Curtiss Priest

Center for Information Technology and Society

Quality Education Data, Inc.

David Stern and Guy Cox

University of California at Berkeley

vi
CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Spread of Technology in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What the Technology Can Do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teachers and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How Teachers Use Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher Training in Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Federal Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Future of R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 2: INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGY IN TODAY’S CLASSROOMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Adoption of Computer and Video Technologies: A Decade of Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effects of Widespread Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Student Access to Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Beyond Computers and Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 3: THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY ON LEARNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Evaluation Research: Scope and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computer-Assisted Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intelligent CAI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mathematics and Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Programming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Microcomputer-Based Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Graphing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Multimedia Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Database Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Word Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Language Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reading Comprehension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vocabulary and Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Writing, Reading, and Spelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronic Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 4: COST-EFFECTIVENESS: DOLLARS AND SENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Estimating the Costs of Alternative Instructional Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

An Illustrative Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Cost to the Nation: Two Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cost-Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Political and Methodological Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Basic Principles of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computer-Assisted Instruction: A Survey of Cost-Effectiveness Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusions and Policy Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 5: THE TEACHER’S ROLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How Teachers Use Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background: Teacher Attitudes. ..,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

3

6

11

16

16

17

22

25

25

26

31

31

31

32

33

37

41

41

42

44

45

48

51

51

52

53

54

56

58

59

60

60

61

61

63

65

69

69

70

70

71

74

74

76

76

78

81

87

87

87

89

89
Page

Uses in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....”””””.””’””” .“.””.”.””””.”” 91

How the Use of Computers Can Change Teaching Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Effects on Classroom Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,...””””.””””” 96

Effects on Teacher Accountability: The Testing Question. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Teacher Training in Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ” .”””””.”” ““”.””” 98

Teacher Education Reform Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....”.”””””.”. ..”.”. 98

Preservice Technology Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........””..”””.”. ““.””.””.”””...””” 99

A Brief History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “.”.””””.””””” .“”.”””””.”””..” o..” 99

Current Efforts To Prepare Today’s New Teachers TO Use Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Inservice Technology Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........”””””. ..”.””.””””””.”.” .“”. 104

Unique Characteristics of Inservice Training in Technology . . . . ............................104

Factors Contributing to Effective Inservice Computer Education Programs . ..................105

State and Local Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . ....”..”” “.”.”.””””.”.””. “..””.””””..””” 107

Training From Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“.”.’.””””””. “0””””””””””.110

Policy Implications. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. . ““.”””.”””.””.” ““””””11 4

Teacher Education: A Place to Begin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D O...,”....””””””””.” ... .115

Keeping Up With Technology: Inservice and Informal Training . ...........................115

Federal Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....”””.”””” ““”116

CHAPTER 6: SOFTWARE: QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND THE MARKETPLACE ..........121

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......”..””..” .“”””””..””””” .“”””.’”..””..” 121

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“””.””””.””.””0.”””” .“” ”” ”” ””. .- ”.. ..122

Quantity, Quality, and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 122

Market Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ““”””””””””””.” .“’. .. 122

Quantity and Scope of the Educational Software Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............123

Integrated Learning Systems: The High End of the Software Market . .......................123

The Low-Priced Market: Stand-Alone Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....125

Scope of Instructional Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........””.”””” .. ”” ”.. ”. ”” 129

School Use of Noninstructional Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .. ””, .132

Evaluation and Acquisition of Educational Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......133

Effects of Local Public Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......””.”””””” 133

Evaluation of Software Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....,”...””” ....134

The States and Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...””””.””””” 141

Public Policy: Issues and Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “.” ”” 142

Capital Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......””””.””””.”.””. ““..”’”””””””””””””” 143

Property Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............”’.””” .“”.”””””.””.”””..””.” ““. ””. 143

Information Barriers and Transaction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 143

Policy Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........””””’””..“.”.”””””””””””””” .. ”” 144

Summary of Policy Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........””.””.”. ..””.””””.”..””””””. 147

CHAPTER 7: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: PAST SUPPORT,

PROMISING DIRECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. .. ..151

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......””.”””’”.”””.” “.””””.””.”..””’..”.. “.” ”. ”-””151

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....”.”””””””””. ““.””””””0””0” ““” 151

Education and R&D: A National perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......-.”..””. . ..... 153

Federal Support for Educational Technology R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......154

The Department of Defense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........”.””.” “.”’..”.””.”. ““”. ”. ”” 154

The National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........”””.”.””.. .159

Office of Education/Department of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ””. 163

Other Agency Support for Educational Technology R&D . ..............................168

Current Federal Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....”.””.””””.”.””.” .169

Promising Directions for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........”””.”. ..”..”””.”””””. “.” ”” 171

Intelligent Tutoring Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ” ” ” . ” ” ”.”””..”” ..”.””.”””””””” 172

Intelligence Extenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “..”””””””.””””. “.”””””.”.”””” 175

Increasingly Complex Microworlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....”””””””””.. “.” ””. ”” 176

Multimedia Learning Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........”””.”...””” “.. ”” ”” 176

New Measures of Assessing Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......””’”.””” ““. ”” ”” ”” 177
Research on How Technology Affects Teaching and the Social

Barriers to Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Option 1: Take No Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Option 2: Increase Resources in Existing Programs . . . . . . . . . . .

Option 3: Facilitate R&D Transfer and Applications . . . . . . . . .

Option 4: New Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Option 5: Support International Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Structure

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

of Schooling . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 8: TECHNOLOGY AND THE FUTURE OF CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Convergence of Information Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distance Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Audiographic Communications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Broadcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Integration of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Advances in Memory and Data Storage Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CD-ROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analog, Digital, and Optical Storage Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computer/Video Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Advances in Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hypermedia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Integrated Learning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Videodisc Software, Compatibility, and Video Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Epilog. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX A: STATE ACTIVITIES IN EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX B: CHARACTERISTICS CONSIDERED IN EVALUATING

EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX C: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PRINCIPAL PROGRAMS

PROVIDING FUNDS FOR TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX D: LIST OF ACRONYMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX E: CONTRACTOR REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX F: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS AND REVIEWERS AND

CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Box

1-A.

1-B.

l-c.

l--D.

1-E.

3--A.

3-B.

4--A.

5A.

5-B.

5-C.

5-D.

5-E.

5-F.

5-G.

Boxes

Educational Technology: What Does It Cost?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

. . . . . 178

. . . . . 1-79

. . . . . 180

. . . . . 180

. . . . . 180

. . . . . 181

. . . . . 182

. . . . . 183

. . . . . 184

. . . . . 187

. . . . . 187

. . . . . 189

. . . . . 189

. . . . . 191

. . . . . 193

. . . . . 193

. . . . . 194

. . . . . 194

. . . . . 195

. . . . . 196

. . . . . 198

. . . . . 199

. . . . . 199

. . . . . 199

. . . . . 199

. . . . . 200

. . . . . 201

. . . . . 205

. . . . . 232

. . . . . 237

. . . . . 240

. . . . . 241

. . . . . 242

Page

. . . . 8

The Teacher As a Coach: Teaching Science With

a Microcomputer-Based Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Writing by Hand/Writing With a Wordprocessor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

New Hampshire’s Computers for Teachers Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

New York State Teacher Resource Centers and Electronic Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Solving Problems With the Algebra Tutor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Microcomputer-Based Laboratories in Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Arkansas Project IMPAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Deciding Not To Use Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Using Computers in an Elementary Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Using Computers With Special Education Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

The Teacher as a Coach: Teaching Science With a Microcomputer-Based Laboratory . . . . . . 94

First Encounters With Computers: Some Teacher Concerns . . . . . . . ......................106

Factors Contributing to Effective Inservice Computer Education Programs . ...............106

IBM/National Computer Training Institute Cooperative Training Plan . ..................111

ix
Box Page

5-H. Excerpts From a Computer Conference on the MIX Network:

“The National Student Book Search” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............114

6-A. ’’Early Burned, Inc.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .” .. ... ’. ”’” 127

6-B. “Major Force, Inc.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

6-C. ’’Street Vendor Co., Inc.’’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .., .”. 129

6-D. Information For Software Decisions: A Sampling . . . . . . . . ...............................135

6-E. Software Evaluation in New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............136

6-F. Software Evaluation in California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................137

?-A. The Special Characteristics and Contributions of the Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency (DARPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................157

7-B. The Development of LOGO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................160

7-C. NASA’s Intelligent Computer-Aided Training: Spinoff for Schools . ......................169

?-D. Guided Discovery: Teaching From a Learner's Level of Understanding . ..................172

8-A. Apple Classroom of Tomorrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................188

8-B. Earth Lab. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................192

8-C. Analog v. Digital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................-.197

Figures

Figure Page

l-1. U.S. Public Schools With At Least One Computer by Grade Level 1981-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

l-2. Average Number of Computers Per 30 Students in U.S. Public Schools, 1983-87 . . . . . . . . . . . 7

l-3. Distribution of Computers in U.S. Public Schools, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

l-4. State Estimates of Major Sources of Funding for Technology Used by School Districts . . . . . . 10

l-5. Readiness to Teach: Perceptions of Education School Faculty and Student Teachers . . . . . . . . 18

l-6. State Estimates of Sources offending for Inservice Technology Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2-1. U.S. Public Schools With Computers, 1987-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2-2, Annual Rate of Adoption of Computers in U.S. Public Schools, 1981-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2-3. U.S. Public Schools With At Least One Computer, by Grade Level, 1981-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2-4. VCRs and Computers in U.S. Public Schools, 1982-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2-5. School Size and Student Access to Computers, 1987-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2-6. Students Per Computer in U.S. Public Schools by School Enrollment, 1987-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2-7. Variation in Average Student-Computer Ratio by State, 1987-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3-1. Teachers’ Perceptions of Effects of Using Computers in Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3-2. Graphing Equations Using the Computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4-1. District Education Budget and Costs of Implementing a Computer-Based Integrated Learning

System (ILS) in Prince George’s County, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

4-2. Increasing Computer Inventories in U.S. Public Schools: Projected Impact on Total Annual

Instructional Materials Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

5-l. Readiness to Teach: Perceptions of Education School Faculty and Student Teachers . .......100

5-2. State Requirements and Recommendations for Preservice Technology Programs . . . . . . . .. ....102

5-3. State Requirements and Recommendations for Inservice Technology Programs . . . . . . . . .. ....109

6-1. Trends in Availability of Software for Major Subject Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................132

6-2. Recommended Software Titles Before and After 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................140

6-3. Software Publishers’ Expectations of Factors Affecting Future Profitability. . ................144

7-1. Obligations for R&D in the U.S. Department of Education as a Percentage of All Federal

R&D Obligations, 1979-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................153

7-2.(a) U.S. Department of Education Obligations; (b) National Institute of Education

Obligations, Fiscal Years 1973-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................153

7-3. Timeline of Major Instructional Technology Projects in the Defense Agencies, 1955-87 .. ....156

7-4. National Science Foundation Budget, 1952-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............162

7-5. National Science Foundation Obligations for Research and Development of Educational

Technology in Elementary and Secondary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................162

8-1. States With Distance Learning Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........190

8-2. Evolution of Computer Storage Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....195
Tables

Table Page

1-1. Costs of Computer Use (Frank Porter Graham Elementary School, Chapel Hill,

North Carolina, 1986-88) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

l-2. Distribution of Educational Software by Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

l-3. Distribution of Educational Software by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2-1. Distribution of Schools by Computer Inventory, 1987-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2-2. Average Number of Students Per Computer in U.S. Public Schools, 1983-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2-3. Ranges of Student Computer Density in U.S. Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3-1. Mean Writing Scores by Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4-1. Costs of an Integrated Learning System for Elementary Schools in Prince George’s County,

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

4-2. Approximate Cost of Major Expansion of Installed Base of Free-Standing Computers in

U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

4-3. Examples of Effectiveness Measures Used in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4-4. Cost-Effectiveness of Four Educational Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4-5. Total Annual Costs Projected for Grades 3 and 5 Mathematics Instruction in Westberry

Elementary School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

4-6. Total Mathematics Mean Scores for Grades 3 and 5: CAI and Traditional Instruction in

Westberry Elementary School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

4-7. Total Mathematics Grade Placement Gains, Costs Per Student, and Costs Per Month of

Gain: Grades 3 and 5, Westberry Elementary School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

5-1. General Teacher Competencies in Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........101

6-1. Distribution of Educational Software Programs by Subject . .............................130

6-2. Distribution of Reading Software by Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............130

6-3. Distribution of Mathematics Software by Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......130

6-4. Distribution of Educational Software by Subject Area and Grade Range . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ..131

6-5. Curriculum Requirements and Available Software: Middle and High Schools , ............131

6-6. Distribution of Educational Software by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

6-7. Distribution of Major Subject Software by Type . . . . . . . . . . .............................133

6-8. Educational Software Titles Reviewed and Recommended . .............................,138

6-9. Educational Software Information Sources: Topology . . . . . . . . . .....................,....139

6-10. ’’Self-Starter Software Co.” Income Statement, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....144

7-1. Department of Defense Manpower and Training: Technology Research and Development

Expenditures, 1976-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......159

7-2. Department of Defense Research and Development Funding, 1984-89 . ...................169

7-3. NSF Funding for Educational Technology Research and Development 1987-89............170

7-4. Department of Education Funding for E-durational Technology Research, Development,

and Demonstration, 1987-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........170

7-5. Promising Directions for Research: Selected Examples of Intelligent Tutoring Systems,

Intelligence Extenders, Complex Microworlds, and Multimedia Learning Environments in

K-12 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................173

8-1. On-line Conferences for Teachers and Students Available to Subscribers to MIX

(McGraw-Hill Information Exchange), December 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................193

8-2. Examples of Electronic Networking Projects in Education . . . . . . .........................194

8-3. Advances untechnical Capabilities of Computers Used in Schools, 1977-87 . .............196

xi
Related OTA Reports

● Trends and Status of Computers in Schools: Use in Chapter 1 Programs and Use with Limited English

Proficient Students.

OTA Staff Paper, March 1987, 129 pages.

NTIS order #PB 87-176723

● Educating Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad School.

OTA-SET-377, June 1988, 136 pages.

GPO stock #052-003-01 110-7

Ž Elementary and Secondary Education for Science and Engineering.

OTA-TM-SET-41, to be published fall 1988.

● Technology and the American Economic Transition: Choices for the Future.

OTA-TET-283, May 1988, 512 pages.

GPO stock #052 -003-01096-8

● Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information.

OTA-CIT-302, April 1986, 300 pages.

NTIS order #PB 87-100 301/AS

● information Technology R&D: Critical Trends and Issues.

OTA-CIT-268, February 1985, 352 pages.

GPO stock #052 -003-00976-5

● Informational Technology and Its Impact on American Education.

OTA-CIT-187, November 1982, 280 pages.

GPO stock #052 -003-00888-2

NOTE: Reports are available through the U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Washington, DC 20401-9325, (202)

783-3238; and/or the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161-0001, (703) 487-4650.

xii
Chapter 1

Summary

Photo credit: West High School, Columbus, Ohio
CONTENTS

Boxes

Figures

Tables
Chapter 1

Summary

INTRODUCTION

At Poteet High School in Mesquite, Texas, ninth

grade students are doing experiments with radioactive materials, handling explosives, and pouring

sodium metal into a lake, and their teachers think

it’s great! With their entire physical science curriculum–160 hours of instruction, one semester of

chemistry and one of physics—on interactive videodisc, they are learning about and doing science in

a simulated environment. The laser videodisc combines the drama of a television program with the

capabilities of a computer: a touch of a computer

screen brings to life a volcanic eruption or a solar

flare. ’

The fifth grade class at Sacred Heart Model School

in Louisville, Kentucky, recently assembled a computer database of their pets: 25 dogs, 15 cats, 13

hamsters and gerbils, 5 horses, 4 hermit crabs, 1

guinea pig, 3 each of rabbits, turtles, and chickens,

and 73 fish. Updates and comparisons are expected,

as the class shares information with students who

live in other cities, in suburban communities, and

in rural areas. Their next project is to test the acidity of the city’s tap water and compare their results

with data from 199 other schools around the world

via telecommunications.2

A librarian in Jefferson County, Alabama, spent

her spring vacation driving a group of junior high

school students around the State, where they videotaped historical sites, agriculture and industries,

tourist attractions, and the Governor at work in the

capital. The students are creating their own curriculum materials for a course on “Our Alabama

Heritage." 3

In most other classrooms, teachers stand in front

of a blackboard, chalk in hand, lecturing as teachers

always have. Some students take notes on paper;

others look out the window, as students always

have. Are the Poteet High, Sacred Heart, or Jeffer-

‘Mesquice Ne~’s, Mesquite, TX, Oct. 28, 1987, p. 10A.

‘The Courier Journal, Louisville, KY, Feb. 19, 1988,

‘Carolyn Starnes, computer coordinator, Hillview Elementary

School, Birmingham, AL, personal communication, Apr. 13, 1988.

son County classrooms isolated cases, or are they

realistic previews of how new information technologies will change all schools?

Today’s classrooms typically resemble their ancestors of 50 years ago more closely than operating

rooms or business offices resemble their 1938 versions. But new technologies are making possible imaginative approaches to teaching traditional subjects

and are motivating teachers and children to try new

ways of information gathering and learning.

New learning tools have diverse objectives and effects. This diversity is due, in part, to the flexibility

of interactive technologies.4 Computers help teach

children to read, write, and “do sums. ” Telecommunications lets students in remote areas, who

might otherwise be denied access, take advanced

classes in calculus, foreign language, and physics.

Science students use computer-based measurement

instruments, while their classmates use simulation

programs to “participate” in politics and history. In

some schools there is a computer in each classroom;

in others, laboratories with 20 or 30 terminals accommodate groups for anywhere from 20 minutes

to 2 hours per week. A few experimental programs

provide a computer for each child in school and

another one at home. Some schools have adopted

integrated curriculum packages with automated, individualized student monitoring, testing, and reporting, while others have opted for a more eclectic approach that leaves greater autonomy for teachers’

planning and implementation. And many classes,

of course, use no new technology.

The infusion of computers and development of

advanced interactive technologies coincide with

~The term interactive technologies in education refers to technologies that can respond appropriately and quickly to students or teachers.

The interaction can either be between a person and a machine, as in

the case of computers, or between people using new forms of communication, as in the case of distance learning. Today’s interacti~’e technologies encompass computer technologies, transmission technologies,

television technologies, and optical technologies. Much of the discussion in this report focuses on computer-based technologies, because

of their impact on schools and because most other key technologies

are closely tied to the computer.

3
4

troubling news about American schools and have

been hailed by many as an important catalyst for

reform. 5 Blue ribbon commissions have reported

falling test scores and pointed to the growing divergence between our economy’s need for highly skilled

labor and our schools’ capabilities to prepare productive adults.6 A few visionaries argue that the new

technologies alone can solve the difficult problems

of America’s schools, while those at the other extreme remain unimpressed by claims that technology can improve learning. OTA finds that most educators are cautiously enthusiastic. School personnel

and educational researchers believe that interactive

technologies have already improved teaching and

learning for some children, and they are optimistic

about greater improvements that might result from

continued development, experimentation, and widespread implementation. There is a general consensus

that the appropriate assignment of new technologies

within effectively organized schools could make a

big difference in academic performance, motivation,

and dedication to learning. The broad experimentation of the past decade has generated a knowledge base for schools and policy makers. The Nation is now poised to decide on the next level of

commitment.

At the request of the House Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S. Congress, OTA studied the potential of interactive learning tools for improving the quality of education, and analyzed the

technological, economic, and institutional barriers

to achieving the technologies’ future promise.7

‘Some experts believe that the information technologies can radically change the performance and structure of the educational system.

For further discussion see, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technology and the American Economic Transition: Choices

for rhe Furure, OTA-TET-283 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, May 1988), pp. 240-251.

‘See National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation

at Risk (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, April 1983);

Committee for Economic Development, Znvesting in Our ChiHren

(Washington, DC: September 1985); National Task Force on Educational Technology, Transforming American Education: Reducing the

Risk co the Nation, A Report to the Secretary of Education (Washington, DC: April 1986); and Carnegie Forum on Education and the

Economy, A Nation Prepared (New York, NY: Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, May 1986).

‘For this comprehensive analysls, OTA analyzed survey data on distribution and access to technology and studied patterns of use; reviewed

research literature on evidence of effectiveness; conducted site visits

to schools and research centers; interwewed publishers, vendors, researchers, policy makers, administrators, teachers, and students; developed case studies; surveyed State technology directors; and convened

OTA finds that, although new interactive technologies cannot alone solve the problems of American education, they have already contributed to

important improvements in learning. These tools

can play an even greater role in advancing the substance and process of education, both by helping

children acquire basic skills and by endowing

them with more sophisticated skills so they can

acquire and apply knowledge over their lifetimes.

At the current rate of resource allocation, the

Nation can expect a continued broad base of experimentation, steady but slow improvement in software, and spotty access to the technology by children. If the Nation wishes to accelerate realization

of the potential of the technology, a greater investment will be necessary. Costs of such a shift would

be borne by Federal, State, and local governments,

and the private sector.

Regardless of the rate of investment in interactive technology and support for it, policy makers

should focus their attention on four closely related

areas if the technology is to move toward realizing

its potential. Each of these areas affects, and is affected by, the others:

●

●

●

●

expanding the amount and capability of technology in schools to increase student access;

providing training and support for teachers;

encouraging innovation and improvement in

educational software; and

supporting research, development, demonstration, and evaluation, with emphasis on ties between research and the classroom.

OTA concludes that the Federal Government

must take an active role if interactive technology

is to realize its potential for improving education.

National needs for educated citizens and workers,

combined with traditional Federal responsibility for

equity, are the underpinnings for Federal action.

Further, the centrally important aspect of research

will be adequately supported only as a national undertaking at the Federal level.

experts for OTA workshops on educational software development and

economics, teachers and technology, research and development of

educational technology, and cost-effectiveness issues. In the first phase

of the project, OTA prepared a staff paper, “Trends and Status of Computers in Schools: Use in Chapter 1 Programs and Use With Limited

English Proficient Students,” March 1987.
5

.

Federal programs must be flexible and should not

constrain the use of technology. Schools’ experience

with interactive technology, and recent research on

how children learn when they use computers, make

clear that there is no single “best use” of technology in schools to improve learning. Ideally, Federal programs would encourage continued experimentation and sharing of information from those

experiences. Federal research efforts should include

studies on the educational effectiveness of currently

available technology to address traditional goals, as

well as studies of innovation that push the boundaries of learning and cognition.

Educational technologies can be powerful tools

for change; not as ends in themselves, but as vehicles to extend teaching and learning processes. The

task of developing appropriate software, installing

sufficient hardware, training teachers for their new

role in electronic classrooms, expanding basic research into the science of human learning and cognition, and ensuring equity of access for all learners

cannot be accomplished by any one sector of government or industry.

OTA finds that improved use of technology can

be accomplished, in large part, through existing

Federal programs. In building on current efforts,

Congress could target funds within programs as well

as increase levels of funding, make administrative

changes, and exert leadership at the national level.

A more focused effort to substantially expand the

use of technology in education and attain more

fully integrated applications across the curriculum

will probably require new strategies and perhaps

new authority.

Photo credit: Education Week

Demands on schooling have increased with the growing numbers of students who are educationally at risk.
6

THE SPREAD OF TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS

The 1980s witnessed a tremendous expansion

in school use of advanced technology of all types.

For example, in 1980 very few schools had videocassette recorders (VCRs). Today roughly 90 percent

do. VCRs and the availability of cable and satellite

transmission have greatly increased flexibility of television use. Television and electronic telecommunications are also being used to deliver instruction to

students in remote sites. Such distance learning

projects are under way or being planned in 35 States.

Recently enacted legislation (Star Schools)8 will expand these efforts considerably.

Between 1981 and 1987, the percentage of American schools with one or more computers intended

for instruction grew from about 18 percent to 95

percent (see figure 1-1). There are now between 1.2

and 1.7 million computers in public schools

alone. 9 This is an impressive record of growth

and shows a widespread willingness on the part

of school districts, schools, teachers, and parents

to explore the possibilities of new learning technologies. In a period of less than 10 years, computer-based technologies have been introduced to students with quite different intellectual and behavioral

needs, by teachers and administrators of varying

backgrounds, experience and technical skill, working in schools with children of diverse demographic,

racial, ethnic, and economic composition.

Although computers are widely distributed and

access to them by students has increased significantly, the vast majority of schools still do not

have enough of them to make the computer a central element of instruction. (See figures 1-2 and 1-

3.) The number of computers in U.S. public schools

translates to approximately 1 computer for every 30

students. In practice, there is wide disparity—one

computer in a classroom, clusters of computers in

8AuthOrized under Title 11, “L4athematk5 and Science” of H-R. 5,

the Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Act.

%farket Data Retrieval, Inc. and Quality Education Data, Inc., the

leading market research firms specializing in school technologies, estimate the 1988 total at about 1.2 million. TALMIS, on the other hand,

a firm that collects data on the computer industry more broadly, reports

a total current base of 2.03 million, of which about 375,000 are in private schools. Finally, T. Zf.JE. Journal, a prominent educational technology magazine, reports the highest figure, 2.1 million overall, with

1.7 million in the public schools, based on their recent survey. Variations among these estimates are due largely to differences in sampling

methodology and timing of surveys.

Figure 1-1 .—U.S. Public Schools With At Least One

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Computer by Grade Level, 1981-87

/ I

, , , t t 4 ,

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

School year

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on data from Market Data

Retrieval, Inc., 1988.

the library or classrooms, full computer laboratories,

and classrooms with no computers. Not all students

use computers, and it is estimated that those who

do so spend on average a little more than 1 hour

per week on the computer, about 4 percent of their

instructional time. The National Assessment of

Educational Progress10 report on computer competence found in its 1985-86 survey of 3rd, 7th, and

11th grade students that computers were seldom

used in subject areas, but were used almost exclusively to teach about computers.

Furthermore, in analyzing these and other current data available on computer use by different

demographic characteristics, OTA found that students in relatively poor elementary or middle schools

have significantly less potential access to computers

than do their peers in relatively rich schools. Black

‘@Michael E. Martinez and Nancy A. Mead, Computer Competence: The First National Assessment, Report No. 17-CC-01 (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, April 1988).
7

Figure 1.2.—Average Number of Computers

Per 30 Students in U.S. Public Schools, 1983-87

1.2

1

0.4

I

1983 1934 1935 1986 1937

Year

 K-12 combined schools.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on data from Market Data

Retrieval, Inc., 1987.

students have less access than do whites, particularly at the elementary school level. Limited English proficient students have the lowest access of all.

And low-achieving students are more likely to use

computers for drill and practice than for problem

solving or other activities.11

An increase in the amount and capability of

technology in schools will be required if the technology is to realize its potential. Expanding the use

of technology in the school district, across the State,

or throughout the country immediately raises the

question of how much it will cost and how it will

be financed (see box l-A). Experience over the last

decade shows that costs and funding mechanisms

vary. In general, Federal, State, district, ParentFigure 1=3.—Distribution of Computers in

U.S. Public Schools, 1988

33.

34.

31

0.7%

14 .4%

Elementary Schools With computers

43.4%

High Schools with Computers

.9%

4%

 more detail see, Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit.,

footnote SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on data from Quality Education Data, Inc., 1988,
8

SOURCE: ~e Of WohWofIY A$$eawn ant, 19$s.

L
9

The problem, obviously, is that without reference

to the effects of expenditures on educational technologies, the dollar amount is almost meaningless. However, the definition and measurement of educational

effects (or outcomes) is extremely complex. Business

decisions, such as whether to install a new technology, can usually be assessed for their effect on profit,

a quantifiable indicator of performance. But schools

have multiple goals that cannot conveniently be

lumped into a single quantitative indicator. The effects of instructional technology (and education in *

general) take a long time to register and are very difficult to measure. In addition, there is disagreement

about the “production function,” or the relationship

between specific educational inputs and outcomes.

Classroom learning is a complex, dynamic and adaptive process: what a teacher does today may not work

tomorrow, what works in New York may not work

in Ohio.

Difficulties in applying conventional productivity

analysis to schools, which are familiar to a generation

of education economists who have tried, necessitate

a cautious approach to cost estimation of educational

technology. In particular: 9

● Educational technology is a body of tools that can

be applied to a wide variety of educational purposes. The question “how much does it cost?”

should be recast with reference to specific technologies.

● Because classroom learning is a complex, interactive process subject to many stimuli, it should

be viewed as a living experiment. Under ideal

conditions, teachers and their students continually learn about learning and adjust to their

changing environment. The computer, or any

educational tool, cannot be introduced into such

an environment with the expectation of immediate benefit. Time is needed to integrate it in a

useful way. The costs of new learning tools, then,

include much more than the easily quantifiable

market prices for hardware and software.

The useful life of a classroom computer, an important element in cost estimation, depends on

many factors: ruggedness or physical durability

of the equipment, capacity to handle new and

more sophisticated software, and changes in

teachers’ classroom methods. In addition, schools

cannot typically sell or trade-in used equipment,

nor do they simply discard machines that have

become obsolete. Thus, the establishment of an

appropriate replacement cycle, which is relatively

easy for books {usually 5 to 6 years), becomes a

more complicated matter in the case of computer

Increasing the utilization of school computer

equipment can raise costs: for example, making

the equipment accessible to evening school programs or to local libraries entails added personnel, maintenance, and security expenses. Howevery increased utilization can improve the overall

efficiency of the installed equipment by creating

additional revenues that offset operating expenses.

Teacher Association, or business contributions, or

a combination of these support technology used by

school districts. (See figure 1-4.) Costs include purchases of technology, teacher training, maintenance,

continuing upgrades of hardware and software, and

supporting personnel.12 (See table l-l.)

OTA finds that States are key players in improving the use of technology in education, although the level of support across the States is by

no means uniform. In addition to helping schools

acquire technology, States provide funding, technical assistance, and other resources for improving

the use of technology in schools. Their role has

changed rapidly. In 1981, only a few States were inl~shella Corv, Co[>rdinator of program evaluation and educational

computing, Chapel H ill-C arrboro City Schools, NC, personal communication, March 1988.

volved with computers.13 By 1987, almost every

State had created an administrative position or department to plan, implement, or monitor State

educational technology programs. Some States have

established technology skill requirements for

teachers and guidelines for technology-related curricula, and many are involved in some aspect of

teacher training, software evaluation, or information dissemination. A few have produced instructional software or distributed software electronically,

Some have funded demonstrations of new uses of

technology such as distance learning. In identifying barriers to increased use of technology, almost

1‘The States of Alaska and Minnesota were early leaders. See, U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Znformariona/ Tecbno/-

ogv and Its Zmpacr on American Education, OTA-CIT- 18? (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1982), pp. 214-

220 and 227-232.
10

Figure 1-4.—State Estimates of Major Sources of

Funding for Technology Used by School Districtsa

-1

40

30

20

10

n

Local State Federal Federal Federal

fundsb Chapter 2 chapter 1 Title II

Source of funding

 technology coordinators were asked to select the three of

funding used by districts.

 for technology by districts Include: 1) funds technology

 to all districts; 2) grants for technology; and 3) grants that may be

used for technology.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, State Educational Technology Survey, 1987.

two-thirds of the States surveyed by OTA cited

lack of funds as a serious problem.14

Federal programs have been and continue to be

another important resource, particularly in increasing access to computers by educationally disadvantaged students, and in enabling districts to purchase

hardware and software. Compensatory Education

Programs (Chapter 115) in every State fund the

purchase and/or lease of computer hardware and

software for use with educationally disadvantaged

students,16 and almost three-fifths (58 percent) of

Chapter 1 teachers in public schools report that they

 Educational Technology 

 the Education Consolidation and Improvement 

 Survey of State Chapter 1 coordinators, see office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 7.

use computers to teach their students.17 In all districts, the Federal Block Grants (Chapter 2) can be

used to purchase hardware and software.18 Most

recently, in an OTA survey, 34 States ranked Chapter 2 as one of the top three sources for funding technology at the district level.19 Other Federal programs support acquisition of computer hardware and

software, but the amounts spent on technology purchases do not appear as separate items in their

budgets and therefore cannot be measured. These

programs include the “Math/Science Program” (Tide II of the Education for Economic Security Act,

EESA), the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (Title VII of EESA), Vocational Education (The Perkins Act), and the Education for the Handicapped

Act.

National needs for educated citizens and workers combined with issues of equity suggest that the

Federal Government work with State, local, and

private sector efforts to expand the use of interactive technologies in schools. This could include

increased funding and clear direction from Washington, supporting the role of technology as one

component of improving learning.

Steady funding is vastly preferable to money

that must be spent quickly. This is because local

districts and States need time to plan for integrated

uses of technology and to train personnel. Flexibility is also important, as districts and States need freedom to revise these plans as the technologies change

and as the learning potential they offer evolves.

Moreover, efforts that build on local, State, and private sector experience and resources could provide

greater leverage of Federal funds.

 analysis was based on original data from the 1986 National

Survey of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act Chapter 1 Schools conducted by Westat Corp. for the U.S. Department

of Education’s 1986 National Assessment of Chapter 1. See Office of

Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 7, p. 50.

 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act

distributes these block grants to States based on the student population figures. Eighty percent of the funds a State receives must go directly

to local districts, again according to a formula based on the number

of school-aged children in the district. A 1986 study found that support for computer-related activities accounted for 30 percent of all local Chapter 2 expenditures. SRI International and Policy Studies Associates, “The Educational Block Grant at the Local Level: The

Implementation of Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act in Districts and Schools,” prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, January 1986.

 State Educational Technology Survey, 1987.
11

Table 1-1.–Costs of Computer Use (Frank Porter Graham Elementary School Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1986-88)

Total 2 years . . . . $10,216 $3,191 $1,547 $2,411 $7,473 $2,544

‘H~~d~~~~: cO~PUter hardWare ~Urr~ntlY ~~nsists of 24 Apple II computer stations. Fourteen are grouped togetherin a U)mpUti3r laboratory and 10 are located in individual classrooms, the science laboratory, or the media center.

b~ftware: Software includes program5 provided by the school district 10 support the district-developed curriculum, Additional software has been purchased by the

school to support the school and teacher objectives.

csupplie~: Supplle5 needed t. Suppofi the district-developed curriculum are provided by the district, These include such things as books and discs. Additional SUpplies, such as paper and ribbons, are funded by the school.

dstaff deve lopmen t: District.level workshops are designed to support the district-developed curriculum, Attendance is required at these Sessions. Optional Staff development IS also provided by both the district and the school,

eper~onnel: On.site personnel Witfl direct responsibility to the computer education program consists of a pan-time computer laboratory aide funded by the PTA. Additional personnel resources are provided by the district through their funding of a half-time coordinator who serves nine schools,

SOURCE: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Public Schools, Chapel Hill, NC.

Congress can profit from the States’ leadership stration efforts described throughout this report.

and expertise in advancing the use of technology. Federal funds could expand State, local, and priThere is much that could be learned from various vate sector efforts. Federal assistance through conState efforts in teacher training, software evaluation ferences or through electronic networks could faand development, and model projects and demon- cilitate sharing information.

WHAT THE TECHNOLOGY CAN DO

One of the most obvious questions about using

interactive technologies in schools is “Does it work?”

Performance and productivity are difficult to measure precisely, in part because the near-term effects

of educational technologies may be different from

what these technologies might eventually achieve.

OTA examined recent research on educational

uses of computers in a wide range of applications

in many different settings. Although the results build

an incomplete and somewhat impressionistic picture,

they do suggest that certain configurations of hardware and software, used with particular populations

of children and under the supervision of competent

teachers, contribute to meeting specific instructional

objectives. OTA finds that the varied capabilities

of the technologies are key to their power. Educators use interactive technologies for many pur-
12

poses; there is no single best use. The following are

among the most promising current uses and demonstrations.

Drill and practice to master basic skills.–For

almost 30 years, computers have been used to provide instruction or drill and practice in basic skills

such as mathematics and reading. Computer-assisted

instruction (CAI) has proven to be an effective supplement to traditional classroom instruction. For example, one recent study showed that elementary

school children who used CAI for mathematics

gained the equivalent of 1 to 8 months instruction

over peers who received only traditional instruction.

Development of writing skills.-–Although word

processing by itself does not create better writers,

it has helped ease the physical burden of writing and

revising. Studies have shown that both mainstream

and special students who used the word processor

as a supplement to writing instruction have made

significant gains in writing ability. In addition, word

processing technology has stimulated research on

the most efficient ways to teach students to read,

critique, and revise their written work. The findings of this research are being incorporated into new

software.

Photo credit: BreadNet Project

English teacher Linda Henry and ninth grader John

Quick Bear are part of the electronic network of rural

schools set up by the Bread Loaf School of English

at Middlebury College. This classroom on the Oglala

Lakota (Sioux) reservation in Kyle, South Dakota, is one

of 50 in a project to see if computers and telecomputing

can improve the teaching of writing.

Problem solving.-–Problem solving skills and

“higher order” thinking have always been difficult

to teach. There is some evidence that teachers can

use computer simulations, educational games, databases, and other software to train students to break

down problems into their component parts and set

strategies for their solution. More research is needed

to understand problem solving strategies used by

learners in different contexts and curriculum areas.

Understanding abstract mathematics and science concepts.—One of the more promising uses

of computers is as a tool in the science laboratory.

Microcomputer-based laboratories (MBLs) combine

microcomputers with probes to measure phenomena

such as light, heat, and temperature. With specially

designed software, students can produce almost instant graphs of the data and explore effects of different variables. Studies indicate that students using

MBLs have a deeper understanding of complex scientific concepts than do students not using MBLs.

The computer is an invaluable tool for teaching

graphing concepts. Computer simulations have also

proved an effective way of helping students visualize abstract concepts. (See box 1-B.)

Simulation in science, mathematics, and social

studies. -Simulations provide science students with

self-contained worlds—for example, a frictionless

world where the laws of Newtonian physics are more

apparent—in which they can experiment and

quickly see the result. Students can test abstract concepts and experiment with scientific processes that

are not feasible or are too dangerous for actual classroom work. Simulations are also effective tools in

social science. By playing the role of world leaders

or citizens in other countries, for example, students

have been motivated to engage in high level critical thinking, gain a better understanding of political affairs, and appreciate different perspectives on

issues+

Manipulation of data. –Database management

systems have become very popular in classrooms.

These encourage students to define a problem in specific terms and break it up into its component parts.

Students must then identify the data needed, extract them from the database, put the data in a useful order, use the data, and then communicate findings to others. Limited research results suggest that

students using databases outperform other students
13

Box 1-B.—The Teacher As a Coach: Teaching Science With a Microcomputer-Based Laboratory’

Douglas Kirkpatrick teaches an eighth grade physical science class in Walnut Creek, California. Working

with a research team from the nearby Lawrence Hall of Science, he has been using the computer as a “silent

laboratory partner,” helping his students understand concepts in heat and light in a new way. His 32 students

are teamed up in pairs using 16 microcomputers donated by Apple. The software is made up of microcomputerbased laboratory (MBL) materials, temperature probes, light probes, and heat pulsars for the collection of data,

with accompanying curriculum materials, all developed by the Technical Education Research Centers in Boston.

Kirkpatrick found that his students had reasonable intuitions about the effect of insulation on the temperature of a liquid—gained from their prior experience with styrofoam cups—and the relationship between volume

of a liquid and the amount of heat that needs to be added to make it boil-gained from heating large and small

quantities of liquid in the kitchen. However, Kirkpatrick’s students, like other science students, had persistent

misconceptions about other scientific phenomena. As he noted, many students believed “you only have a temperature if you are sick,” or “you have more hot chocolate, so yours is hotter than mine,” or “temperature

is all the degrees, but heat only refers to temperatures that are above warm.” Merely telling students how heat

differs from temperature or having them read about it in a textbook has traditionally had little or no effect

on these entrenched misconceptions.

In the past, Kirkpatrick had clustered his students in small groups in a laboratory to study temperature.

He had them observe water and moth flakes cooling, with some students calling out times and temperatures

while others painstakingly recorded the data. Later, teams constructed graphs of their efforts and attempted

to relate the curves on the graphs to key moments in the experiments. While students typically found these

laboratory experiments more interesting and fun than a lecture or reading about temperature, the underlying

cognitive concepts still did not seem to take hold.

Doing the experiment with the MBLs, Kirkpatrick’s students were freed from the tedious mechanics of data

collection, enabling them to focus on changes occurring before their eyes as recorded on the computer. Having

the computer simplified experiments that would otherwise have been confusing. Real-time computer graphing

was an antidote to their typically limited adolescent attention spans. His young experimenters, like “real” scientists, were able to use technological tools to collect, display, and analyze data, freeing them to concentrate on

the effect of the experimental action, to observe, discuss, and analyze. Students were able to repeat their experiments easily when they had questions. They could also readily compare results with their fellow students, giving

rise to lively class discussions about the meaning of the experiments.

If the computer was the silent laboratory partner, what was the teacher’s role? Like any laboratory situation, where students have a hands-on engagement with learning, the teacher became a coach. In this instance,

Kirkpatrick found that most students at first completely trusted the data from the computer. It was Kirkpatrick’s

job to direct their attention, to help them become aware of sources of invalid data, to teach them to diagnose

the causes and help them evaluate data the computer collected. He taught them to detect poorly calibrated

probes, discard data from such probes, and to recalibrate their scientific instruments. He guided their discussion

to confirm their understandings.

Kirkpatrick has been delighted by the interactions he has observed among the students, and presides over

countless fascinating classroom discussions of complex science concepts, He says, “I can’t imagine a physical

science laboratory without computers anymore."

lm~ is ~ ~OnfitiO~ ~mw~t ~k ~ti~= ~~ ~t ~ n r=l ctim ~=hr. % aliw~ti (1 Linn, University of California at Berkeley, “using

the Computer as a Laboratory Pmtner: (%gnitiw XRCe$,” mm _~ ~ ~m “Computers in Schc& Cognitive and Social Processes” at the Second EARLI Conference, Tubingcn, Germany, .Septmnber 1987.

in tests of information processing skills. In addition, Acquisition of computer skills for general purteachers report that students using databases under- poses, and for business and vocational training.—

stand underlying concepts and relationships better, The most obvious use of computers and related tools

work more cooperatively, and become more enthu- in the classroom is to prepare students for the insiastic about gathering and analyzing data. creasingly technological world they will face when
74

they leave school. Keyboarding and skill in using

generic computer programs are replacing the early

focus on programming for all students. Advocates

of teaching programming to students argue that it

is an important skill that can improve problem solving abilities and has wide applicability to many areas

of the curriculum, but research on the cognitive consequences of programming has produced mixed

results.

Access and communication for traditionally unserved populations of students. -perhaps the most

impressive applications of computer-based technologies are in the field of special education. Some

teachers have described the computer as “the freedom machine” because it has made communication

itself possible for their students. Word processors

allow students who could not hold a pencil to write

(see box l-C); speech synthesizers provide some students with a means to communicate orally for the

first time.

Access and communication for teachers and students in remote locations.-–Television via satellite

brings classes in foreign language, calculus, and

many other subjects to schools that cannot provide

them because of the small numbers of students or

because of the absence of specialized teachers.

Declining costs of hardware and increased accessibility of telecommunications technology make distance learning projects more feasible and efforts are

expected to increase.

In addition, electronic networks allow students

and teachers to share information and experience

across cities, States, or continents, thus ending the

isolation of the classroom. Several projects in science and writing using electronic networks have

been particularly promising.

individualized learning.–The computer is interactive; a student’s entry generates immediate feedback. The increasing capacity of computer-based

technology makes it possible to develop instruction

that adjusts to each student’s prior knowledge, rate

of learning, and the nature and style of the student’s

response. For example, technology offers some very

promising applications for strengthening reading

comprehension through analysis of the student’s understanding of the text; intelligent tutoring systems

in areas such as geometry can provide the learner

with an expert and sensitive tutor; and “hypertext”

Photo credit: Michael Zide, Smith College

For children like Mallory Sanderson and Matthew

Jenkins at the Clarke School for the Deaf, computers

have opened new doors for learning.

systems can allow students to manipulate text,

graphics, and different levels of information. The

computer can also keep exact records of student

progress, which helps the teacher determine individual student needs.

Cooperative learning.–The new technologies

can encourage cooperative learning. Telecommunications technology, by definition, makes new forms

of communication and cooperation possible. On an

electronic network, students from many locations

can gather information from many sources. Teachers

are especially enthusiastic about the ways computer

simulations and problem solving software encourage

cooperative learning in the classroom. Students of

mixed abilities can be grouped in small or large teams

to wrestle with tasks that cannot be performed individually.

Management of classroom activities and record.

keeping.–Teachers believe that technology eases

some aspects of classroom management. There are

reports that students engrossed in computers pose

fewer discipline and absenteeism problems. Computer programs such as spreadsheets, database managers, and desktop publishing can streamline recordkeeping and material preparation. In addition,

computers make it easier to record the progress and

determine the needs of individual students. As pressures for accountability rise, more testing and recordkeeping are likely, even if they do not necessarily

contribute to the learning process itself.

Clearly the technology serves many functions well.

Emphasizing a single use of technology now could
stifle much needed innovation, initiative, and experimentation. As researchers and practitioners

gain experience with current technology, they are

discovering new educational uses and are raising additional questions about the learning process. OTA

concludes that Federal programs should not constrain technology, but should allow, perhaps encourage, flexibility of use by different districts.

Many districts argue that existing Federal regulations hamper their flexibility to move hardware and

personnel according to their changing needs, or to

increase the productivity of equipment through multiple uses.

The need for studies evaluating different approaches continues.—Research has covered some

areas more than others, and missed some areas entirely. For example, there has been some research

on the cost-effectiveness of traditional CAI, finding it appropriate under specific conditions. But effectiveness assessments of newer applications of technology are needed, as are longitudinal studies that
16

follow groups of users over time. This kind of schoolbased research is difficult and costly. Better data and

sophisticated tools are needed to measure cost-effectiveness, and it is difficult to gather detailed administrative data, apply economic considerations, measure effects, and account for social and institutional

variables. Most school districts and States do not

have resources to conduct such research and evaluation. Federal research should include studies on ●

both the educational effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of currently available technologies addressing traditional goals, and studies of innovations that push the boundaries of learning and

cognition.

Congress may wish to encourage evaluation

and research on the uses of computers in

education through existing Federal programs, possibly by including requirements for

formal evaluation in National Science Foundation (NSF) technology projects, or requiring

that the effectiveness of technology in meeting program goals be measured in major studies,

such as the $10 million comprehensive Chapter 1 evaluation study authorized by Congress

to be conducted by the Department of Education.

Other initiatives that could provide data are

the $30 million “Improvement Fund” aimed at

improving the performance of students and

teachers, the Secretary’s Fund for Innovation,

the Star Schools Program, and special education, bilingual education, and adult literacy

programs. The Federal Government could provide assistance in data collection, research design, and dissemination of results.

TEACHERS AND TECHNOLOGY

Educational technologies are not self-implementing, and they do not replace the teacher. OTA finds

that investments in technology cannot be fully effective unless teachers receive training and support. OTA has found many powerful examples of

creative teachers using computers and other learning technologies to enhance and enrich their teaching. But this does not occur unless four interrelated

conditions are met: training in the skills needed to

work with technology, education that provides vision and understanding of state-of-the-art developments and applications, support for experimentation and innovation, and—perhaps most valuable

of all—time for learning and practice.

Recent studies show that most teachers want to

use the newest tools of their trade and to prepare

their students for the world of technology outside

the schoolroom. But despite the presence of computers in almost all American public schools, only

half of the Nation’s teachers report having ever used

computers. The number who use computers regularly is much smaller. Barriers to greater use include

lack of equipment, inadequate or inappropriate

training, and, for some, anxiety about new technology.

How Teachers Use Technology

Asking how teachers use computers and what effects computers have on teaching are questions

almost as broad as “How do teachers use books and

how do books affect teaching?” To no one’s surprise,

OTA finds that teachers’ use of computers depends

on their instructional goals, teaching approach,

training, the software and hardware available to

them, and the instructional setting. Some teachers

use computer laboratories; some have units in their

classroom. Some use the computer to teach lessons

to the whole class; some emphasize individual instruction. Some tie the computer tightly to their

standard curriculum; some create a whole new curriculum. In general, teachers are moving away from

teaching about computers and computer programming and toward integrating the computer into the

curriculum.

One of the most significant impacts of computers

has been on teaching style. Teachers can function

as facilitators of student learning, rather than in

their traditional role as presenters of ready-made

information. Because computers allow students to

work on problems individually or in small groups
17

while the teacher circulates among them, some

teachers find they are able to see more of the learning process. The interactive nature of computers lets

students work at their own speed, figure things out

for themselves, and learn from each other. Teachers

can be coaches and facilitators as well as lecturers.

Given the right circumstances, teachers could

choose the appropriate way to reach their students.

With the computer and other tools, the range of

opportunities increases. But teachers have to be allowed to choose, willing to make choices, and qualified to implement their choices effectively. OTA

finds that, just as there is no one best use of technology, there is no one best way of teaching with

technology. Flexibility should be encouraged, allowing teachers to develop their personal teaching

approach utilizing the variety of options offered by

technology.

To be sure, not all teachers are enthusiastic about

the computer. Some report that it has caused little

or no change in their teaching style or content. Interestingly, these reactions often come in situations

where teachers are frustrated by insufficient hardware or software, or when they have not received

training or had opportunities to develop confidence

in using computer tools.

OTA finds that teachers who have taught with

computers agree that—at least initially—most uses

of computers make teaching more challenging. Individualizing lessons, matching software to curriculum, scheduling student computer time, monitoring use, providing assistance, and troubleshooting

—all add burdens to the teacher’s time. While the

computer can minimize some administrative chores

and ease classroom discipline problems, the net effect is increased demand on teachers’ time and

creativity. Many teachers seem willing to trade off

this increased time for more excitement in the classroom and new opportunities to expand their horizons.

OTA finds that very few teachers have adequate

time for planning and preparing to use technology,

Federal, State, and local policy makers should be

aware of the need for teachers to study on their own

or in formal courses, to attend conferences and professional meetings, and to gain comfort with the

technology and find applications for the classroom.

Teacher Training in Technology

A major aspect of the current drive to improve

American education is the focus on raising professional teaching standards and giving teachers greater

responsibility and autonomy. Technology, while not

yet central in these efforts, could be an important

Photo credit: Computer Learning Month

Teachers find different ways to use computers in their classrooms: with small groups and with their entire class.
18

lever for change. But the vast majority of those

now teaching or planning to teach have had little

or no computer education or training. The most

recent data available indicate that only one-third

of all K-12 teachers have had as much as 10 hours

of computer training.20 And much of this training

focused on learning about computers, not learning

how to teach with computers.

The situation is no more promising for those just

entering teaching. A recent national survey of education majors indicated that less than one-third (29

percent) perceived themselves to be prepared to

teach with computers.21 (See figure 1-5.) Although

almost all teacher education programs provide some

computer training for teacher candidates, many of

these programs do not have adequate resources (upto-date equipment and faculty with expertise in technology) to go beyond the basic introductory computer courses. They are also constrained by Statemandated reforms that define and often restrict the

teacher education curriculum. Despite a nationwide call to improve teaching, there is almost no

Federal money for the training of new teachers.

Congress may wish to upgrade the training of teachers

overall, making understanding of technology an integral part of their preparation, through various options targeted to both students and teacher education institutions:

●

●

●

●

●

Grants and loans (forgivable or low-interest) for

students entering teacher-training programs.

Funding to schools of education to support purchase of equipment so they can have more current technologies available in their teacher

training programs.

Grants to support workshops and courses to

upgrade the technology skills of education

school faculty so that the education program

reflects changing philosophies and so that methods courses demonstrate the application of technology across the curriculum.

Demonstration grants for innovative teaching

internships where electronic networks connect

the student teacher to the education school.

Grants for research on methods of training

teachers to use technology and funding for the

dissemination of promising practices.

~L’Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote ~.

~’American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Teaching Teachers: Facts and Figures (V’ashington, DC: 1987).

Figure 1-5.—Readiness to Teach: Perceptions of

Education School Faculty and Student Teachers

1

0 50 100

Percent citing readiness

SOURCE: Research About Teacher Education Project, Teaching Facts and

Figures (Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for

Teacher Education, 1967).

OTA finds that although preservice education is

important, it serves only as a first step; training and

the environment of support is even more critical

once teachers are in the classroom. Teachers will

need continuing inservice programs as technology

changes, as more effective uses of technology are

developed, and as research provides a better understanding of how children learn.

Inservice training in technology has unique requirements that distinguish it from traditional inservice activities. Most obviously, teachers need a

well-equipped facility and an environment that allows them to explore and master the technology.

In addition, inservice training in technology must
19

often overcome the experienced teacher’s varying

levels of “technology anxiety.” Instructors for these

activities must appreciate teachers’ special concerns

regarding computers. Moreover, studies point to the

critical importance of followup and continuing

assistance.

Federal support has contributed to the inservice

technology training of teachers, through NSF’s

Teacher Enhancement Program and various Department of Education programs (Chapter 2, Title II,

Special Education, Title VII, Vocational Education).

States have been major supporters as well (see figure 1-6 and box l-D). The primary responsibility

for continued professional development of teachers,

however, lies with the local district. The amount

of money the Nation’s 16,000 school districts have

spent on inservice technology training is currently

impossible to track. What is clear is that many disFigure 1-6.—State Estimates of Sources of Funding

for Inservice Technology Traininga

30

20 ////// J

10

0

State fundsb Federal fundsc No State or

Federal finds

Source of funding

astate technology coordinators were asked to select the top three sources of

funding for technology at the local level.

bstate funds include: I) funds for technology training; 2) professional development funds or grants; 3) funds that flow through regional centers or districts;

and 4) general State aid used at local discretion.

cFederal funding includes Title 11, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and SpeCial Education

funds.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, State Educational Technology Survey, 1987.

,

nal Technology Survey, 1987. For more infor-

@rernor’s Steering Commimx for Excellence in Edu6#k3r% CUncO@, NH.

tricts have very limited funds available for inservice

training in general; many also have limited facilities,

resources, and expertise to prepare teachers to use

technology. Some districts have developed working

arrangements with other districts, nearby universi-
20

ties, regional service centers, and combinations of

these to expand their own capacity and expertise.

Enhancing the resources of schools of education

to provide technology education programs for entrylevel teachers would also improve inservice programs, as these schools often train working teachers.

● Congress may wish to expand current Federal

activities for inservice teacher training in

technology. The NSF Summer Institutes for

teachers are well regarded and could be expanded to include broader applications of

technology in interdisciplinary areas. The Department of Education programs that include

provisions for teacher training (e.g., Title II,

Chapter 1, Special Education, Bilingual Education) could be strengthened with greater resources targeted to inservice computer education.

The Federal Regional Education Laboratories

could be used to provide training for teachers.

The National Diffusion Network, designed to

share results of innovative and effective programs, could validate teacher training activities

and provide greater dissemination of effective

practices.

Interactive technologies offer new possibilities for

supporting teachers as they work. Teachers in several experimental writing and science projects use

electronic networking to exchange information, develop lessons, and ask for help from their colleagues

and project coordinators. Many find that networking is very convenient and efficient. Schools, State

agencies, and regional centers are also beginning to

make use of the communications capabilities of computers, using modems for networking activities such

as electronic mail, information sharing, computer

conferencing, and subject-oriented forums. Such

networks have the potential to help overcome one

of the most basic problems of the classroom teacher

—isolation. (See box l-E.)

● Congress may wish to encourage computer

networking as an informal source of teacher

support. This can be accomplished through existing programs, such as the Special Education

Resource Network sponsored by the Office of

Special Education, NSF’s support for the electronic network linking State science supervisors,

or through demonstration grants funded under the Secretary’s Discretionary Program. Federal efforts could provide initial or partial support for State, regional, or national networks

that could link teachers and subject matter

specialists or administrators. Some educators

have begun to discuss the development of a nationwide, government-financed public school

telecommunications network similar to those

already functioning in government-sponsored

civilian and defense research. Congress may

wish to study further the question of network

access and telecommunications charges, and

whether these issues seriously inhibit teacher

use of networks.

● Congress can also expand opportunities for

training teachers by satellite, microwave, or

other distance learning technologies. Current

funding for “Star Schools” could include teacher

education programming, and funds for other

demonstration programs could be increased.

Finally, in considering ways to expand teacher

training, Congress should be aware of the role

played by the private sector. Computer companies

and software developers, who want a market for

their products, are also involved in training teachers

and supporting their use of technology in the classroom. Apple, IBM, and Tandy, for example, offer

discounts on hardware as incentives for teachers to

use their technology. Several software publishers

have reduced pricing on applications packages, e.g.,

word processing, database management, and spreadsheets, for the same purpose. In addition to sponsoring conferences and seminars, a number of companies publish guides or other resources especially

designed for the teacher. These efforts, like industry cooperation in research and demonstration projects, are very important resources that should be

encouraged.
21

Box l-E.--New York State Teacher Resource Centers and Electronic Networking

New York State’s Teacher Resource and Computer Training Centers are professional development centers

organized and run by and for teachers all across the State. The State has supported the centers since 1984.

The centers have been extremely popular with both teachers and State education officials, as their rapid growth

demonstrates. In 19$4, there were 44 centers, supported by a $3.5 million State grant. Today, the number of

centers has more than doubled, and State support has grown to $15 million. Local funds and links with other

projects augment the centers’ resources and activities. The centers serve approximately 77,000 teachers.

The purpose of the centers is to give teachers a major role in their own professional development. Each

center is run by a local governing board that assesses teachers' needs and training concerns, and sets policy

for the center. At least half of the governing board members must be teachers from the area served by the

center. Teachers generally conduct the courses for their colleagues after school, on weekends, during the summer, or during the school day, with provision made for release time and substitute teacher coverage. Most courses

are free or available at a modest cost.

Coordination with local universities is encouraged, and one member of the governing board must be a representative from higher education. This has led to innovative bridges between preservice and inservice education. Experienced teachers from the public schools serve as adjunct professors and teach methods courses at

the university. It has also led to better coordination and oversight of student teaching internships in the local

schools.

Training and education in the uses of technology in the classroom is only one of six statutory purposes

of the centers, but has, in fact, been a central focus from the start. Approximately 35 percent of the center

activities have focused on technology. This interest in technology has evolved with the teachers’ own changing

perceptions of the role of computers in schools. Moving from “we need to know something about technology”

to an interest in “computer literacy,” the current focus is on “how can we use computers, videodiscs, and other

emerging technologies effectively in the classroom?” Some centers offer outreach activities, with specially equipped

computer buses that travel to remote locations to offer training to teachers on-site.

Telecommunications is a special area of interest. Some courses offered at one center are broadcast by satellite to teachers in other centers. In the process of learning how telecommunications provide access to a range

of information services and databases, the teachers have also discovered how they can use electronic networks

to communicate with each other without regard to time, space, and geographical location. The Teacher Center

Electronic Network, now in its third year, currently links all the centers across the State. Some 20,000 teachers

have received training in its use and are users, either on the electronic bulletin board or by participating in

ongoing computer conferences within regions or in curricular areas. The network allows teachers to share ideas

and support one another in developing materials, conduct collaborative research, or serve as mentors to their

less experienced peers.

Many of the centers are involved in a network project focusing on students “at risk.” Although the network

are developing not just a facility in using

confidence. The teachers, often isolated and frustrated by their work with these most challenging of students,

are encouraging one another, learning from one another, and developing an important mutual support group

via the network.

SOURCE: OTA site visits and interview, August 1987. %?,
22

EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE

More than 10,000 software products intended for

instructional or educational use with stand-alone

computers in schools and at home are on the market today. These products, which come on standard floppy discs, typically aim at specific subjects,

such as language arts or arithmetic (see table 1-2).

They most often provide drill and practice. In some

cases higher order skills such as hypothesis testing

or concept development are featured, but such products are in very thin supply (see table 1-3). Advances

in graphics and sound technologies have led to creative software for social studies, music, and other subjects that, unlike mathematics or business, are not

commonly associated with computer-based instruction. While mathematics programs still dominate the

market, generic programs for word processing and

data management are among the best sellers; many

teachers seem to appreciate software that affords

them wide latitude in classroom application.

This industry, now a decade old, consists of about

900 suppliers, the vast majority of which are quite

small, averaging two full-time employees. Although

total annual sales have grown, and are expected to

reach $200 million by fall 1988, there are indications

that commercial success may come at the expense

of creativity and innovation. While many software

titles receive favorable ratings from review agencies and professional computing magazines, there

is a general consensus among educators (and softTable l-2.—Distribution of Educational Software

by Subject (N=7,325)

Percent of Number of

programs a

programs a

Comprehensive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 427

Computers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 331

English/language arts . . . . . . . . . 12 894

Foreign language . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 356

Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1,971

Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 869

Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1,148

Social science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 565

Other b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1,329

aTh~ sum of the progr~siS greater than N because some pmfmms are =+i9ned

to more than one subject category. Accordingly, the total of the percentages

is greater than 100 percent. All percentages were rounded to the nearest unit.

%he Other category combines 13 subjects (agriculture, aviation, business, driver

education, early learning/preschool, fine arts, guidance, health, home economics, industrial arts, library skills, logic/problem solving, and physical edu.

cation), each of which accounts for less than 4 percent of the total number of

programs.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment based on analysis of data in the

Educational Products Information Exchange, July 1987.

Table 1-3.—Distribution of Educational Software

by Type (N =7,325)

Percent of Number of

programs a

programs a

Rote drill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1,107

Skills practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3,708

Tutorial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2,447

Concept demonstration. . . . . . . . 3 216

Concept development . . . . . . . . . 4 270

Hypothesis testing. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 91

Educational games . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1,425

Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 669

Tool programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 807

aThe sum of the programs iS greater than N because some programs were aSsigned to more than one category. Accordingly, the total of the percentages

is greater than 100 percent. All percentages were rounded to the nearest unit.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment baaed on analysis of data in the

Educational Products Information Exchange, July 1987.

ware publishers as well) that the quality of educational software could be much better.

What are the essential problems in this market?

Aside from generic products that are applicable to

many subject areas and grade levels, most instructional programs can reach only a small niche of the

school system. Development and marketing costs

are high relative to expected sales revenues. Surely

some innovative products can become commercial

“hits.” But, in general, software producers have a

strong incentive to reduce costs and lower the risks

of entering this market by producing software that

is easy for teachers to adapt to their traditional curricula.

This propensity toward producing familiar instructional materials is not limited to small entrepreneurs.

OTA finds that large firms, with greater capital resources, do not necessarily take larger risks; integrated learning systems, for example, have a greater

chance of being attractive to school districts if their

content is closely linked to textbook materials and

tests. These systems, which are currently manufactured by about a dozen companies (with total revenues last year of about $100 million), have been

provided in response to the call for greater accountability and improved performance on standardized

tests, but they may be less well suited to educational

improvement strategies that make the teachers more

autonomous in the classroom.

OTA finds that software manufacturers tend to

play it safe. They produce what teachers will buy,
23

Using the simulation “Henry’s Plants,” they

can observe plants growing on seven different

sites in the Henry Mountains.

Students use the database to record the data

they need to solve each problem. After gathering

their data, they summarize their answers and

receive a printout of the problem, data,

and answers.

Photo credit: Wasatch Education Systems

In studying plant classification, students apply their knowledge by using a simulation and

a database manager to solve problems in science:

and teachers usually buy products that are famil- newcomers; unauthorized duplication of software

iar. The potential result is a relatively homogene- programs, as well as theft of broad software design

ous set of products that fall far short of the possi- principles, continue to plague the industry; and the

bilities provided by the new learning tools. presence of different computers in the schools, with

The problem of a fragmented market is aggravated different operating systems, raises development costs

by information barriers, difficulties in enforcing in- for publishers in pursuit of market share. The commercial market maybe viable, but there is substan- tellectual property rights, and the incompatibility tial concern for the long-term quality and diver- of hardware and operating systems. Knowledge of

the idiosyncratic processes by which school districts sity of its products.

around the country acquire instructional materials The continued development of affordable and

place experienced companies (textbook publishers, effective educational software is critical to the

for example) at significant market advantage over success of interactive technology in schools. Yet,
24

for all the reasons cited above, reliance on the private sector alone will probably not yield an adequately diverse, innovative, and responsive set of

educational software products. State and local governments, and even the Federal Government, have

roles to play in bringing forth affordable and effective educational software.

OTA does not suggest that the Federal Government go into the software development business.

The following policies might be used to strengthen

commercial development of these products:

● Underwrite software research and development (R&D). This is a “technology push” strategy that could reduce the risks faced by software developers. There are a number of existing

programs available to provide support for software development: NSF’s Advanced Applications of Technologies and the Instructional Materials Development Programs;22 the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration’s computer software and interactive videodiscs materials development programs for space science

and aeronautics education; the Department of

Education programs for materials development

for special populations (bilingual education, special education), and priority topics (at risk

youth, drug education), as well as the Department of Education’s research support to the Regional Education Laboratories and National

Research and Development Centers; and the

Department of Defense (DoD) R&D support

for improved basic skills training and cognitive

science applications for more powerful educational software.

● The Federal Government could help States or

districts develop joint mechanisms for defining software needs, encouraging developers,

and acquiring software. One effect of this approach would be to alleviate the difficulty soft-

‘:For example, a panel of education leaders and publishers convened

by the National Science Foundation recently recommended that the

government undertake innovative and risky development of comprehensive software in areas of critical national importance. The panel’s

principal finding was “. . . in the absence of private sector investment

in the computer curriculum necessary for school superintendents to

experiment with these options, the Federal Go\’ernment should subsidize their development at an estimated cost of $20 million for eight

secondary’ school science and mathematics courses. ” Arthur Melmed

and Robert Burnham, New York University, “New Information Technology Directions for American Education, ” report prepared for the

National Science Foundation, December 1987.

ware developers face in attempting to serve a

fragmented market. Federal and State support

need not imply Federal or State control of product development or utilization; school users

should define their own educational software

needs.

Support increased acquisition of more powerful and capable hardware. This “market-pull”

strategy would complement software development efforts. With more computers accessible

to students, demand for educational software

products will probably increase, which will in

turn ameliorate the financial picture faced by

potential developers.

Expand existing State programs for software

review and evaluation. One of the problems

of software review is that it focuses on technical program qualities (such as screen resolution)

rather than on instructional effects. But evaluating the latter is a much more costly undertaking, which the Federal Government could

better afford than individual States. In addition,

there is a need for more systematic dissemination of evaluation findings of various existing

review organizations.

Fund research on “system portability.” If all

schools used the same computer, software development costs would decrease. However, the

choice of a standard might prematurely arrest

hardware R&D, and might lock schools into

systems that meet short-term goals at the expense of long-term progress. The Federal Government could reduce the problems arising from

incompatible computer systems if it were to continue to support research on the development

of transportable codes that would make programs written for one kind of computer compatible with other kinds of computers.

Develop effective intellectual property rights

strategies. Industry associations and academic

consortia have been active in presenting to the

public their case against unauthorized duplication of software. The Federal Government

could help to facilitate agreements between

State education agencies, software publishers,

and school personnel on site-licensing, limited

copying, and the development of pricing and

distribution models that are compatible with

the interests of software publishers and the

educational community.
25

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Federal Role

Today’s most promising educational technology

products are the result of Federal investments in

R&D since the 1960s. These were developed with

very modest levels of finding, and despite poor organization of the Federal R&D effort in education.

Direct Federal funding of R&D for computer-based

educational technology is about $200 million per

year, a tiny fraction of the billions committed to

other major categories of Federal R&D. Only $20

million of that is provided through the Department

of Education. Investment in educational technology R&D has fallen since the mid-1980s. Federal

policy for research on technology for the Nation’s

students has been and remains erratic and disorganized, making it difficult to move from basic research to development, testing, and dissemination.

There is no lead agency for educational technology and no coordinating structure across agencies.

Despite this, individual agencies have played important roles. DoD took the lead in developing computer technology and applying it to education and

training, beginning with early development of the

computer and CAI. More recently, the military services have supported basic research in artificial intelligence, as well as developing prototypes and software for videodisc and interactive learning and

training systems.

NSF has had a major impact on educational technologies in use in schools today, although funding

has varied greatly and emphasis shifted widely over

time. In the past 2 years, there has been a substantial increase in funding for advanced development

of software and systems involving artificial intelligence, authoring languages, problem solving tools,

tutors and expert systems, and applications of technology to formal and informal learning environments.

The Department of Education’s research bud.

get has always been a small percent of its overall

funding, but even this figure declined dramatically

in recent years. From 1973 to 1986, total Department of Education spending increased by 38 percent (in constant dollars). In the same period, rePhoto credit: Office of Library Programs, US. Department of Education

American schools have long sought to provide the

most up-to-date resources for education.

search, statistics, and evaluation spending fell by 69

percent (in constant dollars).23

Viewed another way, these reductions in resources

for educational research, statistics, and evaluation

were more severe than for other Federal agencies

with similar missions. Overall Federal research funds

grew dramatically between 1980 and 1984, but funds

for the National Institute of Education declined by

48 percent. Similar drops were reported for statistical and evaluation funding in the Department.24

“Specifically, the National Institute of Educat[t]n exper[cn~mi a ~~

percent reduction, The National Center for Eclucatl[]nal Statistics a

65 percent reduction, and the OffIce of Plannlng, !3ud~et, and E\alua -

tlon a 64 percent reduction in constant 1972 Clollat->. Eleam]r Chellmskv,

director, Program Evaluation and Nlethodoloxt’ DIilslon, General

Accounting Office, testimony before the House Commlttce on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Select Education, Apr. 20, 198S,

p. 8.

~+~lhlle the ~n~,estment in Statlstica] acttl,lt~, in other statlstica] agc’ll -

CIM clccllned by, 18 percent between 1980 and 1984, the N’ational Cen,

ter for Eclucatlon Statistics experienced a 28 percent reduction. And

v.hlle resour~c~ for e~aluat~on in nondefense Federal departments and

agen~ [es dropped b}, 37 pm-cent, the Department of Education fund<

spent on et’aluatlon contract< decllned by 63 percent. Iblcl, p. 9.
26

Support for R&D in technology dropped as well.

Although important work was done on CAI in the

1960s, television programming in the 1970s, and new

technology initiatives in the early 1980s, technology has been reemphasized by the Department since

1984. The Office of Educational Research and

Improvement has supported few new technology

projects.

In those instances where R&D funding for education has been focused and consistent in the Department of Education and the National Science

Foundation, the results have been positive and

dramatic. Examples include technology for students

with special needs: the physically and emotionally

handicapped and the learning disabled; the development of children’s television programming from

Sesame Street to Square One TV; and the development of LOGO.

Support from the private sector–industry and

foundations–has also been important. Examples are

many and varied, ranging from IBM’s development

of the Writing to Read program, Apple’s Classrooms

of Tomorrow, which explore how an intense computer environment affects teaching and learning, up

to the recently created Institute for Research in

Learning, supported by the Xerox Corp. Without

such private sector support, educational technology

would be greatly impoverished.

The Future of R&D

Research in the cognitive, social, instructional,

and computer sciences is changing our understanding of learning and teaching. Such research investigates education from the learner’s perspective, in

contrast to the curriculum-centered approaches of

past research. Using the learner as the focus of study,

it examines the process of learning: the learner’s initial level of understanding, how preconceptions or

misconceptions affect understanding, where blocks

to new understanding exist, and how these can be

overcome.

This research, when combined with the power of

computer-based technologies, has made possible the

development of a number of promising innovations

for education. These include:

. intelligent tutoring systems that can make the

●

●

●

●

●

●

services of an expert and sensitive tutor regularly available to the learner;

use of the computer as a flexible multimedia

controller, adding the richness of video, graphic,

and audio representations of information;

simulations, exploratory laboratory experiences,

and increasingly complex microworlds that

build student understanding through exploration, manipulation, and guided discovery;

integrated tools or “intelligence extenders” that

enable learners to move from low-level tasks and

concentrate instead on more cognitively demanding tasks;

new assessment techniques that track learning,

diagnose students’ conceptual understandings,

and evaluate the attainment of a range of skills;

new design/knowledge kits that enable teachers

to create and shape their own teaching materials; and

new curricula based on a changing vision of

skills students need in the information age, shifting emphasis from what to learn to how to

learn.

OTA finds that the promising developments of

learner-focused research will not reach full potential unless a number of important barriers are

overcome. Researchers need costly hardware and

advanced systems for R&D. There are shortages of

researchers available to do interdisciplinary educational R&D. Extensive testing of materials and procedures in the schools is necessary. Technologies installed in schools today are not powerful enough

to run sophisticated software applications suggested

by advanced research. Commercial, industrial, and

military applications have been the driving force in

the marketplace for expert systems and other innovations; their requirements are seldom those of the

schools.

Much closer ties between the research community and the classroom are needed. A new dialog

must be established among teachers, researchers,

and school administrators. Teachers need to be exposed to and be part of new breakthroughs in education; researchers need a healthy dose of classroom

realities. Classroom trials are essential to ongoing

development and necessary to assess what works.

The problem is that this takes time and funding.

Contributions from many disciplines will also be required.
2 7

OTA finds that, if educational technology is to

reach its full potential, the level of funding for

R&D must be increased. The Federal Government must take principal responsibility for research, development, and demonstration in educational technology. Very few States, and fewer

districts or individual schools have the capacity to

conduct large-scale research. They also lack the capacity and incentive to disseminate products and

findings. Moreover, the needs and opportunities to

improve learning cross district and State boundaries.

Business and private foundations can and should

be part of the R&D effort, but only the Federal Government can provide leadership, pull together resources, and coordinate dissemination of results.

Congress could build on existing programs:

●

●

Increase funding and target research, development, dissemination, and evaluation in existing Federal R&D programs in various agencies. Congress could plan percentage increases

in R&D budgets for educational technology efforts in the Department of Education, NSF, and

the basic cognitive science research components

in DoD for individual researchers and research

centers. These grants and contracts could require school system collaboration as well as require contributions from the private sector to

leverage Federal dollars.

Set up mechanisms for Federal agencies conducting R&D in educational technology to

pool resources, share information, and work

more closely. It is particularly important to encourage technology transfer from the military

to the civilian education community, since the

military funding for technology R&D in education and training is seven times that of the

civilian sector. Cooperative efforts could include

interagency funding and co-sponsored program

meetings and conferences. Congress could also

request an annual or biannual report that: a)

reviews the activities of all Federal agencies involved in educational technology, b) identifies

opportunities to transfer technology from one

type of activity to another, and c) recommends

future research.

Both these options could strengthen existing programs and allow for diversity of efforts. In light of

the versatility and broad applications of new information technologies, diversity is desirable. However,

these options carry the risk that technology efforts

would have to compete with other Federal priorities for funding, as well as with one another, and

no lead agency would emerge. Furthermore, interagency efforts are difficult to carry out. Moreover,

without a concentration of resources and strategic

planning on technology for education, it is difficult

to make long-term investments. Valuable opportunities for education might be lost. Congress could

support new initiatives to make significant

changes. Policy options include:

●

●

●

Create centers for interactive technology and

education. Centers would conduct research,

development, demonstration, evaluation, and

dissemination of educational technology projects, and would be tied closely to schools. This

option would expand considerably current Federal and private sector R&D efforts25 in terms

of the scale of effort, level of funding, and longterm commitment. Centers should make it possible to attract and retain the best and brightest researchers from interdisciplinary fields to

oversee projects from initiation to final evaluation and to distill and disseminate information.

Create technology demonstration schools.

Demonstrations would marshal all school resources (equipment, curriculum, teachers,

administration, community, and parental support) for integrating technology in the daily life

of the school. Evaluation of the educational effects of a technology-rich school environment

would be a key element, especially if these sites

were connected to university and other research

centers.

Develop a national education futures initiative that would include research, development, and demonstration in educational technology. This effort would pull together at the

national level research, development, and dem--

onstration; teacher training; software development in areas of critical need; longitudinal and

comparative evaluations; and dissemination activities. Congress could include a sunset provision,

perhaps using the year 2000 as an endpoint.26

“For example, the Department of Education’s Educational Technology Center, or the newly formed Institute for Research on Learning,

initiated by the Xerox Corp.

“Models for this level of effort include the Manhattan Project in

atomic energy and the Apollo Mission to put a man on the Moon.
28

An effort of this magnitude would require

establishment of a coordinating body or new

institutional arrangement. One model is the

British “quango,”27 a quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organization that works closely

with government on social policy issues. Such

an education demonstration research corporation—with technology as a major area of study

—could bring together educators, funders, program operators, and researchers to support basic

research and carry out rigorously designed

development, demonstration, and evaluation

projects.

Both these programs sprang from a sense of national emergency and

concentrated human, financial, and technological resources in a clearly

articulated strategic plan of action. A national education futures initiative would not have the simply defined technical goal that characterized Manhattan and Apollo, but would focus national resources and

provide momentum and commitment.

‘

; Major R. Owens, chairman, House Subcommittee on Select Education, Committee on Education and Labor, “Opening Statement, ”

Oversight Hearings on the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Apr. 20-21, 1988.

Finally, Congress may wish to consider new initiatives in international cooperation for educational technology R&D. The European community, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, the Soviet

Union, and other nations are embarking on major

efforts to use interactive technologies to improve

education. The United States and these countries

have common concerns, experiences, and outcomes,

despite varying educational goals and cultural differences. Congress may wish to consider U.S. involvement in cooperative efforts such as sponsorship of

conferences, exchange of researchers, electronic networking, and joint funding of projects. There are

models for international scientific cooperation although little has been done to date with cooperative activities in educational technology R&D. Congress may wish to study this issue further, to identify

the U.S. position with regard to other countries and

to consider ways in which international efforts could

proceed.
Chapter 2

Interactive Technology

in Today's Classrooms

 BORDER

 Shades Mountain Elementary School. Hoover, 
CONTENTS

Page

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..””.””””.”””.”.”.. ““””.” 31

Adoption of Computer and Video Technologies: A Decade of Growth . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Effects of Widespread Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Student Access to Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Beyond Computers and Video . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . .

Figures

Figure

2-1. U.S. Public Schools With Computers, 1987-88

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2-2. Annual Rate of Adoption of Computers in U.S. Public Schools, 1981-87.. . . . . 32

2-3. U.S. Public Schools With At Least One Computer, by Grade Level, 1981-87. . 33

24. VCRs and Computers in U.S. Public Schools, 1982-87. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2-5. School Size and Student Access to Computers, 1987-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2-6. Students Per Computer in U.S. Public Schools by School Enrollment,

1987-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2-7. Variation in Average Student-Computer Ratio by State, 1987-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Tables

Table Page

2-1.

2-2.

2-3.

Distribution of Schools by Computer inventory, 1987-88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Average Number of Students

Ranges of Student Computer

P& Computer in U.S.

Density in U.S. Public

Public Schools, 1983-87 . . 34

Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Chapter 2

Interactive Technology

in Today’s Classrooms

The information age has arrived, and most

are experiencing profound changes

FINDINGS

● There are currently between 1.2 and 1.7 million

computers in U.S. public schools. Over 95 percent of all elementary and secondary schools now

have at least one computer intended for instructional use, compared to 18 percent of schools in

1981.

● The current installed base provides an average of

1 computer for every 30 children enrolled in U.S.

public schools. School size as well as socioeconomic

status of students are important determinants of

the ratio of students to computers. However, actual student utilization of the technology depends

●

●

‘Samuel Y. Gibbon, “Learning and Instruction in the Information

Age,” Vt’har Curriculum for the Information Age? Mary Alice White

(cd.) (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987), p. 1.

ADOPTION OF COMPUTER

A DECADE

Currently there are between 1.2 and 1.7 million

computers in U.S. public schools.2 Since the 1981

academic year, when data on computer use in

schools began to be collected, the number of public schools with computers has grown from about

15,000 to about 77,000, representing an average annual increase of about 11 percent (see figure 2-1).

~Market Data Retrieval, Inc. and Quality Education Data, Inc., the

leading market research firms specializing in school technologies, estimate the 1988 total at about 1.2 million available for instructional use.

TALMLS, on the other hand, a firm that collects data on the computer industry more broadly, reports a total current base of 2.03 million, of which about 375,000 are in private schools. Finally, T.H.E.

Journal, a prominent educational technology magazine, reports the highest figure, 2, 1 million overall, with 1.7 million in the public schools,

based on their recent survey. Variations among these estimates are due

largely to differences in sampling methodology and timing of surveys.

societal institutions

as a result.

Samuel Y. Gibbon’

on many other factors, including the organization of computers in laboratories or classrooms,

the availability of appropriate software, and the

presence of qualified and interested instructors.

Differences in access to computers between black

and white students have abated as more schools

have acquired computers. Gender differences in

student access and utilization tend to dissipate

when computer use is highly structured and closely

linked to the curriculum.

Acquisition of video technology by schools has

grown appreciably, following the pattern of computer acquisition. Today some 91 percent of all

public schools use video technology (videocassette

recorders, VCRs) for instruction.

AND VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES:

OF GROWTH

Peak growth occurred between 1983 and 1984, when

55 percent of the schools without computers acquired at least one (see figure 2-2). There are now

computers in at least 95 percent of the 81,000 public schools (see figure 2-3).

School adoption of the VCR, easily the second

most prevalent new technology of instruction, started

off a bit more slowly. In 1982, for example, when

37 percent of the schools had computers, only 31

percent had video. But by 1987, some 91 percent

of schools were using video, close to the 95 percent

that had computers3 (see figure 2-4).

This record of growth is impressive, and clearly

suggests a widespread willingness on the part of

‘Quality Education Data, Inc., personal communication, May 1988.

31
32

Figure 2-1 .—U.S. Public Schools With Computers,

1987-88’

80

70

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

School year

aTOtal number of IJ,S. public schools: approximately 81 ,Om.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment based on data from Market Data

Retrieval, Inc., and Quality Education Data, Inc., 1988

school districts, schools, teachers, and parents to

explore the possibilities of the new learning technologies. Schools have not embraced the new information tools as enthusiastically as American business firms, where office automation and computerbased data processing are ubiquitous; but they have

shown an extraordinary eagerness to adapt these

technologies to classroom teaching and learning.

According to at least one prominent educator and

advocate of increased use of electronic information

tools, the U.S. has quickly become a world leader

in its attempts to integrate computer-based learning in public schools. q

In a period of less than 10

years, computer-based technologies were introduced

to students with quite different intellectual and behavioral needs by teachers and administrators of varied backgrounds, experience, and technical skill,

working in schools of diverse demographic, racial,

ISpeaklng at the 1987 National Educatmnal G~mputing Conference

in Ph]lacielphla, Mary Allce White noted that American publlc school

adoption ~~f ~c~mputer~ I n the last 7 }’cari wa~ the largest and fastest

In the world.

Figure 2-2.—Annual Rate of Adoption of Computers

in U.S. Public Schools, 1981-87a -

1 1 1 , ! 1

1981- 1982- 1983- 1984- 1985- 1986-

1982 1983 1984 198 5 1986 198 7

School year

aThis graph shows the annual acquisition of computers amon9 schools which

had no computers in the previous year

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment based on data from Quality Education Data, Inc., 1988.

ethnic, and economic composition. Indeed, the

available evidence points to a remarkably high rate

of use: as of 1985, the latest year for which such data

are available, less than 5 percent of the computers

or terminals on school premises were not in use. 5

Effects of Widespread Distribution

These growth statistics tend to obscure an important fact about the rate and magnitude of computer

acquisition. As of 1985, only half of the computerusing high schools and 6 percent of the computerusing elementary schools had 15 or more computers

in any one classroom; it is doubtful whether all or

even half the students in typical classrooms had ac-

‘This figure is based on unpublished data from Henry Becker’s survey of school use of computers. For more information on this survey

see Henry Becker, Center for Social Orgamzation of Schools, The Johns

Hopkins University, “Instructional Llses of School Computers: Reports

From the 198> National Sur\ey, ” Issue No. 2, August 1986.
33

Figure 2-3.— U.S. Public Schools With At Least One Figure 2-4.—VCRS and Computers in U.S. Public

Computer, by Grade Level, 1981.87 Schools, 1982.87

100 I

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1 1 , ( 1 1 1981 1982 1983 1964 1985 1986 198 7

School year

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment based on data from Market Data

Retnevd, Inc , 1988

cess to computers. 6 Most schools still do not have

the quantity of computers that would be necessary

to make them an integral part of the instructional

day. Note, however, that the available data show

differences by grade level in acquisition patterns and

in the size of the installed base. As shown in table

2-1, very few elementary schools have a large number of computers, while over half the high schools

do.

Broad diffusion of the new technology characterized the first decade of this instructional innovation.

Perhaps a more selective introduction of computers

and software could have been more effective at

achieving certain well-defined instructional goals. 7

‘Henry Becker, Center for Social Organization of Schools, The

Johns Hopkins University, “Instruct[ona] Uses of School Computers:

Reports From the 1985 National Survey,” Issue No. 1, June 1986.

‘See, for example, James W. Guthrw, “Campaign ’38 and Education:

A Primer for Presidential Candidates,” I%i Dclra Kappan, \ol. 69, No.

7, Nlarch i988. The author writes: “The pre~aillng stratcgv for lntrodu~]ng computms In U.S. educ-atlon has not hem to find effcttlt,e wavs

to supplement human instruction, hut rather to ensure that each student has an equal, if inadequate, number of minutes each dai on the

computer” (p. 51 6).

100

90

80

70

60

5 0

40

30

20

10

0

I / /

, ( I , 1 1 ~

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

Year

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment based on data from Quality Education Data Inc., 1988

There is a general consensus, however, that decentralized acquisition and implementation created an

explorator y atmosphere in which students’ learning styles, teachers’ pedagogical methods, and various approaches to software design could be tried.8

Preliminary results from this “natural experiment”

are just now coming in (see, for example, chapter

3), and while there is already a basis of data on which

to formulate strategies for the next round of technology implementation and utilization, there is still

a need for open-mindedness and ongoing evaluation.

Student Access to Computers

Today’s inventory of school computers translates

to a rough average of 1 computer for every 30 chil-

‘For an alternative vle;~ espousing greater State-le\el targeting of

computer resoumes, see Stanle}, Pogrow, “PolicY, Recommendation> for

Developin g Appropriate Uses of Technology in California Schools, ”

testlmon}’ before the AssemblY, Committee on Economic Development

and N’ew Technologies, Cahfornia State Ix%is]ature, on the Educational

Techno]og} Local Assistance Program, Jan. 5, 1988.
34

Table 2-1.– Distribution of Schools by Computer Inventory, 1987=88

Number of computers

Schools with computers 1 2-5 8-10 11-20 21+ Total

Elementary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,388 13,164 13,059 12,647 3,900 48,158

(11.2°/0) (27.3%) (27.10/o) (26.30/o) (8.1%)

Junior high. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 1,636 2,135 3,505 4,592 12,222

(2.90/o) (13.4°/0) (17,5°/0) (28.70/o) (37.60/o)

Senior high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 1,348 2,073 3,817 7,320 14,898

(2.30/o) (9.0°/0) (13.9°/0) (25.60/o) (49,1°/0)

Total schools with computers . . . . 6,082 16,148 17,267 19,969 15,812 75,278

 approximately that are not classified as elementary, or senior 

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment based on data from Quality Education Data, Inc., 1988 update.

1 hour per week on the computer. Between 1983

and 1988, the national average improved from about

92 students per computer to the current level (see

table 2-2). In exceptional cases, each child has a computer at school and another one at home. But most

schools still do not have sufficient quantities to allow most students in a typical class access at the

same time (see table 2-3).

There is substantial variance in use of computers

across schools of different size, demographic composition, and location. As OTA reported in 1987,’

school size is a significant correlate of computer

ownership and pupil access. In absolute terms, small

schools have fewer computers than large ones, but

 Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Trends and Status of Computers in Schools: Use in Chapter 1 Programs and Use With

Limited English Students,” staff paper, March 1987.

Table 2-2.—Average Number of Students Per

Computer in U.S. Public Schools, 1983=87

Grade level 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

Elementary . ..........112.4 79.3 55.3 43.7 36.8

Junior high . . . . . . . . . . . 92.3 61.2 41.6 32.9 27.6

Senior high . . . . . . . . . . . 76.6 51.5 37.9 31.1 26.3

All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.3 63.5 45.5 36.5 30.8

SOURCE: Market Data Retrieval, Inc., 1966.

Photo credit: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Available evidence points to a high rate of computer

utilization: as of 1985, less than 5 percent of the

computers on school premises were not in use.

dren. Some teachers have turned this constraint into

an opportunity by connecting the classroom computer to a large screen and involving the entire class

at once in various learning activities. However, on

average, computer-using students spend only about

Table 2=3.-Ranges of Student Computer Density in

U.S. Public Schools

Students Percent of schools

per computer Elementary Junior high Senior high

1-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.5% 43.4% 53.1 0/0

30-59 . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.3 34.3 31.4

60-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 10.9 8.2

90-119 . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 4.8 3.4

120+ . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 6.6 3.9

SOURCE: Office of Technology based on data Quality Education Data, Inc., 1968,
35

smaller schools have proportionally more computers

than large schools (see figure 2-5). Thus, students

who attend relatively small schools are likely to have

greater access to computers than students in large

schools. This “enrollment penalty factor” was documented several years ago10 and seems to have persisted even as overall growth in computer acquisition and utilization has continued. For example, as

shown in figure 2-6, schools with 100 to 199 students on average have twice as good a ratio of students to computers as large schools with 500 to 999

students.

Because minority students are more likely to attend large urban schools, their access to computers

has been worse than that of white students. This

pattern is aggravated by the fact that wealthier

schools have acquired technology more rapidly than

schools with students of predominantly low socio-

“ Challtv Educat~on Data, Inc., Microcomputers and VCR L’sage

In SCTh(XI1.S, 19S5-19% (Denver, CO: 1986). “

Figure 2-5. —School Size and Student Access

to Computers, 1987-88

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1

Figure

s

2-6.—Students Per Computer in

chools by School Enrollment, 19

5 0

II

‘%

40

3 0

2 0

10

0

U.S. Public

87-88’

I

17.3

29.4

22.9

34. 7

33.1

<100 100 200 300 500 1000 2500+

-199 -299 -499 -999 -2500

Enrollment

‘calculations were b-d on sample of 72,159 schools In the database for which

all data were obtainad.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment based on data from Market Data

Retrieval, Inc., 1988.

economic status (SES). In addition, after controlling for SES and school size and location, all of

which have influenced acquisition of new technology, OTA found from an analysis of 1985 data that

predominantly black elementary schools were significantly less likely than predominantly white

schools to have a computer.!]

Average student access also varies by region, as

shown in figure 2-7. It is interesting to note that access to video equipment varies by State, but that

States with relatively good access to one type of technology do not necessarily do as well with other technologies. Alaska, for example, which was ranked

first in average number of students per computer

in 1986, was ranked 11th in average access to video

‘ ‘Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 9, pp. 28-29.

Note that this Prohlem has abated since 1985, because there are now’

very few schools left l~rithout ant’ computers.
36

/

- .,. I

, .,.. .
3 7

It is important to keep in mind that these esti- stalled modern computer laboratory equipment

mates of student access provide rough measures at (such as networking or communications devices),

best. For example, while a school with 300 students children in that school could benefit more from the

and 3 computers has a better ratio (100 students per technology than their counterparts in small schools

computer) than a school with 2,250 students and which do not have the important additional equip15 computers (150: 1), access and use might be su- ment and which may not be as technologically adperior in the latter school. If the large school has vanced.

acquired more sophisticated software, or has inBEYOND COMPUTERS AND VIDEO

Computers and VCRs have become familiar fixtures in the American classroom. There is a strong

belief on the part of many educators that these learning tools belong in the classroom, and there is widespread interest in understanding the conditions

necessary for the new technologies to realize their

potential. In addition, the rapid adoption of computers for classroom use has stimulated great interest in even more advanced systems, and in linking

the powers of the computer to other communications and information technologies.

Indeed, much of the current school equipment is

technologicall y crude compared to the advanced systems commonly found in business, scientific, and

military settings. Computers typically found in

schools, compared to typical office computers, operate with one-quarter the speed and about half the

screen resolution quality. Thus, while these computers are being used in many areas of instruction,

they typically cannot accommodate the latest developments in software that call for substantial storage and high-speed processing.

The new instructional technologies are costly.

Even free-standing computer and peripheral equipment, such as disc drives and printers, can be taxing to local school budgets (see chapter 4). Nevertheless, advanced systems have begun to appear in

some schools. For example, as discussed in greater

detail in chapter 8, there are over 6,000 schools with

modems, 15 and over 26,000 schools in districts with

modems; 35 States currently support “distance learning” programs, many of which use satellite technology to bring instruction to children in isolated areas;

there are roughly 650 school districts with satellite

dishes; and some schools have installed networked

systems of computers, which often include integrated

instructional and classroom management software.

At the same time, advances in software design,

which tend to outpace the capacity of schools’ hardware, have shown how basic research in cognition

and learning might be applied to classroom instruction. Some of the newest software exploits the increasing convergence among computer, television,

and telephone technologies, embodied in such devices as the laser disc or the electronic bulletin board.

But these systems are still prohibitively expensive

for most schools.

At present, the most sophisticated technologies

for interactive learning are still in the experimental

stage—in the research laboratory and in a handful

of classrooms, Their fuller implementation awaits

continued evidence of their potential effectiveness,

and will depend on an array of factors: their compatibility with teachers’ current and future classroom

roles; the crafting of economic and organizational

policies to stimulate the production and distribution of affordable and appropriate software; and research that blends laboratory findings with the realities of current and future classrooms. We turn now

to these issues.

f ‘Modems enable computer users to communicate ol’er telephone

lines. See ch. 8.

87-002 0 - 88 - 2 : QL 3
38

Thirty-five States currently support distance learning programs, many of which use satellite technology to bring instruction

to isolated areas. This generic system combines broadcast or narrowcast with VCR use in a media center or class. Most systems have some, but not all, of these elements.

Interactive television made it possible to offer a foreign language class for the first time in 20 years to students in Mackinaw City on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
Chapter 3

The Impact of Technology

on Learning
CONTENTS

Page

41

42

44

45

48

51

51

52

53

54

56

58

59

60

60

61

61

63

65

Box

3-A. Solving Problems With the Algebra Tutor . . .

3$. Microcomputer-Based Laboratories in Practice

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .....”” ““’”””” “

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ....””” ‘“””””” “

Page

50

55

Figures

Page

Figure

3-l. Teachers’ Perceptions of Effects of Using Computers in Classrooms.” . . . . . . . . . 41

3-2. Graphing Equations Using the Computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Writing Scoresby

Table

Page

.
Chapter 3

The Impact of Technology on Learning

INTRODUCTION

One of the most obvious questions about using

interactive technologies in schools is, “Do they

work?” Against a background of growing concern

with the way American public school children are

prepared for productive adult lives, computers and

other electronic media have been hailed for their

potential role in achieving a wide range of educational objectives. While only a handful of the most

solve the difficult problems of American public education, many educators believe that interactive technologies can be an important element, if not the

linchpin, in a broader program of organizational and

substantive reforms. Surveyed for their perceptions

of the effects of computers in the classroom, computer-using teachers supplied a long list of educational objectives for which they believe the technolfervent visionaries think that technology alone can ogy has a positive effect (see figure 3-1).

Figure 3-1.--Teachers’ Perceptions of Effects of Using Computers in Classrooms

I

for which they use computers

disabled students

8

I !

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of responding teachers who reported that “as a result of using computers this is MUCH IMPROVED at our school, ” a

aReSpOnderltS could have choserr “somewhat improved, ” “little changed, ” Or “negatively affected. ”

SOURCE: 1985 National Survey of the Instructional Uses of School Computers, Center for the Social Organization of Schools, The Johns Hopkins University.

41
4 2

Given the promise of technology, a sizable number of educational researchers have taken an interest in systematic and scientific evaluation. State and

local education officials also want to know about

the performance of these technologies as substitutes

and complements for alternative classroom

strategies. 1

The basic question—”Do they work? ’’–covers the

full spectrum of our expectations (and demands) of

the schools: Do the technologies improve students’

acquisition of basic language and computational

skills? To what extent are children’s higher order

intellectual skills sharpened or dulled by exposure

to computer-related systems? Are traditionally

deprived children–those with physical, emotional,

economic, or geographic disadvantages—reached

more effectively by electronic learning tools than

by traditional methods? Do the technologies help

or hinder children’s socialization skills and motivation?

By and large, the research to date supports the

continued use of instructional technologies in the

schools. But it is important to point out that questions of performance and productivity are much

more easily asked than answered, in part because

the near-term effects of educational technologies are

not necessarily the same as the vision of what these

technologies might achieve in the long run. For example, there is evidence that computer-assisted instruction (CAI) can raise achievement test scores

for some students; but there is also wide agreement

that computer technologies can already do more

than provide electronic equivalents of drill and practice workbooks, and that much of their future promise lies in experimentation and development of nontraditional learning methods.

Without evidence of short-run gains, teachers and

students will lose faith in the long-run possibilities

‘The issue of cost-effectiveness, i.e., how the technologies compare

to other methods per dollar of expenditure, is taken up in ch. 4.

of the new learning tools; if so, it will be difficult

to garner the political and financial support necessary to realize the technologies’ potential. On the

other hand, if short-run effects are overemphasized,

researchers and practitioners may lose sight of the

longer-term potential, in which case the grander vision of the technologies’ role in education will remain a vision.

This basic tension is manifest in much of the literature surveyed in this chapter. Many early studies

of CAI, for example, relied on changes in standardized mathematics and reading scores as the criteria

for effectiveness. This approach allows for rigorous

measurement, because test scores provide a quantitative proxy for a range of cognitive outcomes; but

there is concern with the validity of standardized

tests generally, and with their impact on teachers’

classroom strategies. Further, standardized tests are

not indicators of long-run effects of interactive technologies on higher order analytical and language

skills specifically. On the other hand, tests that could

measure other goals of education, including motivation, creativity, and social behavior, are necessarily constrained by state-of-the-art measurement

techniques.

The research reviewed here addresses a wide range

of learning technologies, applied in many different

settings with diverse populations of children and

teachers. Although the results are somewhat scattered and impressionistic, they do suggest how certain configurations of hardware and software, used

with particular populations of children and under

the supervision of competent teachers, contribute

to the achievement of specific instructional objectives. In the light of these considerations, school

administrators planning the implementation of a

particular computer-based system need to tailor

the application to their school’s and students’

needs, and should not expect to see aggregate research results exactly replicated in their particular

environment.

FINDINGS

● CAI has been the most researched of the various interactive technologies. It has been demonstrated to be an effective supplement to traditional

classroom instruction. In particular, elementary

school children who used CAI showed gains

equivalent to between 1 and 8 months of instruction over peers who received only traditional instruction. CAI may be more effective for low-
4 3

●

Photo credit: Kjell-Jon Rye, Bellevue High School, Bellevue, Washington

Hands-on technology applications provide meaningful contexts for learning and encourage students

to learn from one another.

achieving students than for average and high ability students, even when controlling for base-rate

differences between these groups. While most conventional CAI programs involve drill and practice, there is evidence that the method can be applied to improving higher-order thinking skills

among disadvantaged children. A number of CAI

studies have been challenged on methodological

grounds.

Intelligent CAI (ICAI), or intelligent tutoring systems, represent an attempt to apply advanced artificial intelligence techniques and theories of human

cognition, and are considerably more complex

than standard CAI. ICAI programs employ a

wider variety of teaching strategies than conventional CAI, and allow for more thorough analysis of individual students’ skills, knowledge, and

problem solving processes. Some ICAI systems

track an individual user’s thought processes, identify problems, and provide specific exercises in response. Experimenters with ICAI have pioneered

new approaches to teaching of mathematics, science, and language. These technologies, especially

those that are based on so-called “natural language processing, ” are still in their earliest stage

of development.

. Effects of teaching computer programming as a

means to learn analytical skills more generally are

mixed. The possibility of using programming as

a way to prepare mathematics teachers has gained

credibility, although new and better research is
44

needed. There is limited evidence that programming develops basic thinking abilities.

● Simulation programs have been effective in teaching principles in both the physical and social

sciences.

● Microcomputer-based laboratories (MBLs)--probes

and measurement tools attached to a computer

for use in scientific, mathematical, or musical

laboratories–have been shown to help students

grasp complex concepts as well as to master important analytical techniques (like graphing). The

skill of the teacher using the MBL is a critical

factor.

● The teaching of graphing concepts stands out as

an exemplary application of computer technology in the classroom.

● Database management programs have become

very popular in classrooms. Limited research results suggest that students who use computerized

data management systems outperform other students in tests of information processing skills, including identification of requisite information to

solve a given problem and selection of efficient

modes of organizing information.

● Word processing tools account for roughly 10 percent of the available instructional applications of

computer technologies. While these tools do not,

in and of themselves, create better writers, they

have demonstrated their importance in easing the

physical requirements of writing and revising.

Both normal and learning disabled students who

used the word processor as a supplement to writing instruction made significant gains in writing

ability, compared to control groups that did not

receive the computer-assisted intervention. In

addition, the advent of word processing technology has stimulated new research on essential strategies for reading, critiquing, and revising one’s

own written work, some of which are now being

incorporated into new writing software.

Reading comprehension can be strengthened

through computer-aided reading programs that

aim to improve comprehension through interaction with the whole text. These include decoding and word recognition programs, text mediation programs, and speech synthesis. Disabled

readers seem to enjoy using these technologies,

and have made progress in important aspects of

reading.

Electronic networks—local, national, and international—build cultural bridges that connect children working on different types of projects in

different places. Several science-related communications networks are particularly promising. In

addition, these systems offer a form of “distance

learning” to children and teachers in remote rural areas.

EVALUATION RESEARCH: SCOPE AND METHODS2

Most of the data on the effectiveness of educational technology comes from research on the uses

of computers to enhance learning. The computer

has several unique features relevant to education.

The computer interacts: students provide information to the computer and receive immediate feedback. The computer is precise: learners must be specific and precise in their instructions or responses.

The computer is consistent: instruction and feedback provided in a computer program will be the

same for every student who interacts with that program. In addition, the feedback a student receives

~The remainder of this chapter draws heavily on Joanne Capper,

Center for Research Into Practice, “Computers and Learning: Do They

Work? A Review of Research,” OTA contractor report, Jan. 21, 1988.

is private. Children do not risk public criticism and

embarrassment with a response, and they often have

many chances to try again. The computer can provide multiple and dynamic representations of a concept, phenomenon, or a relationship.

Over the past 30 years, computers have been used

in education primarily to provide drill and practice

or to convey traditional course content. These uses

of the computer had the benefits of releasing teachers

from the drudgery of drill and practice, freeing them

to work with other students on more complex material, and motivating students to attend to otherwise tedious learning tasks. These early uses of the

computer did not necessarily address the more creative, reflective, or meaningful aspects of learning.
.—45

It is only in the last few years that computer use

has moved beyond this workbook approach to

learning. Only now are there more than a few software and computer applications that encourage the

active construction of knowledge, provide meaningful contexts for learning, promote reflection, foster

intellectual work similar to that encountered in an

adult’s work world, and free students from many

of the tedious aspects of learning,

There are several approaches to studying the effects of computers in the classroom. ’ Cognitive researchers focus on the intellectual processes that are

tapped by the computer. Their focus is often the

individual student engaged in a problem solving

task. Because research in cognition has successfully

explored the finer-grained aspects of teaching and

learning, it has been able to contribute to some of

‘The revlmv of research that follows is intended to be Illustrative

rather than comprehensit’e, The studies described were selected to give

the reader a sense of the type of research underway and the trends

that are emerging from the results of that research.

The methods used for Identlfylng sources consisted of: 1) Educational

Resc>urccs Information Center (ERIC) and IIbrary searches; 2) references cited in research articles; 3) telephone calls to funding agencies

(L1.S. Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and

the Office of Na\’al Research); and 4) telephone calls to researchers

regarding the status of their work and to identify others working in

the field. The latter two methods were found to be the most efficient

In that fundcrs and researchers tend to be familiar with the work of

their colleagues.

The primary focus of this retlew IS computer-tool applications as used

In basic sub)ect areas. The areas not addressed include: computer use

at the college and university level; computer use In milltary train[ng;

Instructional design Issues; social, affective, and equity Issues; videodiscs; distance Iearnlng; modeling; and computer applications in art,

music, foreign language, or vocational education.

the more sophisticated developmental work with

computers. The strength of this line of research is

that it can tell us how something works (e.g., a piece

of software) and why it affects learners that way—

valuable information to guide future efforts.

Other studies consider how the technology or the

software is used by individuals, by small groups of

students, or by entire classrooms. Often the intent

of this type of research is to improve the software

or computer application, or to determine the extent

and type of training needed to support teachers in

their use of the technology. Some studies of this sort

explore the contextual factors that influence how

computers are used in schools—factors such as district support, extent of resources (hardware, software, and training), or equity issues. Traditional experimental studies where computer-using students

are compared to control groups of students working on the same topics without computers can reveal whether or not a treatment worked in a particular setting; but they usually omit information

about why a particular treatment worked.

Current testing techniques are relatively advanced

in assessing whether or not students have learned

basic content knowledge, but are still immature in

assessing more complex thinking skills and changes

in attitude toward learning. Many computer applications aim to enhance complex types of thinking

and problem solving abilities. Without appropriate

techniques to measure these abilities, we can only

infer effects. Consequently, the research findings reviewed in the following pages are limited to effects

that can be currently measured.

COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION

For almost 30 years, computers have been used

to provide instruction and drill and practice in basic

computation and language skills. CAI is the oldest

instructional application of computers and the most

researched. 4 The early CAI programs were pro-

‘.See, for example, P.K. Burns and W.C. Bozeman, “ComputerAssisted Instruction and Mathematics Achievement: Is There a Relationship?” Educational Tmhnology, October 1981; Joanne Capper and

Carol Copple, “Computers in Education: Research Review and Instructional Implications, ” The Research Into Practice Digest, vol. 12, No.

3, spring 1986; J.F. Vinsonhaler and R.K. Bass, “A Summary of the

Major Studies on CAI Drill and Practice,” Educarlonal Technology,

vialed through large mainframe, time-sharing computer systems, operated and controlled from a central location. Examples of such systems include

PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations), created at the University of Illinois,

and Stanford University’s CAI project for elementary reading and mathematics skills.

vol. 12, 1972; Dean Jamison et al., “How Effective Is CAI? A Review

of the Research,” Educational Leadership, vol. 33, 1975; and S.S. Hartley, University of Colorado, “Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Individually

Paced Instruction in Mathematics,” doctoral dissertation, 1977.
46

Until recently, mainframe or minicomputers were

necessary to accommodate comprehensive and integrated curricula that could cover the entire grade

span of an elementary or secondary school. With

advances in memory and speed of microcomputers,

however, and with the emergence of optical storage media (such as compact disc-read only memory,

known as CD-ROM), integrated approaches to CAI

no longer require mainframe computers: systems

now being marketed by several companies use a

microcomputer-based file server located in the same

computer laboratory where the children work at terminals. While this change has brought about substantial cost reduction, it has not changed the basic

philosophy of CAI, which involves a direct link between student and software and the transfer of basic

instructional decisions from teacher to curriculum

developer.

Even after the introduction of stand-alone computers (microcomputers), CAI programs remained

little more than computerized workbooks. Information was presented on the screen, students were

asked to indicate a response, and their response was

evaluated. If the student was correct, he or she

moved on; if incorrect, similar additional problems

were given until correct responses were elicited.

Many programs of this type are still used because

they have proven effective when used in conjunction with traditional instruction.

Critics of CAI argue that drill and practice tasks

could be done just as easily without computers.

Another complaint is that CAI promotes passivity

on the part of the user.

Advocates argue that many students who have

not mastered basic skills can benefit from drill and

practice, and that the computer helps to motivate

students. In addition, the teacher is freed up to provide initial instruction and to work with individuals or small groups of children.

Hundreds of studies were conducted to determine

the effectiveness of CAI. Several researchers have

synthesized the results of a number of individual

studies conducted at various levels to see if the results held up across studies. These syntheses reveal

that elementary level students who received brief

daily CAI lessons as a supplement to instruction

showed gains equivalent to 1 to 8 months of instruction over their peers who received traditional inSecond graders’ views of computers, submitted to the

Computer Learning Month contest.

struction only.5 However, when CAI is used as the

sole basis for instruction, the results are mixed.

Other findings show that CAI is more effective at

raising achievement among low-achieving students

than for average or high-achieving students, and

that students complete material faster with CAI

than with traditional instruction, sometimes as

much as 40 percent faster. Increases in student attendance, motivation, and attention span have also

been reported in most studies. Students who learned

on the computer remembered as much of the ma-

‘James A. Kulik et al., “Effectiveness of Computer-Based Education

in Elementary Schools,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 1, 1985,

pp. 59-7’4.
4 7

terial as did students who received traditional instruction only. Similar results were revealed in

studies of CAI with secondary or college and adult

populations, However, the gains in achievement

were less significant.6

One criticism of CAI is based on a question of

equity. Economically disadvantaged children and

low-achieving children, many of whom are in federally supported programs (for example, under

Chapter 1 of the Education and Consolidation Improvement Act of 1981), use the computer largely

for drill and practice in basic skills. Gifted students,

as well as children in predominantly white lowincome schools, do less CAI and more programming

than do students in predominantly minority elementary schools.;

It might be argued that low-achieving students are

more likely to need the type of support provided

by drill and practice. But while low-achieving students do need to master basic skills, they can also

benefit from instruction that develops their higher

cognitive abilities and learning strategies, Unfortunately, there is a tendency to consider such instruction beyond the ability of low-achieving students

and to offer only gifted and high-achieving students

such opportunities (with and without the computer).’

An exception is the Higher Order Thinking Skills

(HOTS) Program developed at the University of Arizona. The program is designed to teach thinking

skills to Chapter 1 students, primarily by teaching

teachers to ask questions that elicit thinking responses. Teachers are also taught how to use selected

software as the focus of Socratic dialogs with students. Early results indicate that Chapter 1 students

enrolled in the HOTS program showed substantially

‘Dean Jamumn et al., “The Effect\vcness of Alternative Instructional

Med[a: A Survey,” Re\ie\+ of Educational Research, vol. W, No. 2,

1974, pp. 1-6; D.N. Hansen, “Computer Assistance With the Educational Process,” Re\iew of Educational Research, vol. 36, 1966, pp. 588-

603; and David B. Thomas, “The Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted

Instruction in Secondary Schools, ’’AEDSjourna/, vol. 12, No. 3, 1979,

pp. 103-115.

‘Henry J. Becker, School Uses of Microcomputers: Reports From a

A’arlonal Survey (Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of

Schools, The Johns Hopkins Univers~ty, 1983-1984), issues 1-6; and

Ellzabeth Reisner, The L!~e of Computers In Instructwn Supported L1nder Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidatmn and Impro~cment Acr

(Washington, DC: Policy Studm Association, 1983).

‘Beau F. Jones, “Qualitv and Equalltv Through Cognitl\’e Instruction,” Educational Lcadershlp, April 1986, pp. 5-11,

greater gains on standardized tests when compared

with the national average. According to its developer, the HOTS program is designed to develop

thinking abilities among students in Chapter 1

programs.”

While the results concerning the effects of CAI

are generally favorable, they are based on studies

that have been frequently criticized on methodological grounds. One problem, for example, is that

the computer treatments in some studies were supplementary while control treatments were not. Students using computers would receive 40 minutes per

day in mathematics instruction, 10 of which would

be devoted to drill and practice on the computer,

while the control students would only receive 30

minutes of instruction. In this case, one cannot be

sure that the increased performance of the treatment

students was due to the extra 10 minutes per day

or to the drill and practice on the computer. Would

the results be so significant if the control students

received an extra 10 minutes using flash cards or

some other form of drill? Other flaws include disproportionate attrition from experimental groups,

nonrandom assignment of students to treatments,

incommensurable instructional content provided to

control groups, and differences in relevant teacher

attributes in control and treatment groups. In one

review study, 26 out of 51 research reports were

deemed unusable because of various methodological problems; however, the positive results of CAI

remained stable even after eliminating the flawed

studies. 10

The main problem with the results of this 30-

year body of research is that it provides no insight

into how CAI produced those learning outcomes.

It is only recently that researchers have begun to

ask more useful questions, such as how and what

students learn when they interact with computerbased instruction. A national field study being led

by Henry Becker of The Johns Hopkins University

‘Stanley Pogrow, “Preliminary Report on the Effectl\cness of the

HOTS Program,” unpublished data, 1987.

‘pHenry J. Becker, The Impacr of C(~mputer L’sc on Ch//dren’s

Learning: What Research Has Shown and M“hat It Has A’ot (Baltlmore,

MD: The Johns Hopkins University, Center for social C)rgan(zation

of Schools, 1987). See also Richard E. Clark, “Evidence for Confounding

in Computer-Based Instruction Studies: Analyzing the Meta-Anal\~ses, ”

Educational Communications and Technolog\’Journal, \’ol. 33, 1985,

pp. 2-1~-262; and Patrick Suppes and Mona Morningstar, “ComputerAssisted Instruction,” Science, \ICI1. 166, Oct. 17, 1969, pp. 3+3-350.
48

is designed to provide information about the features of various computer-based programs that influence learning. The study has a large and representative sample, will last 3 years or more, and will

collect information on how various programs are

implemented in different grades and for different

subjects each year.

Intelligent CAI

ICAI is a branch of artificial intelligence devoted

to developing instruction in curricular areas. The

distinctions between CAI and ICAI are subtle and

profound. With CAI, instruction is controlled by

the developer of the program who determines what

is presented, how much information is presented,

the order of presentation, and the specific questions

to which the student must respond. CAI programs

cannot respond to students’ questions, responses,

or problems that are not specifically designated in

advance by the programmer. ICAI programs, on the

other hand, theoretically increase students’ control

over the machine and allow them the opportunity

to learn by doing. Students interact with the computer rather than merely respond to it in a prespecified way; tutoring is often carried on in dialog form

as a response to student input. In addition, ICAI

is characterized by a far more thorough and finegrained analysis of the skills, knowledge, and procedures involved in solving problems in a subject

area. The strength of ICAI is not only the substantially more precise and detailed understanding of

the nature of learning and problem solving, but also

the ability of the program to articulate, or make

transparent that understanding in a form that can

be absorbed by the student. ICAI programs specify

in detail a mix of three types of knowledge: the

declarative knowledge (what), the procedural knowledge (how), and the metacognitive knowledge (thinking about what and how).

ICAI, also referred to as an intelligent tutoring

system, can generate and solve problems, store and

retrieve data, diagnose students’ misconceptions, select appropriate teaching strategies, and carry on

dialogs with students. In addition, intelligent tutoring systems employ a wider variety of teaching strategies than are likely to be found in a simple CAI

programs. Many intelligent tutoring programs incorporate simulations and/or games that allow students the opportunity to “try out” their evolving

models of knowledge in a domain.

Two science programs exemplify these advanced

CAI efforts. Batteries and Bulbs, developed by researchers and educators at the Educational Technology Center at the University of California, Irvine, teaches electric circuitry in a way that conveys

important aspects of the scientific method. It simulates electric circuit problems and students connect

wires on the screen with the objective of lighting

a simulated bulb. In addition, the program keeps

track of a student’s progress, offering assistance if

a student consistently makes mistakes on a particular

type of problem. Studies of Batteries and Bulbs show

that students typically complete the program within

an average of 2 hours and exhibit a qualitative understanding of terms such as “current” and “resistance,” and a rudimentary understanding of a model

of simple electrical circuits.12

QUEST is another program in electric circuitry

that contains simulation activities, but unlike those

in Batteries and Bulbs, the QUEST simulations allow students a variety of solutions to a problem

while also designing an arbitrary circuit of their own

that they can test through simulation. This aspect

of the simulation works because all of the formal

electrical laws of circuitry are built into the program

and used to determine whether or not a circuit

works. In addition, the “proof’ or solution of a circuit is broken down and students can walk through

a step-by-step, voice-simulated explanation of the

proof.

The QUEST learning environment provides students with the opportunity to select from among

several instructional approaches. For example, the

open-ended exploration option lets students construct and modify circuits and test them with the

simulation to see how they work, and with the

problem-driven learning option, the system presents

a series of problems for students to solve and gives

1}James L. Poirot and Cathleen A. Norris, “Artificial Intelligence

Applications in Education,” The Computing Teacher, August/September 1987, pp. 8-10. Much of the information in this section is drawn

from Christopher J. Dede et al., Massachusetts Education Development Center, “Intelligent Computer-Assisted Instruction: A Review

and Assessment of ICAI Research and Its Potential for Education, ”

unpublished manuscript, 1985.

lzAlfred Bo rk, Personal Compurers for ~ducarion (New York) ‘y :

Harper & Row, 1985).
4 9

computer-generated voice explanations of the solution when requested by the student. QUEST is

based on cognitive research that identified the essential knowledge about electric circuits and the optimal way to teach that knowledge. As of fall 1986,

seven students have worked with the complete

QUEST program, and after 5 hours of “play,” all

of the students were able to answer simple questions

about circuits and could troubleshoot for opens and

shorts-to-ground in series circuits.13

Developers of intelligent tutoring systems have attempted to integrate findings from research on how

novices learn and how experts solve problems. For

example, a feature found in some programs is the

audit trail, which leaves a record of a student’s work

as he or she progresses through problem solving.

This trail allows students to look back over their

own or other students’ work and to reflect on the

relative value of various approaches to problem solving. The intelligent tutoring system allows students

to practice problem solving strategies, and is designed to diagnose errors and provide feedback when

a student makes an error or needs help. The tutor

does not intervene as long as the student generates

correct solution steps. Box 3-A illustrates and describes how an algebra problem is solved with an

intelligent tutoring program called the Algebra

Tutor.

Similarly, the Geometry Tutor is an intelligent

tutoring system that employs audit trails and is currently under study at Carnegie-Mellon University’s

Advanced Computer Tutoring Project.14 It provides instruction in proving geometry theorems and

focuses on teaching students to problem solve and

to plan when they prove theorems. According to

the authors of the Geometry Tutor, these skills are

seldom emphasized in a standard geometry curric1]Barbara Y. White and J.R. Frederiksen, “Intelligent Tutoring Systems Based Upon Qualitative Model Evolutions,” Proceedings ofAAAI86: The National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Philadelphia,

PA: American Association of Artificial Intellgience, 1986); and Barbara Y. White and J.R. Frederiksen, Progressions of Qualitative Models

as Foundation for Intelligent Learning Environments, Report No. 6277

(Cambridge, MA: BBN Laboratories Inc., 1986).

I+John R Anderson et a]., The Geometry Tutor (Pittsburgh, pA;

Carnegie-Mellon University, Advanced Computer Tutoring Project,

1985); C.F. Boyle, “The Geometry Tutoring Project in Action,” Educational Leadership, March 1986; and C.F. Boyle and John R. Anderson, “Acquisition and Automated Instruction of Geometry Proof Skills,”

paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, New Orleans, 1984.

ulum. Students often complete a geometry course

with only a modest ability to generate proofs and

little deep understanding of the nature of proofs.

The Geometry Tutor monitors students while they

are actually engaged in solving the problems and

provides instruction and guidance during the problem solving process. Students do not have to wait

until their papers are corrected to receive feedback.

Feedback is immediate, precise, instructionally relevant, and based on a far more thorough analysis

of problem solving behavior than would be possible with one teacher and a classroom full of students.

The Geometry Tutor was initially tested on a few

high school students, some who had no geometry

instruction and some who had just completed a high

school geometry course. After 10 hours of instruction, all students were able to solve problems that

their teachers considered too difficult to assign to

their classes. In fact, a student who had almost failed

geometry was successful, and the students considered their time on the computer as fun. The researchers are now testing the Geometry Tutor in

a high school, comparing the treatment students’ performance with that of a control group of students,

Other intelligent tutoring systems have been developed in a variety of areas. For example, SOPHIE

(Sophisticated Instructional Environment)15 provides students with a way to solve problems by trying out their ideas within the context of a simulated

electronics laboratory. The system can answer students’ questions, critique their hypotheses regarding why a piece of circuitry equipment is not working, and suggest alternative explanations. SOPHIE’s

ability to communicate with students depends on

its natural language capabilities. The process of

programming a computer to understand the ambiguities of natural language (English rather than

Fortran) is one of the most intractable problems confronting artificial intelligence researchers today.

SOPHIE approaches this problem by replacing conventional categories of grammar, such as nouns and

verbs, with categories that represent concepts relevant to the SOPHIE system, such as circuit, transistor, or hypothesis. The system then attends only

“John Seely Brown et al., “Pedagogical, Natural Language, and

Knowledge Engineering Techniques in SOPHIE I, II, and III, ” Inrelligenr Tutoring S}rstems, D. Sleeman and J.S. Brown (eds. ) (London:

Academic Press, 1982).
50
5 1

to the concepts it recognizes and tries to make sense

of students’ responses from those concepts, ignoring other pieces of information.

Impressive as this program might be, it is still a

long way from understanding the subtleties of natural language. In fact, most artificial intelligence experts are cautious in their estimates of when, if ever,

computers will really be able to cope with natural

language. 16 Nonetheless, SOPHIE, along with

other natural language-based tutors such as Writer’s

Workbench (AT-&T), Critique (IBM), and RINA

(created at the artificial intelligence laboratory at

the University of California at Los Angeles) have

raised the hope that language barriers might be surpassed much the same way computers have overcome human limits to complex mathematical computation.

“Terrv \Y’lnograd, an associate profc~mr of computer sc~ence and

llngulstl~s at Stanford Lln]i’ersit}, says flatly, “It’s not In sight . . . it’s

not something that can be done bv improt’lng and tuning up exlst]ng

systems.}’ In B. Wallraff, “The Literate Computer,” Ar]arlric .ifc>nrh~~,

vol. 261, No. 1, Januar} 1988, p. 11.

MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE

Programming

For over 25 years, mathematics educators have

advocated the use of programming for teaching

mathematics on the grounds that, “Children who

program solutions to science and mathematics problems develop a procedural understanding of the fundamental theories of these disciplines.”17

The effects of using programming to teach mathematics at the elementary and middle school level

are mixed, Two studies showed that students who

did not use programming outperformed those who

did, while two other studies found partial and limited support for programming, At the high school

level, four studies found that students who received

programming instruction in addition to mathematics

instruction performed less well than did students

without programming instruction. Two studies

found partially positive results. i

’

‘-Svl~la A. Shafto, “Programming for Learning in Mathematics and

Science,” paper presented at the Conference on Inno~’ative Microcomputer Apphcanons in Schcd Programs, Friends School, Baltimore, MD,

March 1985. See also National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,

The Impact of Computing Technology on School Mathematics: Report of an NCTA4 Conference (Reston, VA: 1984); National Research

Council, Renewing U.S. Marhemarics (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1984); Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences,

The Mathematical Sciences Curriculum K-12: What 1s Still Fundamen.

tal and What IS Not, Report to the National Science Board Commlsslort on Precollege Education In Mathematics, Science and Technology}! (Washington, DC: N’atlonal Science Found auon, 198 3); and

Richard J. Shumway, Ohio State Unitersltv, “Mathematical Concept

Lcarn[ng Through Computer Programming: A Surve~’ of Related Re-

~earch, ” unpublished manuscript, 1985.

‘“Research on programming In middle schools IS reported [n D.F.

Robltaille et al., “The Effects of Computer Utlllzatlon on the Achle~ement and Att]tudes of N’inth-Grade Mathcmatlcs Students, ” ]ournai

Another use of programming has been to prepare

student teachers to teach facts and concepts of mathematics. From one such experience the researcher

observed certain essential difficulties for both

teachers and students: 1) students who have problems learning mathematical concepts are likely to

find programming concepts equally elusive, 2) additional and more complex cognitive effort is involved in establishing a connection between programming and mathematics, and 3) learning to

program requires a great deal of time—time that

could be devoted to learning mathematics.19 Nevertheless, the idea that programming might be an effective vehicle to teach mathematics and to prepare

teachers of mathematics is appealing and warrants

ongoing study, perhaps along different theoretical

lines.20

for Research in Mathematics Education, Lol. 8, 1977, pp. 26-32; and

D.T. King, “Research on Computers in Ma[hematlcs Educat~on,” The

Use of Computers in Mathematics Educatmn Res[mr,-e Series (Columbus, OH: ERIC, 1973).

High school results are discussed in S.M. Katz, Temple Llnl\erslty,

“A Comparison of the Effects of TWO Computer Augmented h4ethods of Instruction With Traditional Methods Llpon Achle~’ement of

Algebra II Students in a Comprehensive High School,” doctoral dissertation, 197 1; R.F. Ronan, University of Michigan, “A Study, of the

Effectiveness of the Computer When Used as a Teaching and Learning Tool in High School Mathematics, ” doctoral dl~sertatlon, 1971;

and Larry L. Hatfield and Tom E. Kleren, “Computer-Assisted Problem Solving in School Mathematics, ’’journal fi>r Research In ,ifathematics Education, vol. 3, 1972, pp. 99-112.

1“J.B.H. duBoulay, “Teaching Teachers Mathematics Through Pr(>-

gramming,” lnternationa~ Journa/ of Mathematical Edu~’atlc)n In Science and Tec-hnolog\’, ~wl. 11, 1980, pp. 347-360.

~:See, for example, G. Blume, “ A Re\’iew of Research on the Effects

of Computer Programming on Mathematical Problem Solving, ” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associat~on, N’ev,’ Orleans, 1984.
52

Employability

Programming has been taught in schools in part

to enhance students’ employment opportunities after

graduation. Researchers at the National Commission for Employment Policy examined the need for

computer skills in the work force and concluded that

only about 1 percent of the work force will require

long periods of computer training (for example, engineers and scientists who design computers, programmers, and system analysts). Another 1 percent will

need to be able to write their own programs (for example, some engineers, scientists, technicians, and

accountants). The remaining computer users, however, will learn their skills in brief, on-the-job training. These findings suggest that computer programming need not be part of the general curriculum but

should be part of a total training package for occupations that require computer use.21

Programming and Thinking

Evidence to support the belief that programming

develops students’ thinking abilities is limited and

mixed. One study found that students who learned

BASIC did no better than control students on three

problem solving subtests: understanding the problem, carrying out the plan, and looking back at the

problem. 22 This result is supported by the finding

that students who spent a year programming did

not differ from control students in planning efficient

routes for completing a set of chores.23 Positive results were found in a large-scale study of LOGO in

15 schools over 7 months. The LOGO students

showed significantly more improvement than did

non-LOGO students on a test of nonverbal cognitive abilities, exhibited less reliance on their teachers,

and showed more independent judgment.24 In

addition, 9- to 1 l-year-old students who received

~lHarold Goldstein and Bryna S. Fraser, Training for Work in the

Computer Age: How Workers Who Use Computers Get Their Training (Washington, DC: National Commission for Employment Policy,

1985).

22M. Ford, Arizona State University, “Effects of Computer Programming on the Problem Solving Abilities of Sixth Grade Students,” doctoral dissertation, 1984.

‘]Roy D. Pea and D. Midian Kurland, LOGO Programming and the

Development of Planning Skills, Technical Report No. 16 (New York,

NY: Bank Street College of Education, Center for Children and Technology, 1984).

~4T.A. Swartz et al., “Looking Into a Large-Scale LOGO Project,”

paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, New Orleans, 1984.

1 year of instruction in LOGO performed significantly better than control students on two of four

problem solving tasks.25 Another study of 18 6-

year-olds found that students who received 12 weeks

of instruction in LOGO outperformed students who

used the computer to study reading and mathematics

in a CAI environment. Students were assessed on

measures of creativity, metacognition (ability to

monitor and evaluate one’s own thinking processes),

and on their ability to provide accurate descriptions—an important skill in programming. The two

groups did not differ on general measures of cognitive development.26

Simulations

Computer programs developed to simulate complex processes that occur in the world are available

in several disciplines, including the physical and social sciences. The computer simulates a process

through a variety of activities, including writing messages, “acting-out” the process of a phenomenon

through illustrations and animation, and drawing

graphs based on simulated data. Examples of simulations range from programs that allow students to

see how an object behaves in a Newtonian environment, to programs that allow students to play the

roles of world leaders making important decisions.

Some simulations are able to represent complex

scientific concepts in ways that are impossible without computers. These representations attempt to increase the understanding students have of concepts

that have been traditionally quite difficult to grasp.

Physical Sciences

In physics, several pieces of software have been

developed to simulate an artificial, frictionless world

where the laws of Newtonian physics can be examined. Students can perform experiments and observe

results that are not possible in a friction-filled, classroom environment. One study used two computer

simulations to diagnose and correct first-year college physics students’ misconceptions about speed

‘5Joyce Statz, Syracuse University, “The Development of Computer

Programming Concepts and Problem Solving Activities Among TenYear-OIds Learning LOGO,” doctoral dissertation, 1973.

lhD. Clements and D.F. GuIIo, “Effects of Computer Programming

on Young Children’s Cognition, ” Journal of Educational Psychology,

VO1. 76, No. 6, 1984.
53

and force. In the speed study, racing cars moved

across the screen representing relative motion; in

the force study, rockets represented the principles

of force as related to energy and momentum. Students clearly understood speed better after using the

race car program, but did not improve in their understanding of force after working with the rocket

programs. 27 High school students working with

computer simulations to teach them to solve force

and motion problems using Newton’s laws of motion learned significantly more than students who

did not use the program.28

Social Sciences

Noncomputer-based simulations have long been

used to raise students’ interest in and understanding of social studies. Although research indicates

that simulations do not necessarily improve the

learning of content or skills beyond conventional

instruction, they do seem to increase students’ motivation, attitude, and participation. Simulations can

also be a more effective way to involve students in

decisionmaking processes, and they help convey

complex representations of reality better than print

materials or classroom lecture and discussion.29

Graduate students and faculty at the University

of Michigan have developed two computer-mediated

social science simulations in which students play the

role of national or world leaders engaged in governmental or international affairs. One simulation

represents the United States Constitutional Convention. Another, International Communications

Simulation (ICS), represents the Arab-Israeli conflict. Working in teams of five or more, each student assumes the role of a particular individual or

group represented in the conflict, such as the president or king of the country, the defense minister,

leader of a guerrilla group, or diplomatic envoy.

‘TPeter W. Hewson, “Microcomputers, Conceptual Change and the

Design of Science Instruction: Examples From Kinematics and Dynamics,” South African Journal of Science, vol. 80, 1984.

‘

q

Barbara White, “Designing Computer Games To Help Physics Students Understand Newton’s Laws of Motions,” Cognirion and Znstrucrlon, \ol. 1, No. 1, 1984, pp. 69-108.

“’Allen Glenn and Lee Ehman, Compurer-Based Education in Soc’{al Srudics (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Social Studies De-

~’elopment Center and ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social

Science Education, 1987); and Mark C. Schug and Henry S. Kepner,

Jr., “Choosing Computer Simulations in Social Studies,” The Socia/

S(ud~es, \ol. 75, September/October 1984, pp. 211-215.

Teams are dispersed over 15 States and countries,

including Mexico, West German, and France; they

communicate with each other and with university

staff.

Nearly 120 schools have participated in ICS, and

informal evaluations have shown a number of positive effects. Students are more motivated to engage

in high level critical thinking, have a better understanding of the dynamics of political affairs, appreciate the variety of perspectives on issues, gain experience with the computer and computer-mediated

communications, develop insight into the research

process, acquire research skills, have an opportunity to practice writing clear, forceful prose, and experience the challenge of making important decisions and the seeing the consequences of their

decisions.

There are many types of simulations, but very few

have been studied in a research setting. Because of

the wide variability in the types of simulations, it

would be difficult to generalize about the effects on

learning of simulations in general.

Microcomputer-Based Laboratories

One of the more promising uses of computers is

as a tool in the science laboratory. Scientists have

been using computers to measure and graph phenomena for years, but they are just now making

their way into classrooms. These laboratory tools,

called microcomputer-based laboratories (MBLs),

consist of probes attached to a computer. The probes,

interacting with specially designed software, “sense”

and measure various phenomena, such as light, heat,

temperature, brain waves, pulse rate, and distance.

For example, students working with a sound probe

can measure loudness or pitch, and the computer

will record, display, analyze, and play back the

sounds being measured. Students can try to produce

a “smooth” graph by humming a pure note into the

microphone—or can compare the graphs of high and

low notes. They can measure the wave length of

sounds that are an octave apart or compose a tune

by plotting a graph of pitches they select. These

activities help students to gain a sense of what is

meant by the pitch of a tone.

Measurement is not new in school science laboratories. Students spend most of their time measur-
54

Photo credit: Marcia Linn, University of California, Berkeley

Studies of microcomputer-based laboratories (MBLs)

indicate that students using them grasp complex

scientific concepts at a deeper level of understanding

and become more proficient in using graphs than when

MBLs are not used.

ing, recording, and graphing phenomena of interest; they often get lost in detail and lose sight of the

experiment’s focus—the concepts it is designed to

convey. The computer can free up students to ask

the “What if?” questions that characterize the practicing scientist’s world.

A number of studies of MBLs in science laboratories indicate that students using MBLs grasp complex scientific concepts at a deeper level of understanding than when MBLs are not used. 30 I n

addition, MBLs have been successful in helping students to understand graphs–an important skill in

learning science, but one that students often fail to

master.

A critical factor in MBL use in the classroom is

the way it is used by the teacher. Researchers examined a teacher’s approach to using MBLs with

various groups of students: one honors class, two

average-ability classes, and one class of learning disabled students with average or above average intelligence. The teacher was most structured with the

special needs students, discouraging them from exploring the equipment or from trying variations of

‘%farianne Wiser, Designing a Microcomputer-Based Laboratory To

Induce the Differentiation Between Heat and Temperature in Ninth

Graders, Technical Report No. 85-15 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University, Educational Technology Center, 1985); and Marcia C. Linn

et al., “Cognitive Consequences of Microcomputer-Based Laboratories:

Graphing Skills Development,” Journal of Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 1986.

an activity presented on the laboratory sheets. With

the honors students, the teacher allowed substantially more autonomy. All students, except those

in the special needs class, showed significant gains

in their overall scores in mathematics skills and in

understanding scientific concepts. The researchers

plan to conduct further studies where learning disabled students use MBLs in an inquiry-based instructional setting. 31

Educators and scientists generally agree that it is

important for students to engage in a process of scientific inquiry. This is often characterized by extensive discussions where students attempt to construct

defensible explanations for observable phenomena.

Researchers noted that many teachers tended to use

MBLs in a very structured way, with little or no discussions of experiments. In some instances, little time

was devoted to independent exploration or experimentation. In fact, even projects that trained

teachers in the use of inquiry-based instructional

strategies for use with a particular computer application showed that teachers reverted to a procedural

approach. (See box 3-B.)

Graphing

National test results show that students do poorly

at graphing, despite the fact that graphing receives

considerable attention in both algebra and geometry classes. Graphs are a powerful way to see functional relationships, for example, relationships between temperature change and time, or pulse rate

and exercise. Students who have a solid grasp of

graphing skills are more adept at studying changes

in physical and social sciences.

The computer is an ideal tool for teaching graphing skills: it provides an instant representation of

the relationships between variables and allows students to see graphs in real time as an experiment

unfolds. The computer frees students from lowerlevel tasks (such as plotting points on a graph by

hand) and allows them to focus on the more abstract, complex, and intellectually meaningful concepts. Results of studies where students use the

computer to develop graphing skills are more consistently positive than any other area of computer

use.

‘iJanice R. Mokros and Deborah L. Levine, Technical Education

Research Centers, “The Use and Impact of MBL as a Function of

Learner Characteristics,” unpublished manuscript, n.d.
55

—

Sixth-grade students who worked in groups of a test of related graphing skills. Several other studies

three used MBLs to produce and observe graphs of using MBLs to develop graphing skills show simimotion in real time. The children’s task was to pro- lar results.33

duce a particular graph by moving about the room.

This was possible because of sonar detectors and

software that “sensed” the direction and speed of

students’ movements. For example, one student

would play the role of the “dancer,” moving about

the room under the direction of two peers who

offered advice about which way to move. When a

graph was completed, students critiqued their own

performance, and often, the dancer would beg for

a chance to repeat the graph until he or she was

satisfied with the results.32 Students exhibited a

solid understanding of distance and velocity graphs

and achieved a mean score of 85 percent correct on

‘~Ron K. Thornton, Tbols for Scientific Thinking: MicrocompurerBased Laboratories for the Naive Science Learner, Technical Report

85-6 (Cambridge, MA: Technical Education Research Centers, 1985).

Game-like strategies are a second approach to

teaching graphing skills. Programs called Green

Globs and Algebra Arcade were developed to help

students understand the relationships between algebraic equations and their corresponding graphs,

This is based on the observation that one skill that

seems to distinguish bright students with an ap

titude for mathematics from other bright students

who are less able in mathematics is their ability to

look at polynomial equations and to quickly visualize what their graphs would look like.

‘~Linn et al., op. cit., footnote 30; and Janice R. Mokros and Robert

F. Tinker, “The Impact of Microcomputer-Based Labs on Children’s

Abilit y to Interpret Graphs,” ]ourna/ of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 24, No. 4, 1987, pp. 369-383.
56

These computerized graphing games develop this

ability by asking students to write an appropriate

equation for a given graph. In Green Globs, the

computer displays coordinate axes with 13 green

globs scattered randomly on the screen. The student’s task is to hit all of the globs with graphs that

are generated by typing in equations. When a glob

is hit, it explodes and disappears. The student’s equation is instantly displayed in graphic form, so the

student receives immediate feedback on his or her

ideas (see figure 3-2).

One evaluation showed that students who regularly used Green Globs increased their graphing abilities more than control students who were unintentionally exposed to the graphing games for a short

amount of time.34

Algebra Arcade–an outgrowth of the Green

Globs graphing program–was used with bright, female high school students who exhibited mathematics anxiety. Students who used the computer in

this study were much more likely to explore relationships, try out ideas, try more experiments, and

ask more questions, such as “If we made the numbers on the coordinates small by making the scale

spaces large, would it speed up our calculations?

What would we miss?” These results carried over

to science laboratory investigations. The computer

students were more likely to explore the differences

in the interplay between phenomena and their representations in models, data tables, and graphs. 35

J4Sharon Dugdale and D. Kibbey, University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign, “Prototype Microcomputer Courseware for Teaching High

School Algebra,” SED80-12449, final report to the National Science

Foundation, 1980.

‘5Mary Budd Rowe, University of Florida, Gainesville, “Computer

Graphics in the Science Laboratory: An Experiment,” unpublished

manuscript, 1986.

MULTIMEDIA PROGRAMS

Several software programs have been developed

in conjunction with videodisc and other media to

provide learning environments in mathematics and

science for students in grades 4-6. The Voyage of

the Mimi was developed by researchers at the Bank

Street College of Education, Center for Children

and Technology. The instructional materials include

learning modules, each with a different type of software and assorted print materials. The software

models a variety of adult uses of technology, including a training simulation, a microworld, a programming environment, and a microcomputer-based

physics laboratory. All of the video programs are

closed-captioned in two languages: English and

Spanish, and since one of the main characters is

deaf, signing is used throughout. A key element of

the design of the Voyage of the Mimi was the involvement of teachers throughout all phases of development.36

‘dCynthia Char and Jan Hawkins, “Charting the Course: involving Teachers in the Formative Research and Design of ‘The Voyage

if the Mimi’,” Children and Microcomputers: Theory, Research, and

Development From Bank Street College’s Center for Children and

Technology (working title), Roy Pea and Karen Sheingold (eds.) (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, in press).

The video documentary segments show scientists

in their actual working environment; students get

a sense of the scientific processes and procedures as

they are used in real work situations. The learning

modules include: simulation games of navigation

problems; an MBL package for gathering and graphing temperature, sound, and light data; and a comPhoto credit: Agency for Instructional Technology

While studying with the Voyage of the Mimi in school,

Colby Leonard became “hooked” on science and built

this bioshelter, a complete ecosystem, in his backyard.
57

Figure 3-2.—Graphing Equations Using the Computer

!- .

{L

J. ..-1

. . ,L ,’

The student types in equations, which are graphed by the computer. The globs explode as they are hit by the graphs. Shown

is the initial display of 13 globs, followed by the student’s first three shots.

SOURCE: Displays of computer screens from Green Globs by Sharon Dugdale and David Kirby, reprinted with permission of the authors. For additional information

see, Sharon Dugdale, “Green Globs: A Microcomputer Application for Graphing of Equations, ” Mathematics Teacher, March 1982.
58

puter simulation that allows students to explore the

food chain, species populations, and the impact of

human intervention on ecosystems. The software

is accompanied by teacher guides that include a comprehensive discussion of whales (one of the major

topics) and suggestions for classroom activities.

The learning modules were field tested over a 2-

year period with 82 teachers and staff developers

from 13 districts across the country to obtain their

reactions to the videotape and software. The researchers observed the use of the materials in classrooms, conducted student and teacher interviews,

and collected daily logs maintained by teachers regarding their perceptions of the materials as they

were being tried out. The researchers conducted 1

week training sessions for teachers in the principles

of inquiry-based instruction.

The integration of inquiry teaching strategies with

the use of technology was the primary goal of the

Mimi project. Inquiry teaching promotes an environment that tolerates ambiguity and encourages

students’ questions. The researchers found that few

teachers were able to adopt or sustain a style of

teaching that encouraged inquiry. Teachers tended

to ask the majority of the questions and rewarded

students for guessing correctly. Teachers required

continual help in maintaining a classroom climate

that emphasized reasoning rather than right answers, and only teachers who had experience in

inquiry-based instruction used the materials in an

open-ended way. The researchers found that it was

important to provide training in the scientific concepts covered in the materials and to give teachers

rich and varied suggestions for classroom activities.

All teachers using the Mimi materials reported that

they intend to use them again and recommended

the materials to other teachers.

~

; Margaret A. Honey et al., “Teaching Technology: Creating Environments for Change,” paper presented at the American Educational

Research Association, Washington, DC, 1987.

DATABASE MANAGEMENT

Students in some classrooms use database management software to store, update, retrieve, organize,

sort, format, and perform computations on data.

Unfortunately, while there are numerous anecdotal

reports enthusiastically describing their use in classrooms across the country, there is very little research

documenting the effects of such tools in learning.

One of the few studies conducted on the use of

databases involved 14 teachers and 665 students in

grades 7 through 12. One group of students used

a computerized database (PFS: Curriculum Data

Bases for U.S. History and for U.S. Government),

while the control students used the same curriculumspecific data printed on 4” x 6” index cards housed

in plastic file boxes.

The key difference between the activities engaged

in by the two groups was in the level of structure.

Students in the computer group received detailed

instruction in how to use the computerized database system to solve problems, define information,

develop data retrieval specifications, interpret and

evaluate retrieved data, and revise retrieval specifications. The control students did not receive similar step-by-step guidance in noncomputerized data

management. In addition, the design of the database program imposed more of a structure in manipulating data than was possible with the students

who used the index card system.

In a carefully controlled experimental design to

test information processing skills, students using the

computer database program in concert with structured activities significantly outperformed the control students. The specific abilities measured on the

Information Processing Scale were: I) to recognize

sufficient information to solve a given problem, 2)

to recognize whether the information presented was

relevant to a given problem, and 3) to discriminate

between efficient and inefficient organizations of information to solve a given problem. ’8

~~Charles White, Indiana University, “The Impact of Structured

Activities With a Computer-Based File Management Program on

Selected Information-Processing Skills,” doctoral dissertation, 1986. See

also Charles White, “Developing Information-Processing Skills Through

Structured Activities With a Computerized File-Management Program,”

Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 3, No. 1, 1987.
59

The use of database systems is likely to increase,

especially as this tool will continue to play a central role in business management, science, and industry. Skills that students need in order to use these

systems include the ability to:

●

●

●

●

●

define a problem in specific terms, perhaps

breaking it up into several small problems;

identify specific data needed to address that

problem;

locate and extract relevant data from the larger

collection of data;

put the data in a useful order (e.g., by size, date,

age);

organize printed lists or arrangements of the

data;

●

●

●

use the information obtained to identify patterns such as relationships or trends (as well as

cases that depart from the patterns);

identify further information needed in order to

explain, interpret or investigate cause and effect relationships; and

communicate findings to others.”39

‘

q

Beverly Hunter, “Know’ledge-Creat~ ~’e Learn[ng With Data Baws,”

Social Education, vol. 51, No. 1, 1987. See also M. Rothman, “Using

the Microcomputer to Study the Anatomv of Revolution, ” The Com -

put~ng Teacher, vol. 10, September 1%2; Tama Traberman, “Using

Interactive Computer Techniques to Detelop Global Llndcrstancllng,”

The Computing Teacher, September 1983; and D.hl. Nlorrison and

J. Walters, “IMMIGRANT: A Social Studies Slmulatl(>n for AppleWorks,” Computers in the Classroom: Experiences Tcach!ng \Y’lth Fle.x-

~blc Took, C. Thompson and L. Vaughn (eels. ) (Chelrnsford, N4A:

Northeast Regional Exchange, Inc., 1986)

WORD PROCESSING

Word processors offer writers ease in editing, neat

printed copy, and tend to make the process of writing more public. They often incorporate features

that hyphenate words and check on spelling, and

some of the more complex correction programs comment on the screen about style and grammar, while

others catch errors and report them to the writer.

Students’ writing does not necessarily improve

merely by using the word processor. While students

may be inclined to write more text, and enjoy writing more when they use a computer, students’ corrections are often mechanical rather than substantive.40 

A number of key differences in the writing and

revision process of expert and novice writers have

emerged from research on writing. Experienced

writers revise extensively, while beginning writers

tend to make superficial changes, such as spelling

or word choices. In fact, beginning writers often do

not even read over their text when asked to revise,

but rewrite from memory. Revision is a complex cog-

~rColette A. Daiute, “Psycholingulstlc Foundations of the Writing

Process, ” Research in the Teaching of English, 1981, pp. 5-22; Colette

A. Dalute, “The Effects of Automatic Prompting in Young \Vriters,”

interim reports to the Spencer Foundation, 1981, 1983. See also R.M.

Collier, “The V’ord Processor and Reyvsion Strategies,” College Cornpos{t~on and Commun)cat/on, \ol. 34, 1983, pp. 149-1 55; and L. Bridwel] et al., “Revlslng and Computing: Case Studies of Student Writers,”

The Acqulslrmn of I!’r/ttc>n Language: RetisK>rJ and Re~ponse, S. Freedman (cd. ) (N’orwood, NJ: Ahlcx, 1985), pp. 172-1 W.

nitive process.41 Young or novice writers may not

know what to do when asked to revise. Revision

requires writers to evaluate their writing, diagnose

problems, and figure out how to correct the problems. Merely easing the physical requirements of

writing does little to ensure that these cognitive abilities are developed.

Researchers have begun to identify key strategies

that seem to be essential for reading, critiquing, and

improving one’s own written work, Some of these

strategies are being incorporated into software programs for writing. For example, a program called

Catch encourages students to take the point of view

of the reader as they revise and prompts students

to focus on the meaning of a passage rather than

on its more superficial aspects. Studies with middle

school students showed that students using the

Catch software made more revisions from the original text when compared with students who used

only a word processor. Revising in this manner also

means that more changes can be made within the

body of the text rather than by adding changes at

the end. These results are particularly significant,

4] Colette A. Daiute, “Physical and Cogn]tlie Factor. In Rcw!lslng:

Insights From Studies V’lth Computers,” Research in the Tt’a(hing

~)f”Eng]lsh, to].20, 1986, pp. 1 ~ 1- 159; Colette A. Daiute, W’rit/ng and

Comi~urers (Reading, hfA: AcLllson-Wesley, 1985); and L. Flower et

al., “Detection, Dlagnosls, and the Strategies of Re~’ision,” College Compc>s{[lon and C(jmmun]~9r/on, ~,ol. 37, 1986, pp. 16,55.
60

because it is rare for beginning writers to revise in

this fashion, regardless of their age.42

Findings concerning how learning disabled students use the word processor are consistent with

those from studies of regular students. In a year-long

study, learning disabled students who used the word

processor as a supplement to writing instruction

made significant gains in their writing ability compared to a control group that did not receive the

special intervention.43 It appears that the word

4~Colette A. Daiute, “Rewriting, Revising and Recopy ing,” paper

presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 1984; and Colette A. Daiute and John

Kruidenier, “A Self-Questioning Strategy To Increase Young Writers’

Revising Processes,“ App/ied Psycholinguistics, vol. 6, 1985, pp. 307-318.

4]L.B. Kershner and B.J. Kistinger, “Language Processing/Word

Processing: Written Expression, Computers and Learning Disabled Students,” Learning Disability Quarterly, vol. 7, 1984, pp. 329-335. See

also S. Graham and Charles MacArthur, “Improving Learning Disabled Students’ Skills at Revising Essays Produced on a Word Processor: Self-Instructional Strategy Training, ” unpublished raw data, 1987.

processor alone does not significantly enhance the

writing abilities of either regular or learning disabled students. But when coupled with instruction

in strategies for writing (for example, strategies for

generating ideas or for revising) tend to produce

more fluency in writing and revisions that affect

meaning. 44

Wsee, for example, Catherine C. Morocco and S*B. Neuman!

Teachers, Children and the Magical Writing Machine (Newton, MA:

E. C. C., 1987); C. Morocco and S.B. Neuman, “Word Processors and

the Acquisitions of Writing Strategies, ’’Journal of Learning Disabilities, vol. 19, 1986, pp. 243-247; E. Ellis and E. Sabornie, “Effective Instruction With Microcomputers: Promises, Practices and Preliminary

Findings,” Focus on Exceptional Children, vol. 19, No. 4, 1986, pp.

1-16; Charles A. MacArthur et al., Learning Disabled Srudents’ Composing With Three Methods: Handwriting, Dictation and Word Processing, Research Report No. 109 (College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth, 1986);

and S.B. Neuman and C. Morocco, Two Hands is Hard for Me: Keyboarding and Learning Disabled Children (Newton, MA: University

of Lowell, Education Development Center, 1986).

LANGUAGE ARTS

Reading Comprehension

According to reading theory, comprehension is

dependent on several cognitive processes, including

decoding, word recognition, and knowledge. If a

reader is deficient in one or more of these aspects,

the ability to read and understand will be impaired.

Early instruction in reading typically aims to develop

proficiency in the subprocesses, so that learners can

devote intellectual activity to higher levels of thinking. While the vast majority of computer-based

learning materials treat the simplest of language

tasks—spelling and vocabulary—there are some products that aim at more complex aspects of comprehension.

In a study of 108 low-achieving, poor black children, it was found that students who used two reading programs outperformed a control group in both

accuracy and efficiency of decoding and recognition. 45 These programs, called Construct-a-Word

and Hint-and-Hunt, have students compose words

from letter strings and identify words with vowels

and vowel combinations. The improvements for

low-ability students were substantial–they gained

over 1 year on standardized tests—but students who

were already adequate in their decoding skills did

not show any changes. The findings were essentially

the same for the development of students’ ability

to comprehend phrases and sentences.

The hypothesis that a computer can enable readers

to understand text according to their individual

needs for assistance in comprehension has been

tested in a controlled experiment; results showed

that students who received various forms of comprehension assistance—without asking for such

assistance—outperformed other groups.46 In addition, computers have been paired with speech synthesizers to assist both regular and special education students in understanding words or pairs of

words. Among the perceived advantages of computer-aided reading, researchers point out that: 1)

disabled readers can conveniently and privately receive the decoding help they need without an indi45steven F. Roth and ]5abel L. Beck, ‘(

Theoretical and Instructional

Implications of the Assessment of Two Microcomputer Word Recognition Programs,” Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 22, 1987, pp.

197-218.

4 6 David Reinking and Robert Schreiner, “The Effects of Computer-Mediated Text on Measures of Reading Comprehension and

Reading Behavior,” Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 10, No. 5, 1985,

pp. 536-551.
6 1

vidual human tutor or teacher, 2) speech feedback

can be tailored to match the unique needs of each

student, 3) a wider variety of reading materials can

be used, 4) reading can become a means for gaining knowledge, 5) the amount of actual time spent

reading is maximized because the reader/student

does not have to wait for the teacher to explain an

unknown word or spend lengthy periods trying to

identify difficult words, 6) students are more likely

to experience a feeling of success as they progress

through the material and easily gain knowledge of

new words and increased information from the passages, and 7) the computer maintains a detailed

record of the student’s reading and requests for

assistance, thereby providing researchers with useful information for the study of comprehension

problems. 47

In one study of the impact of computer-aided reading on reading disabled students aged 8 to 18, it was

demonstrated that the students enjoyed using the

system and showed significant short-term gains in

word recognition and comprehension when audio

feedback was available.48

In another pilot study, six students enrolled in an

adult education center were observed individually

and interviewed by researchers as they used a computer-aided reading system. The researchers asked

the participants to alternate reading the passages

with and without the use of the speech feedback.

One of the more interesting findings was that use

of the speech feedback significantly reduced the level

of stress the participants exhibited when struggling

with reading in the unaided situation. The participants commented about how hard it was to read

and asked if they had to continue. The researchers

reported that much of the stress disappeared when

they used the speech feedback. The students all indicated that it was much easier to read when they

had the assistance and inquired if it were possible

to obtain such a system for their personal use and

for use by their children or spouses. In addition,

‘TGeorge W. McConkie et al., Center for the Study of Reading,

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, “Computer Aided Reading With Illiterate Adults, ” unpublished manuscript, 1987.

WR Olson et ~l., “Reading Instruction and Remediation With the

Aid of Computer Speech,” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments

and Compucers, vol. 18, No. 2, 1986, pp. 93-99; and R. Olson and

B. Wise, “Computer Speech in Reading Instruction,” Compurers and

Reading: Zssues for Theorv and Pracrice, D. Relnking (cd.) (N’ew York,

NY: Teachers College Press, 1987).

many students indicated that they would read more

if such a system were available. 49

Vocabulary and Grammar

Staff at the Houston Independent School District

used speech synthesizers in their locally-developed

computer courseware designed to assist limited English proficient students in learning English vocabulary and grammar. The district resorted to developing their own computer-based instructional system

when they were unable to locate commercially-developed materials suitable for their 34,000 limited

English proficient students. The resulting courseware

incorporates dynamic, high resolution graphics and

digitized speech within a variety of simulation and

game programs and is intended for students in kindergarten through fifth grades. Results of one of the

14 courseware units showed that the treatment

group scored significantly better than did control

students. 50

Writing, Reading, and Spelling

One of the most widely marketed computer-based

educational programs using digitized speech is IBM’s

Writing to Read. It is a multicomponent system involving kindergarten and first grade children in typing words, reading while listening to tape-recorded

stories, and listening to computerized speech designed to teach basic phonics.

The evaluation of Writing to Read was one of the

most comprehensive studies conducted at the kindergarten and first grade levels. A nationwide sample of 35 Writing to Read schools and 25 nonWriting to Read schools was assessed, representing

over 200 teachers and 7,000 children. Writing, reading, and spelling skills were measured. 51

The results showed that the Writing to Read students performed significantly better in writing than

~~George w. McConkie and David Zola, “computer Aided ‘eading: An Environment for Developmental Research, ” paper presented

at the Society for Research on Child Development, Toronto, Canada,

1985.

‘Jean Anderson, English as a Second Language: Courseware l?roo’-

uct Eva]uarion Report (Houston, TX: Houston Independent School

D!strict, 1985).

‘lRichard T. Murphy and Lola Rhea Appel, E\’a/uacion of the \l~riring to Read Instructional System 1982-84 (Princeton, hlJ: Educational

Testing Service, 1984).
62

the control students in both kindergarten and first

grade (table 3-l). Writing to Read students in the

first grade 1 year after using the program still outperformed non-Writing to Read students, but the

differences between the two groups narrowed substantially. In fact, while the non-Writing to Read

scores increased over the year, the Writing to Read

scores decreased slightly. The effects of the program

were consistent across all ethnic groups, with the

exception of Oriental students where the nonWriting to Read students performed slightly better

than the Writing to Read students. Classroom observations revealed that students were delighted with

their writing and eager to read their passages aloud

to visitors.

The results for reading were less impressive. Children in both the non-Writing to Read and the WritTable 3-1 .–Mean Writing Scores by Group (percent)

Non-Writing

Group Writing to Read to Read

Kindergarten . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 3.1

First grade . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 4.9

First grade after

Writing to Read . . . . . . 6.5 5.7

SOURCE: Richard T. and Lola Rhea of Writing 

Read instructional System, 1982-84 (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1984).

ing to Read program progressed at about the same

pace.

Spelling was assessed in a less systematic fashion,

but results showed that the performance of both

groups was quite similar: although it uses a phonetic

alphabet, Writing to Read did not appear to have

a negative affect on students’ spelling.

The IBM Writing to Read Project has been adopted by many schools as a way of improving early reading and writing skills.
63

A survey of teachers showed that Writing to Read

teachers rated the program far more effective for

above-average students than for average or belowaverage students. Unfortunately, the study suffered

from a problem found in several other studies described in this chapter—the Writing to Read students spent more time in reading instruction than

did the control groups.52 A larger percentage of

teachers involved in the Writing to Read program

reported spending more time on reading instruction

than in previous years (58.2 percent) than did the

non- Writing to Read teachers (26.7 percent). In writing, 80,5 percent of the Writing to Read teachers

indicated that they spent more time on writing than

in the previous years as compared with 30.5 percent

in the non-Writing to Read classrooms. On the one

hand, any program that engages kindergarten and

first-grade children in writing activities is desirable,

but the positive effects found in the program may

be attributable to increased time rather than to any

aspect of the Writing to Read program.

Researchers at Vanderbilt University’s Learning

Technology Center have shown that the speech synthesizer can be effective in providing spelling instruction. In traditional approaches to spelling instruction, the teacher says the word, students write it,

and then the written word is compared to the correctly spelled word. Some computerized approaches

have students type the word from a model on the

screen, then type the same word after the model is

removed, and then enter the word into a sentence.

Most studies using variations on this instructional

~:olson and Wise, op. cit., footnote 48.

theme have shown either no significant difference

between computer and noncomputer groups and/or

limited success with either group.53

The Vanderbilt researchers argue that these approaches were unsuccessful because the student

could rely on spelling the word by engaging shortterm memory. They investigated presenting the

spelling words to students by using a voice simulator, which, they believe, activates long-term memory. When the student spells the word incorrectly,

the computer visually and auditorially imitates the

student’s error and provides the correct spelling, so

that the student can compare the two, Results of

studies using this approach show that computerusing students achieved an accuracy of over 90 percent on lists of spelling words; in addition, the computer students averaged over 30 percent more correctly spelled words than when they used traditional

procedures. 54

‘]G. Fitzgerald et al., “Computer-Assisted Instruction for Students

with Attentional Difficukles,’’]ourna] of Learr]]ng D1sahI)IrIc,s, k,ol. 19,

No. 6, 1986, pp. 376-379; P.A. McDermott and N4.W’. N’atklns, ‘(Computerized vs. Conventional Remedial Instruction for Learn[ng-D[sab[ecl

Pupils,” Journal of Special Education, vol. 1, No. 1, 1983; Jacqueline

Haynes et al., Effect of Computer-Assisted lnstru~tlon on Learning

Disabl&Readers’ MetacWnirion and Learning of,\’ctt W’ords, Research

Report No. 101 (College Park, MD: University of hiar~land, Institute

for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth, 1984).

5qTed Hasselbring, “Remediatlng Spelllng Problems In LearningHandicapped Students Through the Use of Microcomputers,)’ Educational Technolo~, vol. 22, 1982, pp. 31-32; and Ted Hasselbring, “Using

a Microcomputer for Imitating Student Errors to Improte Spelling Performance, “Compurers, Reading and Language Arts, \rol. 4, 1984, pp.

12-14. See also Ted Hasselbring, “Effectl~’e Computer Llsc in Special

Education: What Does the Research Tell Lls?” a paper presented at

Funder Forum, sponsored by Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA,

1987.

ELECTRONIC NETWORKS

Electronic networks allow individuals or groups

to communicate with one another using computers

that are connected through local area networks

(LANs) or through telephone lines. Electronic networks are being used in every subject area and at

all but the earliest grade levels. A good example of

a computer network used in education is the Computer Chronicles Newswire project, where third and

fourth grade students in Alaska communicate with

students in California about events and issues in

their school and community. Each site publishes a

newspaper that consists of articles selected by the

student editorial board. Through this process, students engaged in dialogs with others from a different culture, struggled with communicating clearl y

in writing, and gained valuable experience in evaluating and revising compositions. 55 Similarly, in a

computer network called De Orilla a Orilla (From

Shore to Shore), limited and non-English speaking

students in New England and California are paired

5~M.M. Riel, “The Computer Chronicles Newswire: A Functional

Learning En~lronment for Acquiring Literacy Skills, ’’Journal ofE&catlonal Comlmting Rescar<’h. JO]. 1. 1985. DD. 317-337 .
6 4

with Spanish-speaking students in Mexico and

Puerto Rico for the purpose of improving their writing skills.56 Another international computer communications network involves students in eight secondary and college groups in the United States,

Japan, and Israel. The project is designed to permit

students from different cultures to use one another

as resources for learning about their social, cultural,

and physical worlds. Participating students explore

topics such as peaceful alternatives to war, how

schools prepare students for careers, peer violence,

and water supply systems.57

Children in fourth through sixth grades are now

collecting, recording, and comparing the range of

acidity or alkalinity of common liquids, including

rain, using an electronic network established through

a joint venture among the Technical Education Research Centers, the National Geographic Society,

and the National Science Foundation.

This National Geographic Kids Network allows

students to share information they collect with each

other and a specially designated scientist on topics

such as weather forecasting, water pollution, and

food growing. A powerful central computer is used

to summarize data supplied by the students and to

create charts, maps, and other presentations which

are sent back to the students. In their classrooms,

students then analyze patterns and trends in their

data and compare their results with children in other

schools across the Nation. Results from a pilot study

of this network’s first year of operation were very

promising. 58

Another science project using electronic communications was tested by sixth-grade students and

teachers in New York City. 59 This project, called

Earth Lab, allowed students to collect, analyze,

 to Sayers and Brown, initiators of the project, “Students in bilingual education programs need authentic contexts for

mother-tongue writing if they are to develop and maintain basic literacy skills and then transfer them to English academic settings. ” Sayers

considers computer networks to be a “perfect fit” with the special needs

of bilingual students. See Dennis Sayers and K. Brown, “Bilingual Education, Second Language Learning and Telecommunication: A Perfect Fit,” CALL Digest, vol. 3, No. 5, 1987; and Dennis Sayers, 

 Classes in Computer Writing Networks,” unpublished

manuscript, 1987. M “intercultural Learning Network, ” CALL . . ,

3, No. 5, 1987.

 Technical Education Research Centers, Cambridge, MA, “National Geographic Society Kids Network Project Annual Report, October 1, 1986-September 30, 1987. ”

 Newman et al., Progress (New York, NY:

Bank Street College of Education, 1987).
65

share, and write about their own science research

projects on geographic systems, such as convection,

the water cycle, and weather forecasting. Earth Lab

was designed for teachers who have little or no prior

experience with computers or the complexities of

real world science,

Teachers in remote rural areas are using electronic

networks to discuss the issues and problems they

face in teaching science. The Educational Technology Center at Harvard University has organized and

is studying a network designed to encourage teachers

to pose and respond to each other’s questions about

science instruction and to participate in discussions

originated by “guest” scientists and educators. Early

results indicate that more isolated teachers use the

network more frequently, and that all teachers

found the information obtained through the network valuable.

CONCLUSIONS

The “natural experiment” with interactive technologies that began in American schools 30 years

ago has spawned a new and growing family of research and evaluation studies, which have already

borne a substantial harvest of results and hypotheses that warrant ongoing investigation. While in the

early days the focus was almost exclusively on mainframe and minicomputer CAI systems, today’s research agenda spans a much wider spectrum of technologies and explores their effects on the full array

of educational processes. As important, the advent

of interactive educational technologies has stimulated and facilitated new research forays into the

cognitive workings of the human mind: technologies

for learning are helping us to understand the technology of learning. It is hoped that this new knowledge will eventually translate to products and processes that can expand conventional limits to human

information processing.

OTA recognizes that research in this complex field

of education yields findings that may be divergent

or ambiguous. It should be remembered that many

of the research models that map relationships between inputs and educational productivity have

been imported from the worlds of science and business, where it is easier to define outcomes and identify the production technology. Ironically, while

business firms might have opted for a rigorous experimental approach to office automation, using familiar indicators such as profits and losses to determine optimal technologies, they chose instead a

strategy of learning--by-doing: hardware and software

were installed and experience dictated the direction

of change and improvement. While it is true that

schools do not enjoy the decisionmaking and resource allocation flexibility of business firms, it is

also true that the effective integration of new technologies will require an atmosphere of openness to

trial, error, and correction.

The analogy with business and industry is instructive for another reason. Perhaps the single most important distinction between these sectors’ involvement with interactive technology is their mode of

financing and governance. Education is a public enterprise funded at the State and local level, and resource allocation is necessarily highly politicized. Unlike business firms which, in theory at least, learn

about the efficiency of their operations from the market, and which enjoy considerable latitude in adjusting to new technologies and new market forces,

schools operate in an environment where inefficiencies are neither obvious nor easily remedied. The

paradox is that while the exigencies of school budgeting and governance heighten the need for careful

planning and efficient utilization of scarce resources,

the complexities of education pose significant limitations to the application of simple efficiency criteria. It is not by simple oversight that virtually all

of the studies cited in this chapter omitted consideration of the costs of the technologies in question.

Nevertheless, while educators and other users of

these technologies may be concerned primarily with

their effects on children’s school experiences, policymakers are facing growing pressure to demonstrate that those benefits justify their costs. In an

era when performance, productivity, and efficiency

of our educational institutions are priority issues,

it is inevitable that the cost-effectiveness of new technologies should be questioned. This subject is addressed in the next chapter.
Chapter 4

Cost-Effectiveness:

Dollars and Sense

1

1

(2)
CONTENTS

Page

Figures

Page

Tables

4-6.

4-7.
Chapter 4

Cost-Effectiveness: Dollars and Sense

INTRODUCTION AND FINDINGS

How much do new instructional technologies cost?

Are they worth the investment? These are not academic questions, but have important practical consequences. “Buy more hardware” sounds appealing,

especiall y to advocates of computer-based instruction, until someone points out that the additional

equipment is likely to come at the expense of other

materials or programs. Difficult questions inevitably follow: Will the new learning tools be more effective than books? Could reductions in class size

bring about similar achievement gains at lower cost?

Should a school district invest in an integrated learning system (ILS) or in another form of computerbased instruction? Will computer-based materials

bring about savings on traditional instructional materials?

These questions are not easily answered, in part

because of obstacles to definition and measurement

of the costs of various technological alternatives.

Most experts acknowledge that simply installing

computers in classrooms will not be effective without good software, well-trained teachers, reliable systems maintenance, and planning how the technology will be used. Assessing the costs, therefore,

involves considerably more than the price and

quantity of equipment. In many school districts,

detailed administrative data are not available, and

important economic considerations such as depreciation of capital equipment and the opportunity

costs of new technologies are neglected.

The fundamental problem, however, lies on the

effects side of the equation. Short-term and longterm effects of employing educational technologies

are different and not necessarily consistent. For instance, evidence that computer-assisted instruction

(CAI) can be a cost-effective method to raise achievement test scores in the short run is an important

finding. For many educators, however, the appeal

of the computer is based on the hope that it will

eventuall y liberate them and their students from rote

drill, and push the traditional frontiers of human

learning.1 In addition, the cost-effectiveness of a

given educational technology can vary significantl y

with the specific characteristics of schools and students. A successful program in one location may

be less successful elsewhere.

Without evidence of short-run gains, teachers, administrators, parents, and students might lose faith

in the grander vision, making it difficult to garner

the necessary political and financial resources to support continued research and development of the

newest learning tools. But if short-run effects and

cost-effectiveness are overemphasized, researchers

and practitioners may lose sight of the longer-term

potential, and future historians will lament the

missed opportunities for changing the way children

learn.

This chapter begins with an estimate of the costs

of several approaches to using computers in classroom instruction. OTA finds that the current national average of 1 computer per 30 public school

children represents an insignificant fraction of total annual educational expenditures. However,

substantial expansion could require a commitment of nearly one-third the current annual outlay on nonpersonnel instructional resources. (Because OTA has found no evidence that computers

and related technologies have displaced teachers, it

is important to assume that salaries and benefits will

remain at the current percentage of the total; if anything, salaries may rise.)

The chapter then addresses the problem of linking costs to anticipated effects. OTA finds that costeffectiveness comparisons of alternative policies,

which show expected gains per dollar of expend.

‘Others, however, are fearful that the technologies \vill dictate inappropriate teaching methods: “If you begin with a det’ice of anv kind,

you will try to develop the teaching program to fit that Clet’ice. ” T.

Gilbert, “On the Relevance of Laboratory Investigation of Learning

to Self-Instructional Programming, ” Teaching Machines and Pmgrammed Learning: A Source Book, A.A. Lumsdaine and R. Glaser

(eds.) (Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1960).

69
70

iture, can be a useful decisionmaking criterion. ●

For example, based on a review of several cost-effectiveness studies, OTA finds that:

●

●

●

CAI can be more cost-effective than certain ●

other nontechnological methods of achieving

similar educational objectives, among particular groups of students;

some forms of CAI are more cost-effective than 6

others;

the cost-effectiveness of learning technologies

is very sensitive to particular characteristics of

schools and classrooms where they are implemented;

ESTIMATING THE COSTS

there is much research that addresses costs or

effects of computer-based instruction separately,

but there is a need for more work that considers these issues together;

with better data and access to appropriate analytical tools, cost-effectiveness could become a

more widely used and informative decisionmaking criterion; and

the Federal Government could provide assistance in data collection and research design for

cost-effectiveness analysis and dissemination of

results.

OF ALTERNATIVE

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

An Illustrative Case

As described in chapter 6, a networked ILS provides instruction in large portions of the curriculum and computerized student monitoring, testing,

and reporting. These systems are typically sold as

hardware-software bundles, in some cases with dedicated computers but more often with standard computers for student work stations. Some ILS manufacturers offer their software for the Apple, IBM,

and Tandy computers, while others develop materials solely for one brand.

The ILS market is competitive, with at least a

dozen manufacturers offering systems that vary in

scope, breadth, and cost. Some ILSs consist of software that is strictly drill-and-practice, while others

are instructional delivery systems that teach new material, including simulations and tools, and allow

children to advance through curricula at their own

pace. Because system requirements can vary widely

by curriculum as well as by the number of children

(or classrooms) served, the average cost of installed

integrated systems nationwide is not a particularly

informative statistic. It may be more useful to illustrate the costs involved by examining a specific case.

The instructional delivery system recently chosen

by Prince George’s County (Maryland) will provide

CAI in mathematics, reading, and language arts to

second and third graders in 68 elementary schools.

Assuming an average class size of about 26, the sysPhoto credit: Michael Feuer, OTA staff

At the Martin Luther King, Jr. School in Washington,

DC, an integrated learning system provides individualized

student pacing, monitoring, and testing across large

portions of the school curriculum. Each student can

beat work on a different topic and skill level, as reports

produced for the teacher highlight areas needing

further classroom instruction.

tern will be utilized by about 9,000 children in 349

classes.2 Each classroom will have four IBM PS/2

Model 25 computers, equipped with 640K RAM

(kilobytes of random access memory), two 800K 3

1/2” floppy disc drives, a mouse, speech adapter,

and earphone/microphone. Each classroom will also

‘The average class size reported in county data is 25.7. See Prince

George’s County Public Schools, Office of Pupil Accounting and School

Boundaries, “Class Size Report, 1987-1988 School Year,” unpublished

manuscript, 1987.
71

have one IBM Proprinter. The classroom computers

will be connected via local area network in each

school to an IBM PS/2 Model 60 host computer,

with approximately 2 megabytes RAM and a 40

megabyte hard disc, as well as a Sony CD-ROM

(compact disc-read only memory) player. The hard

disc will hold the school’s student records and test

results, and the instructional software will be housed

on the optical storage device.

The instructional software for this system,

produced by Education Systems Corp. (ESC), consists of about 2,000 programs, each with approximately 250-300K of memory, with full color and

graphics. Each of these programs delivers about 15

minutes of instruction, depending on students’ abilities. In a typical half-hour session, most children

complete two lessons, though not necessarily on the

same topic. The management system monitors individual student progress and prepares reports for

teachers and staff.

The purchase price for the whole system, to be

operational in the fall of 1988, is $5.1 million,3 and

will be paid off over 5 years. (As is commonly the

case, the county will enter a leasing arrangement

with a third party lender.) This total cost breaks

down roughly to $2 million in software and $3 million in hardware, including the first year of hardware and software maintenance as well as the first

year of training. For the second through fifth years,

there are additional charges: the county will contract with a local vendor for hardware maintenance,

and will pay ESC about $220,000 per year for software upgrades, new materials, and ongoing teacher

training. Not counting other indirect costs, such as

salary and benefits of personnel and teacher time

away from the classroom during training, and not

counting the annual hardware maintenance contract,

the true annual cost to the county will be approximately $1.5 million.4 Adding the costs of rewiring

the classrooms, electrical service modifications, and

building and facilities depreciation, the annual cost

climbs to at least $1.8 million. This translates to over

$26,000 per school.

~Competing bids ranged from $4 million to $9 million.

‘This figure is derived using an annualization factor that assumes

a 10 percent interest rate. See Henry Levin, Cost Eff2ctit’eness: A Primer

(Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1983), p. 70.

This is a small portion (0.4 percent) of the $430.7

million total projected fiscal year 1988 Prince George’s

County public school budget. However, this computer system affects only 68 of the 108 elementary

schools (in a system of 173 schools), and it is going

into second and third grade classes only. If the same

type of system were installed in grades 2 and 3 in

all 108 elementary schools, then by simple extrapolation it would cost about $2.9 million per year

(about $26,000 per school), which would represent

1.4 percent of the total annual expenditures on

elementary schools, or 0.7 percent of the total 1988

budget. Extrapolating further, it would cost about

$10 million annually for a system that reached all

the elementary school children in grades K-6 (close

to $95,000 per school), or 4.8 percent of the elementary school budget and 2.4 percent of the total

school district budget.5 These estimates are displayed in table 4-1.

Even the most expensive scenario depicted in table 4-1 appears to take a relatively small fraction of

the total county budget. But 63 percent of that total budget is accounted for by salaries and fringe benefits of instructional staff. The estimated annual cost

of $1.8 million to install the ESC/IBM system (in

grades 2 and 3 in 68 schools) represents close to 11

percent of the approved budget for instructional materials, exclusive of instructional salaries. (See figure 4-1.)

The Cost to the Nation: Two Scenarios

Many educational technologists would prefer to

see schools with both ILS laboratories and classrooms equipped with free-standing computers. For

illustration, then, OTA has estimated the costs of

an ILS laboratory plus five stand-alone computers

per class in a school with 20 classrooms. In this scenario, the classroom ratio would improve from the

current national average of about 1 computer for

30 children to 1 computer for 6 children; raising the

inventor y in this fashion could substantially improve

the access to computer learning tools.

To cost out this scenario, assume that the ILS laboratory consists of 30 student work stations, each

equipped with a computer of the speed and capac-

‘Estimates are based on a simple linear extrapolation and do not

necessarily reflect additional potential volume discounts.
72

Table 4.1.—Costs of an Integrated Learning Systema for Elementary Schools in

Prince George’s County, Maryland

Grade levels Estimated Percent of elementary Percent of Percent of

Number of (number of pupilsb) annual cost school budget district budget instructional costsc

schools (millions) ($214.7 million)b

($430.7 million) ($16.6 million)

Approved plan, effective fall . . . . . . . . . 68 2-3 $1.8 0.84 0.42 10.8

(8,970) ..-. ... -.. -.. .--. ... ----- ..--. -.. .----- ... ... .--. ..-. .-. .-. ..-. ... 

OTA extrapolations (estimated date) . 68 K-6 4,0 1.86 0.93 24,1

(33,370)

108 2-3 2.9 1.35 0.67 17.5

(15,140)

108 K-6 10.2 4.75 2.37 61.4

(53,000)

 and IBM hardware. See text for specifications.

b

Approximate.

 salaries and benefits.

SOURCE: Board of Education of Prince George’s County, Maryland, “Annual Operating Budget, July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988;” and Board of Education of Prince George’s

County, Maryland, “Board Action Summary: Introduction of Computer Assisted Instruction, Grades TWO and Three,” Jan. 28, 1988.

Photo credit: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

This technology-rich environment at the Hennigan School in Boston is supported by industry, local school funds, and

university research grants. What would it cost to set

ity of the Apple II-GS or IBM PS/2 Model 25, plus

networking and speech hardware. The cost of each

work station is approximately $1,500. In addition,

the laboratory would have a central file server (a

computer with the speed and capacity of the IBMAT), CD-ROM, and printer, at an estimated cost

of $5,000. Integrated software such as the type installed in the Prince George’s County elementary

schools would cost about $60,000, bringing the total cost of the laboratory to about $110,000.

up learning environments like this “around the country?

The five free-standing computers installed in each

of the 20 classrooms would cost approximately

$100,000, and software at $5 per pupil would cost

about $3,000. The total cost to the school for this

combined laboratory and free-standing classroom

computer installation, excluding physical renovations, electric wiring, annual maintenance, and

training charges, would approach $215,000. For a

large school district like Chicago, with about 600

schools, the total cost would be at least $130 mil-
73

Figure 4-1 .—District Education Budget and Costs of Implementing a Computer= Based Integrated Learning

System (ILS) in Prince George’s County, MD

Administration

Costs of computers for grades

2 and 3 in 68 elementary schools

Instructional materials

($16.6 million)

alncludes pupil personnel services md health se~ices. h-- . W I A estimates based on extrapolations of costs in 68 schools,

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment based on the Board of Education of Prince George’s County, MD, “Annual Operating Budget, July 1, 1967 to June 30, 1966, ”

lion, or roughly $30 million per year (assuming a Finally, OTA has explored the cost implications

6-year time horizon and 10 percent interest rate). of a rapid and even more dramatic expansion. To

For a small district with only five schools, the an- simplify this illustration, assume a current installed

nual cost would be approximately $250,000. (Note base of 1.3 million computers. Increasing this inventhat these estimates do not account for the current tory by 12 million computers would change the cominstalled base of computers. ) puter: student ratio from 1:30 to 1:3, an aspiration
74

often cited by school district personnel and educational technologists. (These estimates are presented

solely for illustrative purposes, and do not necessarily reflect OTA’s belief in the feasibility or desirability of implementing a program of this magnitude.)

As shown in table 4-2, to purchase 12 million additional computers plus an adequate number of

printers would cost nearly $14 billion.6 The annualized cost of hardware, assuming a 6-year lifetime

and an interest rate of 10 percent, would amount

to $3.17 billion. Software, maintenance, equipment

upgrades, and teacher training are all critical additional expenses, estimated at roughly $990 million

per year, bringing the total annual cost to over $4

billion.7

This figure is but a tiny fraction of the gross national product (over $4 trillion), and a seemingly insignificant 3 percent of total U.S. expenditures on

public elementary and secondary schools. However,

The current New York State contract price is $1,017 for the IBM

PS/2 model 25; printers are in the range of $350 to $479. Note that

some experts would find the $1,000 estimate low, considering the added

costs of a second disc drive, mouse, and networking. Some educators,

however, question the utility of these added features. Assistance in generating these estimates was provided by Jim Brewington, Education

Systems Corp.; Irwin Kaufman, New York City Board of Education;

and LeRoy Finkel, San Mateo County Office of Education.

71t might be more realistic to calculate the costs for a gradual

phasing-in of these machines, e.g., over 5 or 10 years. Clearly this strategy would be less costly on an annual basis, and would appear more

feasible from an implementation standpoint. However, it is important

to note that the benefits would have to be discounted accordingly.

Table 4-2.—Approximate Cost of Major Expansion

of Installed Base of Free-Standing Computers

in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools

cost

(in millions)

Hardwarea

12 million computers @ $1,000 each . $12,000

5 million printers @ $400 each . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $14,000

Annualized cost, assuming 6-year equipment life

and 10% interest rate . . . . . . . $3,200

Other annual costs

Software @ $5/student . . . . . . . . $200

Maintenance and upgrades cost . . . . . . . . . . . . 700

Teacher trainingb 

., ., . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . 100

Total (non-capital annual). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,000 $1,000

Total estimated annual cost. ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,200

aD~~~ “Ot i“~lud~ other peripherals, mass storage devices, or networking.

bAs~uming 50 percent of all teachers trained annuallY

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988

of the $137 billion currently spent on public education, about $85 billion is budgeted for instruction,

of which instructional salaries and benefits account

for at least 85 percent. OTA has no evidence that

computer technologies have displaced teachers; it

is important to consider the budget implications of

the new learning tools holding personnel costs constant. As shown in figure 4-2, the $4.2 billion annual cost for this massive infusion of new equipment

would represent more than 30 percent of the amount

currently spent nationwide on instructional materials.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS 8

Political and Methodological

Considerations

There are always plenty of proposals for improving

education. Recommendations for raising teachers’

salaries, reducing class size, changing the curriculum, instituting peer tutoring, lengthening the

school day, and promoting the use of new learning

technologies all have merit. But most school systems

cannot afford everything at once. Education is pri-

‘iThe remainder of this chapter draws heavily on David Stern and

Guy Cox, “Assessing Cost Effectiveness of Computer-Based Technology in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools,” OTA contractor

report, Jan. 8, 1987.

marily a local function that competes with other

projects for a share of the public budget, and school

officials are often pressured to demonstrate that the

dollars allocated to education are wisely spent.

It is tempting to look at estimates of the costs of

computer-based instruction as a fraction of the gross

national product or of total education expenditures,

and conclude that it would represent a relatively

small public commitment. But as mentioned in the

introduction to this chapter, even small sums are

scrutinized by public officials who must weigh the

anticipated benefits of many competing programs.

More important, if one considers these costs as a

proportion of instructional materials expenditures,
75

Figure 4-2.— Increasing Computer Inventories in U.S. Public Schools:

Projected Impact on Total Annual Instructional Materials Expenditures

Total Current Expenditures

Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1986-87

($137 billion)

Instructional materials

($13 billion)

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment based on U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics, 1987 (Washington, DC: May 1987); and U.S. Department of Education, Public

Elementary and Secondary School Revenues and Current Expenditures for Fiscal Year 1986

(Washington, DC: March 1988).

exclusive of personnel and administration, it be- ther investment in new technologies

comes clear why policy makers and legislators must available.

view the new technologies in terms of implicit

as they become

tradeoffs with other learning strategies. Installing in- There are several barriers to the implementation

tegrated systems or stand-alone computers that pro- and interpretation of cost-effectiveness analysis of

duce no appreciable gains in achievement, or that educational technology. Most school districts do

cost much more than other options that would pro- not have the resources to devote to the collection

duce similar gains, can undermine the credibility of of complete cost data, or to the controlled measthe decisionmakers as well as the chances for fur- urement of educational effects. These are costly
76

undertakings. Where such studies have been done,

the choice of outcome and cost measures has been

governed largely by the availability of data, rather

than by well-defined and testable hypotheses. Differences in results across schools and school districts,

therefore, are not easily interpreted. In addition,

when cost-effectiveness is measured correctly, it is

only with respect to specific outcomes; there is a tendency, however, to interpret results more globally,

and to reach conclusions about all computer learning technologies or about a specific one in all

schools. As with much educational research, even

when outcomes are clearly defined and when commensurable data are employed, findings from one

school or group of schools are not necessarily robust, because of important idiosyncrasies of classrooms that cannot be captured by available quantitative data.9

Basic Principles of Cost-Effectiveness

Analysis 10

A rationale for using cost-effectiveness analysis is

that it allows decisionmakers to select those activities that provide the best educational results for any

given costs, or that provide any given level of educational results for the least cost. As mentioned earlier,

costs and effects are usually treated independently.

Cost-effectiveness analysis, on the other hand, takes

into account both aspects in evaluating alternative

approaches to obtaining similar goals. It is assumed

that 1) only programs with similar or identical goals

can be compared, and 2) a common measure of effectiveness can be used to assess them.

Estimation of Costs.–Cost analysis cannot place

primary reliance on budget documents for several

reasons:

●

●

●

●

budgets do not always include all relevant cost

information;

budgets do not necessarily account for resources

that have already been paid for;

standard budget practices may distort the true

costs of resources;

costs of interventions are often embedded in

‘See Richard Murnane and Richard Nelson, “Production and Innovation When Techniques are Tacit: The Case of Education, ” Journal

of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 5, 1984, pp. 353-373.

l~his section is drawn from Levin, Op. cit., footnote 4.

budgets that cover much larger units of operation; and

• most budgets represent plans for how resources

will be allocated rather than a classification of

expenditures after they have taken place.

For these reasons, the “ingredients method” is recommended. This involves the identification and

specification of all the relevant inputs and which

requires complete familiarity with the intervention

being evaluated. A typical breakdown of ingredients

would begin with personnel, facilities, equipment

and materials, and client inputs; further refinements

would follow. This rigorous method of analysis is

time-consuming and costly.

Effectiveness Measures.–Cost-effectiveness analysts must determine the program objective and an

appropriate measure of effectiveness, as suggested

in table 4-3. Given the cost information for each

alternative, the cost and effectiveness data can be

combined into cost-effectiveness ratios that show the

amount of effectiveness that can be obtained for an

estimated cost.

Computer-Assisted Instruction:

A Survey of Cost-Effectiveness Research

Economists have attempted to measure the effectiveness of alternative instructional strategies per

dollar of cost. An early study dealt with CAI as a

method of compensatory education for disadvantaged children.11 The study found that CAI produced statistically significant gains in achievement,

and the per-pupil cost of CAI was found to be well

within the per-pupil budget available for compensatory education. The authors concluded that CAI

was both feasible and cost effective.

A more recent study combined correlational, experimental, and quasi-experimental findings in order to compare the cost-effectiveness of four different

educational policies: reducing class size, lengthening the school day, introducing CAI, and instituting cross-age tutoring. 12 The results show that CAI

I IDean Ja mi son et al., “Cost and Performance of Computer-Assisted

Instruction for Education of Disadvantaged Children,” Education as

an Zndustry, J. Froomkin et al. (eds.) (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1976).

‘JHenry Levin et al., “Cost Effectiveness of Four Educational Interventions,” IFG Report No. 84-Al 1, Stanford University, 1984. See also

Henry Levin and Gail Meister, “Is CAI Cost-Effective?” Phi Delra ~appan, vol. 67, No. 10, 1986.
Table 4.3.—Examples of Effectiveness Measures Used in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Program objective Measure of effectiveness

Program completions Number of students completing program

Reducing dropouts Number of potential dropouts who graduate

Employment of graduates Number of graduates placed in appropriate jobs

Student learning Test scores in appropriate domains utilizing appropriate test instruments

Student satisfaction Student assessment of program on appropriate instrument to measure satisfaction

Physical performance Evaluation of student physical condition and physical skills

College placement Number of students placed in colleges of particular types

Advance college placement Number of courses and units received by students in advance placement, by subject

SOURCE: Henry Levin, Cost Effectiveness” A Primer (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1963), p. 115.

was cost-effective at the elementary level compared

to increasing instructional time, but that reducing

class size appeared to be more cost-effective than

CAI in mathematics. Peer tutoring was the most

cost-effective of the four interventions, in both mathematics and reading (see table 4-4).13

In an important extension to this work, cost effectiveness was applied to the choice among alternative approaches to CAI.14 This study found that

even ILSs, which are self-contained, highly structured, and ostensibly “teacher-proof,” yield significantly different effects in different places. The costs

of implementation as well as learning effects varied

‘% also R. N[emiec et al., “CAI Can be Double Effective,” Phl

llelra Kappan, \ol. 6?, No. 10, 1986, and the re]olnder by Henry Le\ln

et al., Ph/ Dc’Ic.-I K~ppan, ~ol. 68, No. 1, 1986.

‘qHenr} Letln et al., Stanford Llnlversitv, Center for Educational

Research at Stanford, “Cost Effectiveness of Alternati\’e Approaches

to Computer-Assisted Instruction,’) monograph, November 1986.

Table 4-4.—Cost.Effectiveness of Four Educational

Interventions

Effects a

Intervention Mathematics Reading

Computer-assisted instruction , . . . 1.0 1.9

Cross-age tutoring

Peer component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 2.2

Adult component . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.5

Increasing instructional time . . . . . 0.5 1.2

Reducing class size

From To

35 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 0.7

30 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.6

25 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.5

35 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.6

aln months of additional achievement gain per year of instruction, for each $100

per student. For example: computer-assisted instruction (CAI) yielded an aver.

age of 1.9 months of achievement gain, while peer tutoring produced 2.2 months

of additional achievement gain, per $100 of instructional cost per student. This

difference is slight, and is explained by the substantially higher costs associated

with cross-age tutoring than with CA I

SOURCE: Henry Levin and Gail Meister, “IS CA I Cost-Effective?” Wri DeHa Kap.

pan, VOI 67, No, 10, 1966, p 748.

widely among the schools investigated. In addition,

the study showed that cost-effectiveness is in part

a function of the level of utilization of a given

computer-based instructional system. It is often the

case that the actual level of utilization is below full

capacity, which can be explained in part because

educators know that CAI is effective only for some

students in the school.15 Cost-effectiveness is improved when computers are used to full capacity,

even though this can entail additional personnel

costs to accommodate a full day program. This line

of research is important because it shifts the discussion from whether or not to use computers to

the more relevant question: how to assign and implement the appropriate interactive technology to

particular school circumstances.

Other researchers have done cost-effectiveness

studies of industrial and military training using computers. Training and education differ fundamentally

with respect to the degree of specificity of skills that

are taught and with respect to the average age of

students. In addition, in the military (as well as in

many industrial environments), the main efficiency

problem is how to accomplish training objectives

in less time, which is not the central concern in

elementary and secondary schools. Nonetheless, insights can be gained from studies of training.

An expert on the cost-effectiveness of CAI in the

military suggests that training and education may

be different sides of the same cost-effectiveness coin:

Trainers are most likely to be interested in minimizing costs to achieve definable thresholds of performance [and] are interested in how much it costs

l~According t. 1985 survey data compiled by Henry Becker, The

Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools,

the a\’erage percentage of unutilized computer terminals ranged from

2.3 in high schools to 4.5 In elementary schools. There was considerable \’artance b}, ~cographic regmn and size of community

.
78

to achieve a unit of effectiveness, or, in the ratio

of cost to effectiveness; educators . . . usually work

with fixed costs to maximize performance and are

likely to be interested in how much effectiveness

they get for a unit of cost, i.e., the ratio of effectiveness to cost. ’b

From research conducted at the Institute for Defense Analyses on the relative cost-effectiveness of

computer-based v. traditional training, preliminary

results show that:

●

●

●

●

CAI costs about one-third less per unit of effectiveness than conventional instruction;

computer-managed instruction (CMI) costs

about one-quarter less per unit of effectiveness

than conventional instruction;

CAI costs about 10 percent less than CMI per

unit of effectiveness;

computer-based instruction, or CAI and CMI

combined, costs about 30 percent less than conventional instruction per unit of effectiveness. 17

These results do not necessarily apply to elementary and secondary institutions, but they do demonstrate the value of explicitly accounting for the

costs of various modes of instruction.

Other researchers have made notable efforts to

experiment with cost data and with models of costeffectiveness in the world of elementary and secondary education. For example, a study of mathematics

achievement, mathematics attitude, and computer

literacy at the Westberry Elementary School in

Saskatchewan, Canada, found that:

●

●

students who were exposed to computer-assisted

mathematics instruction improved significantly

more in mathematics than did students who

were exposed to traditional mathematics instruction;

students who were exposed to computer-assisted

mathematics instruction improved significantly

more in computer literacy than did students

“Dexter Fletcher, Institute for Defense Analyses, personal correspondence, Oct. 4, 1986.

ITSee Dexter Fletcher and Jesse Orlansky, “Cost Effectiveness of CBI

in Defense Training, ” paper presented at the American Educational

Research Association, 1986; and Jesse Orlansky, “The Cost-Effectiveness

of Military Training,” paper prepared for the Proceedings of the Symposium on the Military Value of Cost Et%ctiveness of Training,

DS/A/DR (85), 167 (Brussels: NATO Headquarters, Defense Research

Group on the Defense Applications of Operational Research, January

1985).

●

●

who were exposed to traditional mathematics

instruction;

students’ attitudes toward mathematics were

not significantly affected by computer-assisted

instruction; and

computer-assisted mathematics instruction was

more cost-effective than traditional mathematics

instruction for producing gains in mathematics

achievement. 18

As the authors emphasize in their conclusions:

“This study is not intended to be the final word on

the costs, effects, and utility of microcomputerassisted instruction.”19 It is an example of the usefulness of the methodological approach and contributes constructively to the policy debate over efficient

ways to improve mathematics achievement.

State governments, which now pay the largest

share of public school costs, have to balance claims

for education against claims for highways, public

welfare, health and hospitals, and natural resources.

It is essential that they raise the question of costs

when deliberating over continued funding for computers and other resources. The exemplary efforts

of one State are described in box 4-A.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

in Practice20

Westberry Elementary School, in Saskatchewan,

Canada, serves 422 students (K-7) with a professional

faculty of 20. About 73 percent of the students live

in the town of Kindersley, with a population of just

over 5,000. The remaining 27 percent live on farms

in the rural area surrounding Kindersley. The school

is ideally suited for comparing the effect of two treatments on a group of students, because there are at

least two classrooms of students at each grade level.

Prior to the 1984-1985 academic year, Kindersley

schools had implemented computer literacy programs for junior high school students and computer

science programs for high school students. However,

no computers were being used in elementary school.

IBD Hawley et al,, University of Oregon, center for Advanced

Technology in Education, “Costs, Effects and Utility of MicrocomputerAssisted Instruction,” Technical Report, 1986. See the section in this

chapter on “Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Practice” for a discussion

of how this study was designed and carried out.

“Ibid., p. 33.

“This section summarizes Hawley et al., op. cit., footnote 18.
79
80

Beginning in October 1984, one computer was placed

at the disposal of the elementary school staff.

The study involved students in grades 3 and 5,

and used a pretest-posttest control group design. All

students were given a pretest to measure mathematics achievement, attitude toward mathematics

(interest in the subject and how much they like doing mathematics), and computer literacy. Then students in each of the two grade levels were randomly

assigned to two groups: the control group at each

grade level received traditional mathematics instruction, while the experimental group at each grade

level received computer-assisted mathematics instruction. Following these treatments each group

was given a posttest to measure achievement, attitude, and computer literacy.

The control group followed a standard schedule

of traditional instruction, averaging 55 minutes per

day. The third grade class used the Series M Mathematics SI Edition textbook, along with other materials such as flash cards, clocks, and oral mathematics drill games. The experimental group was

taught by the same teacher, who had received 2

hours of prior training on the computers. These students used the Milliken Math Sequences software,

a program which has been widely used in schools

throughout Canada and the United States. The fifth

grade control group had 45 minutes per day of instruction, using the Holt Mathematics System. The

same teacher taught the computer-using group, in

which each student received 10 minutes of mathematics drill on 3 out of every 4 days and 15 minutes on the fourth day, using the Milliken Math Sequences software.

Costs.–An accounting of the costs of adjunct

computer-assisted mathematics instruction as compared to traditional mathematics instruction included the following elements:

● Personnel

—teacher salary and benefits

—program management

—supervision costs

● Facilities and renovation

—classroom

–furniture

● Equipment and materials

—textbooks

—computer hardware

—computer software

● Other costs

—training

—energy

The method for annualizing costs of ingredients, by

incorporating depreciation and interest,21 led to

the development of cost data shown in table 4-5.

Effects Measurement.—The effects of computerassisted instruction compared with traditional mathematics instruction were assessed through six measures: the Canadian Test of Basic Skills (CTBS)

Mathematics Computation Subscale, the CTBS

Math Concepts Subscale, the CTBS Math Problem

Solving Subscale, the CTBS Total Mathematics, the

Survey of School Attitudes Mathematics Subscale,

and the Computer Literacy Test. The CTBS Total

Mathematics results, which were used in the costeffectiveness analysis, are shown in table 4-6.

Results of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.–The

purpose of this study was to determine the cost per

unit of achievement gain under each treatment. As

mentioned earlier, this study found that students

who were exposed to computer-assisted mathematics

instruction improved significantly more than other

students in several areas, and that this method of

instruction was more cost-effective than traditional

instruction. For example, as shown in table 4-7, both

third and fifth graders who used CAI experienced

almost twice the gain of their peers who had traditional instruction; and while the cost per student

was higher for CAI than for the traditional method,

the cost per unit of effectiveness was significantly

lower.

1lLevin, op. cit., footnote 4.

Table 4-5.—Total Annual Costs Projected for

Grades 3 and 5 Mathematics Instruction

in Westberry Elementary Schoola

Grade 3 Grade 5

Measure Traditional CAI Traditional CAI
81

Table 4-6.—Total Mathematics Mean Scores for

Grades 3 and 5: CAI and Traditional Instruction in

Westberry Elementary School

Grade 3 Grade 5

Traditional CAI Traditional CAI

(n=21) (n=20) (n=19) (n=19 )

Pretest

Mean raw scores 46.38 42,55 62.05 59.26

Mean grade placements 3.42 3.29 5.53 5.32

Posttest

Mean raw scores 52.90 56,40 71.68 76.11

Mean grade placements 3,71 3.86 6.03 6.20

Significanc e p< .05 p< .05

Abbreviation: CAI = computer-assisted instruction

SOURCE: D Hawley et al., University of Oregon, Center for Advanced Technology in Education, “Costs, Effects and Utility of MicrocomputerAssisted Instruction, ” Technical Report, 1988, p. 18.

Table 4.7.—Total Mathematics Grade Placement

Gains, Costs Per Student, and Costs Per Month of

Gain: Grades 3 and 5, Westberry Elementary School

Grade 3 Grade 5

Traditional CAI Traditional CAI

Measure (n=21) (n=20) (n=19) (n=19 )

Mean grade placement

gain in months . . . . ., 2.86 5.70 4.94 8.89

Cost per student $129.06 152.81 179,15 200.28

Cost per month of grade

placement gain per

student . . . . . . . . $45.13 26,81 36.27 22.53

NOTE: Costs are in 1985 Canadian dollars.

Abbreviation: CAI = computer-assisted instruction

SOURCE: D. Hawley et al., University of Oregon, Center for Advanced Technology in Education, “Costs, Effects and Utility of MicrocomputerAssLsted Instruction, ” Technical Report, 1988, p. 22.

CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY DIRECTIONS

One of the risks associated with fervent application of cost-effectiveness models is that progress

toward realizing new purposes of education will be

delayed. As one education researcher points out:

Comparing programs using technology to traditional curricula rarely yields useful information since

new programs have goals attuned to technological

change, efficiencies attributable to technology, revised roles for students, and new responsibilities for

teachers. . . . In general there are so many differences between the two approaches that comparison

is silly. Often, material taught in technologicallybased programs simply can’t be taught in another

way, and therefore is cost effective by any criteria.

For example, flight simulators teach skills in dealing with emergencies that cannot be created in

another way. In another example, the music micro

world developed by Balzano’s FIPSE project teaches

music composition skills that could only be practiced if students had full orchestras available to try

out their fledgling ideas. . . . Comparing costs of

traditional and technologically-based programs usually fails because the goals and objectives of the programs differ substantially .22

At the same time, it would be unwise to ignore

the value of CAI for doing what we currently want

schools to do: help students master written and oral

communication and mathematics, acquaint them

with important areas of human knowledge, and enhance their ability and motivation to solve problems. The exciting future potential of computerbased technology in education does not diminish

the concern for careful use of resources to achieve

current purposes. Cost-effectiveness comparisons of

computer-based programs in education versus “traditional practice,” versus “innovations” not based on

technology (for example, students tutoring other students, or some form of “cooperative learning”) are

still appropriate.

There is also the possibility that computers will

not fulfill their potential in education because they

do not prove cost-effective for achieving traditional

purposes.23 Most schools now have a computer for

every one or two teachers—just as they have had

movie projectors, radios, and televisions or videotape players in small numbers. But whether schools

will ever acquire enough hardware and software to

make computers a principal vehicle of instruction

will depend in part on judgments of cost-effectiveness

along the way.

OTA recognizes the many barriers to conducting credible cost-effectiveness studies. The Federal

‘

: Marcia Linn, University of Califorma at Berkeley, Graduate

School of Education, “EvaIuatlng Technological Applications m Higher

Education: Seeking Promising Paths, ” monograph, July 1986.

‘~Henry Levin and Gail Meister, Stanford University, Center for

Educational Research at Stanford, “Educational Technology and Computers: Promises, Promises, Al\\ays Promises, ” project report No. 85-

A13, November 1985.
Government can encourage the use of this decisionmaking tool in the following ways:

● Provide technical assistance to the States and

to local school districts who wish to evaluate

cost-effectiveness of extant or proposed technologies. Preparing guidelines for data collection

and analysis would be a good first step. In addition, the Federal Government could help establish standards for measurement of costs and effects, so that studies conducted in different

school systems could be more readily compared.

● Provide access to computer programs for costeffectiveness analysis. In addition to helping

States and districts conduct studies, this would

have the benefit of creating a database of findings to be shared by interested parties.

● Conduct a demonstration cost-effectiveness

study. By evaluating current programs, such as

●

the use of computers in Chapter 1 schools, the

Federal Government could provide a role model

for States and districts.

Fund research on cost-effectiveness methodologies. This would enhance the apparatus of costeffectiveness analysis to allow for multiple

educational outcomes, time constraints, and dynamic aspects of costs and benefits.24 In addition, attention could be devoted to techniques

 for example, A. Charnes et al., “Measuring the Efficiency of

Decisionmaking Units,” European Journal of Operational Research,

vol. 2, No. 6, November Extensions to the basic technique allow for multiple outcome measures: see University of

Pennsylvania, “Extensions to Measures of Relative Efficiency With an

Application to Educational Productivity, “ doctoral dissertation, 1986;

and and Schinnar, Ohio State University, College

of Business, “Methodological Issues in Measuring Scholastic Improvement Due to Compensatory Education Programs, ” Working Paper No.
8 3

that incorporate the future probability of in- rent uses of available technology, as well as an

creased effects and/or decreased costs, which input to future learning processes, could prowould add an important dimension to the static vide insight to the cost-effectiveness of new techmeasure of known costs and effects. This line nologies (such as interactive video and distance

of analysis, which would introduce future in- learning), for which there is as yet very limited

novations in technology as an output of cur- experience.
Chapter 5

The Teacher's Role
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-. . .

CONTENTS

Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8787 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........+.+”. .. ”s ”””+”” ““””””.”””””””” ,“”””. ~~

How Teachers Use Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Background: Teacher Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“.””.’”” 89

Uses in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +....+....”””.””” .“.”””+.”.””””0”” “ 91

How the Use of Computers Can Change Teaching style . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 91

Effects on Classroom Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......+...””””” ..””..” 96

Effects on Teacher Accountability: The Testing Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Teacher Training in Technology .+. . ............+++. . ..+........””””” “.”.”.”. 98

Teacher Education Reform Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...” 98

Preservice Technology Education . . . . . . . . ..........+””.” .“+””..”””””””.. ““.”” 99

A Brief History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..””””..””””’”””. ““”.””” 99

Current Efforts To Prepare Today’s New Teachers To Use Computers . . . . . . . . . . 99

Inservice Technology Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 104

Unique Characteristics of Inservice Training in Technology . ..................104

Factors Contributing to Effective Inservice Computer Education Programs ... ....105

State and Local Efforts. . . . . . .

Training From Other Sources.

Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teacher Education: A Place to

Keeping Up With Technology:

Federal Leadership . . . . . . . . . . .

Box

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...+.., . . . . . . . “.”” 107

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..+*.... . . . . . . . . .“”.”” 110

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Begin : : : : : : : :........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Inservice and Informal Training . ...............115

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....*..+ . . . . . . . . ..”..” 116

Boxe s

Page

S-A. Deciding Not To Use Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+.........””””” .“”+”” 90

5-B. Using Computers in an Elementary Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

S-C. Using Computers With Special Education Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......+. 93

S-D. The Teacher as a Coach: Teaching Science With a Microcomputer-Based

5-E.

5-F.

5-G.

5-H.

Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ““””””””””””.””” ““. 94

First Encounters With Computers: Some Teacher Concerns . ...............106

Factors Contributing to Effective Inservice Computer Education Programs ....106

IBM/National Computer Training Institute Cooperative Training Plan..... ..111

Excerpts From a Computer Conference on the MIX Network:

“The National Student Book Search” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..114

Figures

Figure

5-1. Readiness to Teach: Perceptions of Education School Faculty and

Page

Student Teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....”+”””.””””.” ““”””””””.””””.”” 100

5-2. State Requirements and Recommendations for Preservice Technology

Programs. ... ... ... ....O .O.O+.......O”O”.O ..”~.”.”””.+””.”.” ““”. .” ”” 102

5-3. State Requirements and Recommendations for Inservice Technology

Programs . . . . . . . .. .. ... .+ O

.. .O+.O .O.”.O’””””.””OO” “.” ”.+”””””””.”.” .10 9

Table

Table Page

5-1. General Teacher Competencies in Technology . . . . . . . . .......+. . ...........101
Chapter 5

The Teacher’s Role

“While our system of schools contains many consequential characteristics . . .

none is more important than who the teachers are and how they work. Without

good teachers, sensibly deployed, schooling is barely worth the effort. ”

Theodore Sizerl

INTRODUCTION

Educators and educational researchers consistently cite one factor as central to the full development of technology’s use in the schools—the

classroom teacher. Computers, though powerful,

are not self-implementing. But in the hands of a creative and technically competent teacher armed with

appropriate software, the computers and allied technologies can provide a new world of teaching op

-

portunities. They are the newest, most versatile tools

of the teaching trade.

This chapter, while dealing with the teacher’s role

in the effective use of technology in schools, focuses

on the use of computers for several reasons. As

stated elsewhere in this report, many of the emerging interactive technologies are computer based.

Theodore Sizer, Horace’s (l>mproml.w’: The Dilemma of the Amer-

:L an Hi&~h S( h[ x)1 (Boston, hIA: Houghton Nflfflln Co., 1984).

●

●

And, although technologies such as distance learning and interactive videodisc are becoming increasingly important in K-12 schools, they are currently

used less than the computer. While instructional

television through the videocassette recorder (VCR)

is experiencing a renaissance in the schools, it also

often serves as the “. . . spark plug for educational

chain reactions incorporating computer applications

such as word processing or computer simulations."2 

Finally, all interactive technologies raise similar issues: how do teachers use them and why, how does

their use affect the teacher’s role, what training do

teachers need to take advantage of them, and what

barriers stand in the way of fuller utilization?

‘See hfllton Chen et al., Case Studies of E.~emplarl’ ln~rru~tlonal

Telc\ision L’se (San Francisco, CA: KQED Instructional Tele\,lsion,

Janua ry 1988).

FINDINGS

Despite the presence of computers in almost all

K-12 schools nationwide, only half of the Nation’s teachers report that they have used computers in instruction. Barriers to use are both

practical (inadequate access to the technology)

and intellectual (initial fears of using the technology and a lack of understanding of the computer’s

●

value in serving the curriculum).

Few teachers have found ways to exploit the

enormous potential which interactive technologies offer. Use in most cases is adapted to the

curriculum at hand and the teacher’s existing

teaching methods. Teachers are just beginning to

understand the computer’s potential for helping

students solve problems, think for themselves, and

collaborate with other students. The computer

can help shift the teacher’s role from education

dispenser to coach, guiding and encouraging each

student to become an active participant in his or

her own learning.

Most teachers want to use technology. Some of

their reasons are personal: the desire to develop

professionally, to learn the newest tool of the

trade, and to do their jobs better. Some are centered on benefits they see for their students: preparation for the world of technology outside school

and a vehicle to channel the students’ enthusiasm

for technology into creative learning. Other rea8 7
88

●

●

●

●

sons include fear of being left behind or being

replaced by the technology, and pressure from

parents, school boards, and administrators.

The process by which teachers appropriate

technology is more complex than that by

which teachers adopt other changes. Initial

fears regarding technology may need to be overcome before teachers feel in control. Training with

computers is an ongoing process that takes place

at varying levels, depending upon the teacher’s

responsibilities and the way the technology is to

be used. Teachers need opportunities for practice

with the computer, with continuing support from

trainers or computer-using peers. Once teachers

feel comfortable with the computer as a tool to

help them do their job, they look for ways to integrate it into their existing curriculum and seek

opportunities to do things previously impossible

in the classroom. Few then wish to go back to

teaching without computers.

Teachers use computers in ways that work best

with their own teaching styles and methods, but

these styles evolve as teachers gain more computer experience. Some teachers individualize instruction, encourage individual and group problem solving, and enhance peer learning when they

have computers in the classroom. Activities facilitated by computer use include teaching writing,

doing laboratory experiments in science, solving

sophisticated problems in mathematics, or using

simulations in social studies classes.

The very opportunities opened by the computer

can create more work for the teacher, making

the job harder initially. Although the computer

can minimize some administrative chores and ease

classroom discipline, other tasks which accompany computer use (individualizing lessons, matching software to the curriculum, scheduling student computer time, monitoring use, providing

assistance, and troubleshooting) add a net burden to the teacher’s time in the short term.

The teacher reform movement has created special challenges and opportunities for the application of technology to education. As more

teacher education programs become 5-year programs, with students earning undergraduate degrees

outside of education, computer training will need

to be sandwiched into a tighter teacher prepara-

●

●

●

●

●

tion curriculum. Integrating the use of technology in subject matter courses can be an effective

way of making computer skills part of preparation of new teachers. Having student teachers intern with computer-using classroom teachers can

also provide role models for technology use.

Preservice technology training, while important in giving prospective teachers facility with

the computer, only serves as an introduction.

Teachers need continuing training as the technology changes, as new and more effective applications are developed, and as more is learned

about learning with technology.

The Federal Government’s role in training

teachers to use technology has been a limited

one, although Federal support was important in

creating a “first wave” of computer-using educaters. The major players in supporting teacher

training have been the States and local districts.

They have made substantial financial commitments to preparing teachers to use computers, but

this support has been highly variable across States

and districts.

Any further investment in technology for education must factor in teacher training and support, whether that effort is focused on a few specialized teachers or on all teachers. Although

most of the responsibility for training will fall on

local school districts, there are important ways

to use the resources of intermediate education

agencies, States, the Federal Government, and the

private sector.

School administrators must support and encourage teachers to use technology throughout the

curriculum. For this to occur, they too will need

training that provides them with an understanding of instructional applications of computers and

a vision of the potential for change they offer.

Efforts to support teachers require attention to

more than immediate needs and current practice. The technology offers new possibilities for

enhancing the teaching environment and teachers’

personal and intellectual growth. Teachers need

an environment in which they can feel free to experiment if they are to discover the opportunities that the technology can provide.
89

HOW TEACHERS USE TECHNOLOGY

Background: Teacher Attitudes

Almost all teachers want to use technology.4

Some of the reasons cited are related to personal growth, some to concern for students,

and some are reflective of external pressures.

Being professionals, most teachers want to stay

abreast of the latest developments in their field. As

one teacher stated: “I always made the commitment

that when I became a teacher who didn’t want to

do the new things or at least investigate them and

give it a good shot, then 1 didn’t want to teach any--

more.’” Some see the use of computers in all aspects

of society as inevitable. They want to be able to prepare their students for the outside world. Many have

used computers at home and are intrigued by the

possibilities they offer, or they have observed their

students’ enthusiasm for computers and want to

channel that enthusiasm to the classroom.

Some have seen the computer’s potential as a tool

to do things in the classroom they had been unable to do before. “In some ways I’m rewriting the

curriculum. I can’t show on a blackboard a thousand balls dropping through a triangular grid. And

to get a distribution, I want a graph to talk about

theoretical and experimental probability. So I use

computers a lot for simulations. ” They understand

from experience that students learn in different ways.

“Having computers in the classroom can help provide

different kinds of learning experiences for students;

for example, the visual learner, or those overwhelmed

by the large classroom and all its distractions, who

really pay attention to the focus of the computer

screen. ”

For many teachers, the computer lights a fire under their teaching spirit, rekindling waning enthu-

‘This secclon draws heavil y on Martha Stone Wiske, Harvard

Llnl\w-sttv, Educational Technology Center, and Philllp Zodhiates, Educ atlon Dcw’elopmenr Center, Inc., “HOW Technology Affects Teaching,” OTA controct~}r report, October 1987.

‘As early as 1982, a National Education Association random sample of approximately 1,200 teachers revealed that 83 percent of the

teachers surveyed wanted to take a course to learn ho\~! to use a computer for Instructional purposes. Se\enty percent or more believed that

computer use in schools has a posltlve effect on student motivation,

suhject Interest, attentwn span, self confidence, and cognitive learnln,g. National Education Assoclat[on, Teacher Sur\re\, ,VEA Report:

C(~rnpurers in the Classroom (U’ashlngton, DC: 1983).

‘The comments [n quotes are dml\’ed from teacher inter\’iews conducted for OTA bv ~~iske and Zodhiates, op. cit., footnote 3.

siasm for teaching. As one teacher said, describing

her colleague, “The use of computers in teaching

gave him a new lease on life. This is all he talks

about—what his students did in class. He’s really

excited about it!”

Finally, some teachers admit that they are responding to outside pressures. Administrators and

parents want teachers to use the machines that have

been placed in their classrooms. Having computer

skills can also open doors to new jobs in the schools,

as in cases where teachers avoid staff cutbacks by

switching to positions that involve computers. Pressure from teacher peers can also be a strong motivator. When asked to describe the relationship between teachers who use computers in their classes

and those who do not, one teacher stated, “It’s the

advocates versus the guilty!”

Yet, not all teachers embrace computers with

open arms. As one teacher said: “They rolled this

thing (the computer) into my class and said, ‘Here,

it’s yours for the month. ’ What did I want with it?

It was a distraction. I let each kid have a half hour

on it and the other 23 would be looking at the clock

the whole time, saying ‘Is it my turn yet?’ By the

end of the first week I just used it as a place to throw

the kids’ coats on. ” Others express their concern

in more positive terms: “I don’t plan to use it and

don’t feel the need to apologize. I teach the way I

teach because it works for me and my students. I’d

rather take a course in the summer on Greek tragedy

so I can add that to my literature course, than a

course in how computers work. It’s a question of

allocating a valuable resource, my time, where, in

my professional judgment, I can best nourish my

own growth and that of my students. ”

Finally some teachers fear that their students may

lose important underlying skills, such as penmanship or computation, when adopting new technologies that replace these skills. Fearing the loss of the

old in adopting the new is not a novel concern. In

the words of an early critic of technology: “Those

who acquire it will cease to exercise their memory

and become forgetful; they will rely on (it) to bring

things to their remembrance by external signs in--

stead of on their own internal resources. ” He went

on to criticize this new technology for replacing a

human response with a manufactured artifact and
90

for cheapening learning by democratizing access to training, and lack of exposure to uses of computers.

knowledge. The critic was Plato, in Phaedrus, ar- Teachers (and others) also tend to blame computers

guing against the introduction of writing in ancient for problems caused by the people who use them

Greece. 6

poorly. Without contact with effective computerSome of the objections voiced by teachers are using teachers they have no positive models. (See

based on prior skepticism, partial information, bad box 5-A.7

)

‘As cited in James Cummins and Dennis Sayers, MicroTrends: ‘The portrait in this box and in boxes 5-B and 5-C are composite

Computer Writing Networks and Empowerment (Reading, MA: profiles of fictionalized teachers who illustrate common themes of

Addison-Wesley, in press). teachers’ varying approaches to technology use In the classroom. The

(c Onf]nmd m next page)
91

Uses in the Classroom

There is not “one computer in education”; there

are many possible educational computer cultures. s

Sherry Turkle

There are as many ways teachers can use computers in the classroom as there are varying teaching styles. Teachers use groups of computers in laboratories very differently than one or two in the

classroom. A single computer in a classroom can

be used by the teacher in various ways at various

times—sometimes as a provocative learning station

for individual students, sometimes for interactive

demonstrations led by the teacher for the whole

class, and in other instances for collaborative problem solving by a small group of students. Use in social studies is different from that for science laboratory work; drill and practice for review of basic skills

is very different from students programming a computer to make machines move. Indeed, asking, “In

what ways do teachers use computers, and how does

the computer affect the teacher and his or her teaching?” seems as broad a question as, “How do teachers

teach with books and what effects do books have

on teachers?” (See box 5-B.)

One of the most frequently cited areas where

computers make possible things that could not be

done before is in special education. The computer

has been described by some as “the freedom machine, ” opening the door to educational pathways

previously inaccessible to handicapped or learning

disabled students. For the physically handicapped,

adaptive devices can make communication itself possible. For trained teachers with access to appropriate information, computers can be powerful teaching tools for special education students. (See box

(C ,,r]r)nutd from prct tc)u\ pag(.)

compo\ltcs arc’ drau’n from Wislce and Zodhiates, op. cit., footnote 3.

In thli rcp<~rt s \amplc c>f 76 teachers, from 10 regionally diverse school

Jl\trl~ t~, Inc ludlng urhan, <uhu rban, and rural sites, were surveyed in

c~ten~l \Ic tclcph(]nc I ntcr\]e\\s. Twenty classroom teachers from vart -

<lu\ w h<x)l \\ •tcm~ In the Boston area were also interviewed. In the

]ntcr\’lc\\~, \~Ih IL h lasted on a\’eragc 1 hour, open-ended questions wet-e

a~kwi ci~n~crnlng the~r personal classroom computer use, the computer

tralnlng and support they had received, and their assessment of the

impacts of the ~omputer on their teaching style and on their students.

In sclecrin~ the \amplc, the rcwarchms attem[]ted to balance for tcachcr

pos)tl[~n, gender, and extent and t}’pc of computer use. The composites arc tntcndeci t<> dra\\ a pic turc of, If not real people, real t}’pm

of tcachcrs, tc> g[tc a feel f(lr ~ommon catcg(~rles and concerns. The

cicnlce rwults In a cr{m\ herwccn straight statistical sur\’e\ research and

hypothcsl~. Sec. the Nrl\kc ,Ind Z(dhlatc< report for addltl(~na] cc~mpo\lte profllm.

‘Shcrr} Turkle, pcrw>nal ~(~mmunlcatl~>n, N(J\cmher 1W7.

5-C.) However, many special education teachers

(and classroom teachers who have disabled students

mainstreamed in the regular classroom) are not

aware of what is available and what is possible, In

addition, the educational system provides few if any

incentives or rewards to teachers who go out of their

way to see that their special education students have

equal access to computers. As a result, the special

education student, especially if mainstreamed into

a regular classroom, often is placed, like the nonEnglish speaking student,” at the end of a long line

when it comes to classroom computer use.

How the Use of Computers Can

Change Teaching Style

One of the most significant impacts of the use

of computers in the classroom is change in teaching style. Teachers can go beyond the traditional

information delivery mode where they are presenters of ready-made knowledge and become

facilitators of students’ learning. With computers,

students can work on problems individually or in

small groups while the teacher acts more like a coach

circulating among them and giving assistance. (See

box 5-D.) Some teachers find that they are able to

observe more of the learning process when watching students interact with computer-based materials. Some teachers welcome the opportunity to learn

alongside their students: “I’ve become more of an

involved participant than an authority figure . . .

a learner with students rather than a presenter of

facts. ” For many, this is a significant change from

how they were taught to teach. It can be both exhilarating and intimidating.

Teachers who use the computer as a medium that

students can manipulate individually or in small

groups find their students become more actively en--

gaged in learning and thinking than during traditional lecture-oriented lessons. Such teachers use the

computers to give students more responsibility for

their own learning.10 Students can work at their

“See U.S. Congress, Office of Tcchnolog}’ A\w’,sn~c’nt, “Trcn.ls and

Status of Computers in Schools: USC ]n Chapter 1 Pro~ram\ and Use

V’tth Lim~ted English Proficient Students,” staff paper, hlarc h l~Si.

‘ ‘SW Sizer, op. cit., fo(>tn(xc 1, for a fuller discussion of the traJittonal American high s~-hm~] and the d(~~ illty it engenders I n student<.

In hls report he states, “NO more ]mportant finding has emerged from

the inqulr]c\ of our stud! than that the American htgh sch(x]l student, as studcnc, IS all too often docile, c(>mpllant, and without lnlt]atl\w. ” Slzcr contrasts this to w hat he ~all~ “. . the hungry student .

ac r III C>, engaged [n h]\ or her (]\\’n learn lng. The student takes the ] nl -

tlatl\e and \tork< at tcachlng himself’ (p. 5+).
92

own speed and can figure out more for themselves. or two computers each.ll As demands for separate

Some students who do not respond well to lessons computer literacy and programming courses diminbased around a lecture format deal more positively ish, some schools are moving their stand-alone comwith the interactive, visual medium of the computer.

1 Jsee ~h 8, ~x 8. A_ App]e Classroom of Tomorrow, for a descrlpThe typical school today has a specialized com- tion of the exceptional case of classrooms where every student has a

puter laboratory and/or a few classrooms with one computer on his or her desk.
93

Box 5-C.--Using Computers With Special Education Students’

“Chris Johnson” teaches special education: learning disabled, mentally retarded, physically handicapped,

and speech impaired students ranging in age from 12 to 18 years in a large urban high school. Several years

ago Chris enrolled in a graduate level course on educational uses of the computer. He saw the possibilities of

using computers for individualized instruction and enhanced social interaction with his students, but realized

that available software would need to be adapted or new software "invented” to meet his students’ special needs.

It was embarrassing for his students to use elementary school software when they were in high school. He wrote

a mini-grant proposal to a hardware manufacturer to adapt promising special educational materials, making

them user-friendly and suitable to the structure and pacing of a special education classroom. As a result, he

was awarded two computers for his class.

Chris explored various ways to apply the computer to his teaching. He has used the program Printshop

as a business venture to help students develop vocational and social skills. Word processing skills have been

particularly important for improving student self-esteem when, perhaps for the first time, a disabled student

produces something legible that could be put in a book and shown to parents or friends with great personal pride.

Like many computer-using teachers, Chris views the computer as a tool that can do many things. Perhaps

the most telling reason for Chris’ enthusiasm is the computer’s role as “equalizer” among his students and between them and other students in the school. He has instituted a peer buddy system to promote this process,

pairing a special education student with a mainstreamed student to work together on computer activities. “My

retarded kids could whup those regular kids with some of the memory games and some little spelling games

and things like that. I think it was one of the first times that the regular kids perceived this normal competency

level in handicapped kids.” He has observed how the computer allows students with disabilities to find common

ground with other students in the school. He also believes that many of his handicapped students will later

in life need to interact with machines on the job or at home. School experiences with computer-based technology can present the handicapped learner with opportunities for future success.

Chris claims that the presence of computers in his classroom has made a substantial difference in the way

he teaches. Some software has led him into content areas he would not otherwise have explored. The adaptation and invention of other software programs for special students has forced him to concentrate on students’

control over their environment and over their own learning. He has observed his students using the computer

to open new channels of communication with their peers, especially those students who have had difficulty

with the social dynamics of the classroom, in making friends, or working with others. “I’ve had romances form

around the computer;” for some of the students it was a deflection of having to work that difficult interaction

of male/female roles. His enthusiasm is tinged with the understanding that computers are costly and require

alot of his time to organize their use in the classroom, but he is undaunted. "The most compelling reason for

using computers with special education students is that they work. They function as a multipurpose coping

mechanism and as a catalyst to better social interactions, particularly important features of academic success

in the special education classroom.”

.

lc~PitC ~~t W-by M*-‘hb*~Unfvarsiry, Education TechnoiosY Gntcr, and phillip Zodhiat-, Education Development Center, Inc., “HOW Technology Affects Teach” OTA contractor report, Cktobrx 19S7.

puters into individual classrooms. Many teachers For example, OTA staff observed a junior high

have found that having only one or a few computers

in the classroom requires students to work together.

This stimulates cooperative learning and peer teaching among students, and develops their communication and social skills. Even simple drill and practice programs may be used with-pairs or triads of

students at one terminal taking turns and helping

each other.

English for Speakers of Other Languages classroom,

where three boys, one from Honduras, one from

Laos, and another from Pakistan, worked together

at the computer puzzling over a multiplication/division drill software program written in English. The

boys’ skills in spoken and written English were

limited and varied, but together they encouraged

each other to solve the mathematical problems so
94
9 5

Photo credit: Computer Learning Month

“1 learn a lot more about my students because I can watch

them learn. Before, I couldn’t watch them learn, because I

was busy delivering the curriculum. My role has changed with

computers. ”

—OTA teacher interview.

they could “win" the game. Three boys, three languages, one computer. Together they succeeded

where one alone would have been lost. The teacher,

busy elsewhere in the classroom, was available to

them but was called upon for assistance only when

all three were stuck on a point. Besides learning the

mathematical facts at hand, the students were learning other social and communication skills equally

important for school success.

Cooperative learning at the computer works particularly well in classroom activities using simulations and problem solving software. Students can

be grouped with mixed abilities and work together

on tasks that cannot be completed individually.

Many software simulations are designed with the

assumption that only one or a few computers are

available for a whole class. Such simulations also

provide opportunities for teachers to integrate various disciplines. For example, teachers using the

popular simulation The Oregon Trail, which puts

students into the role of early pioneers, have incorporated subject areas beyond social studies: language

arts (having students keep journals); mathematics

(in planning purchases for the trip); art (making

maps and drawings for the walls illustrating the journey); science (learning about climate, wildlife, and

nutrition during the trip), and music (singing songs

of the pioneer days).12

Group learning with the computer engages students as actors and decisionmakers and channels

their need to feel important as contributing members of a team. Too often this need is met only by

after-school activities, such as band, play production, or putting together the school newspaper. 13

This cooperative, group learning model has of

course been used in other situations without computers as the focal point, but the interactivity of

computer simulations and the machine’s management of content frees the teacher to observe the

groups in action, and to concentrate on the art of

leading the students in their analysis and discussions.

Not all teachers welcome this change in the

teacher’s role. For some, it can be threatening. “If

all the eyes in the classroom aren’t on me, I’m not

teaching. ” Others wonder, “Are the teachers who

are not successful with traditional teaching methods

the ones who switch over to using the computer?”

Other computer-using teachers report that computers have exerted little or no influence on their

personal classroom behavior. These reactions reflect

‘

: Holly Montgomery 

helm, PA, “A Look at 

room, “ interface: 

No. 3, November 1987, p. 2.

 ‘Research has documented 

searchers studying the introduction of 

 “restructuring expertise” 

by students. See Jan Hawkins “The 

of a Story: Computers and of I n 

rooms,” 

 for (Chic IL: 

Chicago Press, 1986), pp. 40-58.
96

Photo credit: Center for Children and Technology, Bank Street College of Education

Peer learning and language development can take place as students work together at the computer.

different circumstances and styles of computer use.

Since drill and practice or tutorial software is designed for use by individual students working independently from the teacher, it is understandable that

teachers using such software find computers have

little impact on their teaching style. They see the

computer as a way of giving their students more

“seatwork” or practice time, which they would

otherwise provide with mimeograph practice sheets

or other kinds of drillwork. Furthermore, presenting concepts to a whole class, then breaking the class

into small groups to allow the children to become

actively involved in solving problems, can be done

with or without the computer. For teachers who

have long used such methods, computers seem a natural extension of their arsenal of teaching tools. Finally, for many teachers, especially those in elementary schools who have classroom activity centers,

the computer provides another engaging learning

station.

Effects on Classroom Management

Almost all teachers who have taught with computers agree that, at least initially, most uses of

computers make teaching more difficult. It takes

planning to handle the basic logistics of scheduling14

which students will use computers when and where,

to make the necessary equipment and materials

available, and to have a fall-back lesson in case the

computer malfunctions. It also takes a great deal of

planning to incorporate computers into a lesson.

Much of today’s computer software covers only one

or a few instructional concepts. The teacher must

 access to the computers or

laboratory time can be a major scheduling nightmare. This is another

area where administrative support is important. Principals need to be

aware of the scheduling issues (and equity implications) in determining who gets access to the equipment.
9 7

Photo credit Massachusetts Institute of Technology

“Computers give teachers a better opportunity to individualize,

but that doesn’t mean it’s easy. Individualization is difficult

to manage.”

—OTA teacher interview.

find the best ways to incorporate sundry pieces into

the overall curriculum. As one teacher said:

It took me a while to get used to all this. It took

me two months to understand what was going on

. . . then a year to get good at it . , . to learn all the

software programs and all the intimate details and

intricacies of how the room worked. It took me a

good year to be comfortable . . . but by the end of

that time my room was pretty red-hot.

Although teaching with computers may require

more preparation initially, teachers also report

that technology eventually eases some aspects of

classroom management. When students find their

work on the computer engrossing, discipline problems decline. Absenteeism can be cut down, both

by increased student enthusiasm for school, and

through management systems such as automatic

telephone calling systems that report to parents on

unexcused absences in school.15 Spreadsheets or

special purpose grading programs, word processors,

database managers, and desktop publishing can

streamline many of the teachers’ administrative burdens such as maintaining records and preparing materials.

Management tasks can be greatly simplified when

teachers use networked systems. Some of today’s integrated learning systems, which use large capacity

storage systems on hard disc or compact disc-read

only memory (CD-ROM), can hold thousands of

individual lessons matched to the schools’ curriculum, at levels ranging from primary through sixth

grade skills, for the teaching of reading, language

arts, and mathematics. Each student in the classroom can be working on a different lesson, with the

management system automatically recording each

student’s progress, printing out for the teacher a

detailed record of the student’s work. The printout

indicates which problems the student answered correctly, which were missed, and how long it took the

student to complete the tasks. The teacher can then

incorporate this information in planning which concepts must be reviewed when students return to the

classroom, and cluster students by needs. By greatly

easing recordkeeping and monitoring, these systems

make it possible for the teacher to individualize

teaching to a much larger degree.

Effects on Teacher Accountability:

The Testing Question

One of the major issues in teaching is testing and

teacher accountability, an issue that also has a di-

“A recent study at the University of 

 for dealing with student absenteeism at nine high

schools, matched for their student body 

period, it was found that student absenteeism dropped 

schools where the parents of absent students 

based automatic calling systems in student 

 dropped only 18 percent parents 

were called school personnel during day. rgenerated systems found to much 

of contacting parents. M. McDonald, of 

see, “A Comparison of the Effect of Computer and 

 for Attendance in Public High School s,”

doctoral dissertation, 
rect bearing on use of computers and other technology in the classroom. Teachers’ evaluations are

often tied to students’ scores on standardized tests

that do not directly measure the progress of students

who are tackling open-ended problems, collaborating with other students, and turning in assignments

that require more than a right/wrong answer. 16

Teachers thus have an incentive to use skill-specific

software that matches the curriculum goals for which

they are responsible. They are deterred from exploring exciting possibilities offered by software that is

not tied to a particular measurable skill, but which

1“Hawkins and She]ngcdd, op. cit., footnote 13.

TEACHER TRAINING

Although the State, district, and administrators

set systemwide curriculum requirements, it is the

teacher who determines how instructional activities

are carried out. The classroom teacher looks at the

time and texts at hand, slices the subject matter into

daily lesson plans, and determines how to teach the

required materials. If computer technology is to

have an impact on teaching and learning, teachers

must be comfortable with computers, seeing them

as tools that enhance rather than interfere with

their daily teaching. For this to happen, teachers

need special training.

However, the vast majority of today’s teachers

have had little or no training on how to apply

computers in teaching. Recent reports suggest that

only about one-third of all K-12 teachers have had

even 10 hours of computer training. ’8 Much of

that training has focused on general computer literacy, at the “introduction to computers” level, rather

than on the more sophisticated and comprehensive

issues of how to integrate computer technology into

the curriculum or how to use the computer for a

variety of teaching tasks, some of which may be entirely new. Teachers need more technology training (learning how to use computers to accomplish

their current classroom goals), as well as more technology education (gaining enough knowledge about

‘;Much of the work in this scctmn is based on Allen D. Glenn and

Carol A. Carrier, “A Revvtw of the Status of Technology Training

for Teachers,” OTA contractor report, Sept. 22, 1987.

I’Office of Tcchnologv Assessment, op. cit., footnote 9.

may provide opportunities for the student to engage

in problem solving or to just “play around. ”

Educators have legitimate concerns regarding how

the work done on the computer fits into the curriculum. They know that the bottom line is testing, and that they are held accountable for assuring that the facts of the subject matter are covered

in their classroom. Therefore, although a teacher

may recognize the value of seeing the students working together, cooperating, and developing creative

solutions to problems offered by simulation of an

historical event, this same teacher must worry about

whether these students have memorized the historical facts that tests measure.

IN TECHNOLOGY17

the computer and understanding of its capabilities

so they can explore the potential of the computer

to improve learning in nontraditional ways). OTA

finds that teachers need both training and education if technology is to take hold in schools. They

need to know how to work the technology to meet

their goals, and how to work with it in changing

goals based on what the technology makes possible.

Training and professional development, for both

new and veteran classroom teachers, need to be seen

as continuing efforts. Inservice education can bring

the existing cadre of teachers up to speed, help them

overcome computer anxieties, and guide them as

they attempt to adopt powerful, multipurpose, and

ever-changing technologies in the classrooms. Concurrently, it will be necessary to ensure that those

entering the profession have the most up-to-date

technology skills and underlying understandings.

Unfortunately, the solution, like so many other answers to educational questions, is neither simple nor

easily attainable.

Teacher Education Reform Efforts

The need to improve teachers’ technology training and education arises at a time when reforming

teacher education is receiving much attention. This

comes on the heels of several years of critical review

of U.S. public education. Two major reports address

these reform issues and their implications for teacher
9 9

education.]’ The Holmes Group, composed of deans

from large, research-oriented colleges, and the Carnegie Forum, a group of political, business, and

educational leaders, each call for major changes in

the preparation of teachers, higher standards for

teachers, and increased professionalism, along with

appropriate professional compensation.

The Holmes Group recommends that colleges

abolish the undergraduate education major and

move teacher education to a post-baccalaureate degree program. This would be a drastic change for

almost all schools of education because, while postbaccalaureate programs have existed for years, they

are the exception rather than the norm.

“The Holmes Group, Inc., Tomorro\{~~ Teachers: A Report of The

Ho/roes Group (East Lansing, LII: 1986); and Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the .21st

Centur}r, the Report of the Task Force c>n Teaching as a Profession

(Neu, York, N’I

r

: May 1986).

The Carnegie Forum has set into motion a National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

that will develop national examinations and guidelines for teacher certification, efforts many feel will

change the profession profoundly. Concomitant efforts to reform teacher education are also occurring

at the State level. More than 25 States require

teacher competency testing in at least the basic skills

of reading, writing, and mathematics. State regulations also specify the number of credits permitted

in teacher education programs. Debate continues

over how much time should be spent on content

versus process in teacher education.

As a result of these calls for reform at the State

and national levels, teacher education programs are

changing. In the midst of these sweeping changes,

technology training is not the only issue in the

teacher preparation debate, but it can be one piece

of the solution. The teacher reform movement provides the opportunity to consider new roles for

teachers and how technology fits in.

PRESERVICE TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

A Brief History

As the number of computers increased in elementary and secondary schools over the last 10 years,

schools and colleges of education tried to respond.

Many incorporated a basic computer literacy course

into their curriculum, covering such topics as: “What

is a computer? How does it work? How do you program it?” Proponents of programming suggested that

learning to program would remove much of the mystery surrounding the operation of computers and

would give teachers greater flexibility in using

them. 20 Teachers would also be able to develop

their own software in a period when good educational software was scarce. 21 Others found emphasis on programming reinforced the idea that only

technical people—like those in the audio-visual/instructional design departments where early computer

courses often originated, or those in mathematics

or the sciences—could understand computers. Other

: ‘V’llliam Bramble et al., Compurers In SChoo]s (Nw York, NY:

McGra\\ Hill, 1985), p. 225,

“T.]. .slngletarv, “Programm~ng for Leadership, ” ]ournal of Tea~’her

Educar)(]n, ~ol. 38, No. 4, 1%6, pp. 26-30.

teachers were often intimidated by and/or uninterested in computers,

Current Efforts To Prepare Today’s

New Teachers To Use Computers

Approximatel y 142,000 new teachers were expected to graduate in 1987-88.22 Over 1,500 private

and public institutions prepare these teachers. Their

programs range in size from those with a handful

of teachers to those that graduate several hundred

each year. Today almost all of these teacher licensure programs provide some instruction in the use

of computers. 23

Despite course offerings, graduates of teacher

preparation institutions apparently do not feel

‘~~l.s, Department of E~UCa[lon, Offlcc of Edu~atl~)nal [{ewar~ h

and Impro\’ement, Center for Education Stati\rl~s, The CondJr/orI” of

E&carwn (Washington, DC: 1986), p. 64. In makln~ thcw pro]cct]~>n\,

the N’ational Center for Educarion Statistics used data from the N’atlonal Education Assoc]at]on.

: ‘Elghtv-nine percent of all schools of education offered some form

of computer training to their student\. See U.S. Department of Education, Oilce of Educatlona] Research and Development, Teacher Preparat~f)n ~n rhe (-’w c)f C<)mpu rc’r\ (N’ashlngtt>n, DC: January 1986).
100

prepared to use computers in teaching. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

recently surveyed education faculty and students in

90 member institutions offering bachelor’s, master’s,

or doctoral programs in education. Both education

faculty and students were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of their teacher education program in preparing classroom teachers. On all but 2 of the 12

aspects of teaching in the survey, more than twothirds of both groups considered students to be prepared to assume the tasks of classroom teaching. Yet

this preparation did not carry over to teaching with

technology. The faculty rated only 58 percent of the

students as prepared to teach with computers, while

only 29 percent of the education students felt ready

to teach with computers.24 (See figure 5-1. )

Factors Affecting Technology

Training Programs

Several important changes over the past 10 years

directly affect teacher technology training programs.

Some have facilitated the technology training efforts,

but others have created new problems that may explain why so many new teachers do not feel prepared to teach with computers.

Changing Technology. –Hardware and software

have become easier to use, more powerful, and more

useful in the classroom. More powerful and adaptive software means teachers have less need for programming skills. Computer training has become less

technical overall. However, rapid technological

change also creates problems for schools of education similar to those faced by teachers already in

classrooms. As one dean at a major college of education said:

The problem is how to prepare teachers for hardware that is not yet invented, for software that is

not yet designed, and for curricula not yet imagined.

It’s hard to have a vision of what technology will

be, but, as deans, we have to have a vision, and we

have to realize that it will change.25

‘

+ American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Teaching Teachers: Facts and Figures (Washington, DC: 1987).

‘fCarl Berger, Dean of the College of Education, University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor, quoted in “Education and the Challenge of

Technology,” proceedings of a Conference on Technology and Teacher

Education, sponsored by the University of Califorma, Berkeley and

Apple Computer, Inc., August 1986.

Figure 5-1 .—Readiness to Teach: Perceptions of

Education School Faculty and Student Teachers

Aspects of teaching

/ A

Develop materials

o 50 100

Percent citing realness

SOURCE: Research About Teacher Education Project, Teaching Facts and

Figures (Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for

Teacher Education, 1987).

Varying Student Levels of Preparation.–Schools

of education are faced with students whose computer

backgrounds vary considerably. Since many more

high school students now have at least minimal experience with the computer, the education schools’

student population is more computer literate than

was the case even 5 years ago. According to one

estimate, approximately 60 percent of freshman entering college today have experience using the computer.” Nevertheless, some education school faculty

have argued that education majors may be less pre-

‘b]udith A. Turner, “Familiarity With New, Technology Breeds

Changes in Computer-Library Courses,” The Chmrde of Higher Education, July 22, 1987, pp. 9, 12.
101

pared to use technology than their peers in mathematics, sciences, or business majors. 27

State Regulations and the Education Curriculum.–State departments of education and professional organizations are establishing guidelines for

what technology skills teachers need. For example,

the Northwest Council for Computer Education

prepared guidelines for teacher education in schools

of education in Washington and Oregon. (See table 5-l.) The trend at the State level is to establish

preservice education requirements. Currently, 18

States and the District of Columbia require all students in their teaching degree programs or those

seeking certification to take a course on computer

topics, or require that students demonstrate familiarity in using technology for instruction.28 An additional seven States recommend that some preservice training be taken. 29 This leaves half the States

currently neither requiring nor recommending technology preparation for new teachers. (See figure 5-2.)

Although formal requirements may force the development of new programs of study in educational

technology, establishing new programs with education school faculty whose technology expertise is

uneven or limited is difficult. Furthermore, some

analysts believe that schools of education are over-

--Gar\ Bitter, Arizona State Lln]\crslty, personal communlcatwn,

~>~t<]b~r 198~.

“The State of California la\\ reads as follo\\s: “Commencing July’

1, IW8, the mlnlmum requirements for a clear teaching credential also

Inc Iucic satisfactory completion of computer education coursework

\\ h l~h Includes general and spcclallzed skills in the use of computers

In edu~atlona! settings, In ac~ot-dance \\[th regulations established bv

t}le c(]mmlsslon.

(a) The Lqyslature hereh\ finds and declares that California’s puhIIC \chool pupils need qualltv Instruction and support in the areas of

computer educ atlon I n order to develop the skills necessary for entr~’

Into an I ncrcasingly technological society. The legislature recognizes

that computers and other technologies are an integral part of contem-

~>orarl society’ and the state educational s}rstem.

It IS the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to provide

a state\\. [de standard for the preparation of educational personnel in

the areas of computer education.

(h) For purposes of this section, “computer education” means the

pro~e~s of teaching pupils about computers.

(c) The Commission on Teacher Crcdentia]lng, In consultation uith

the Supmntendent of Public Instruction, may develop and disseminate \,oluntarv standards for the training and performance of teachers

and resource personnel In the area of computer education.

(d) The Commission on Teacher Credentialing shall study the effectl \cnew of the training and performance of teac hers and resource perwnncl I n the area of c(>mputer education, and shall suhm It a report

{}n the re<u}ts of rhe stud, to the Legislature on or before Decemher

31, lW~. ” Assembly BIII No, 1681, Sec. 44261.7 and +42?6, Oct. 1, 1985.

: 10TA State Educatlona] Technology Sur\ey, 1987.

Table 5-1.—General Teacher Competencies in

Technology

The teacher should:

1. have an appreciation for using the computer as a tool

for solving problems;

2. have the experience of using computers in the learning

of subject matter;

3. have knowledge of computer vocabulary;

4. be able to use the computer as a tool (using applications

such as word processing, spreadsheet analysis, or database management); and

5. be familiar with computer hardware, including the everyday operation and use of a variety of machines.

SOURCE: N. Moore, “Preparing Computer-Using Educators,” The Computer

Teacher, October 1984, pp. 48-52.

burdened with State regulations that can minimize

creativity. Some States limit the total number of

credits in the teacher licensure program. In Texas,

for example, a maximum of 18 credits in education

courses is allowed. Such restrictions make it difficult for schools of education to develop a curriculum that meets the requirements for initial licensure and still has room for technology training,

unless educational technology is introduced as a central element in both methods and theory courses.

Currently, this orientation is more the exception

than the norm.

Resources in Education Schools: Hardware and

Faculty Expertise. —Although today’s education

students may have more access to computers in their

overall university coursework than did their counterparts 5 years ago, the schools and colleges of education are often behind the rest of the campus in

available hardware and faculty expertise. The education school or department has seldom received

the large equipment donations from hardware manufacturers that other departments have. Education

faculties have usually not received systematic training in technology use.

Trying to infuse technology into the traditional

methods course remains a difficult task, due to

faculty reluctance and inexperience with computers.30 One university tackled this problem by re-

~“Presentations by Gary Bitter (Arizona State L1nlvcrsltv), Larrv

Hannah (California State Universit}r, Sacramento), and Charlotte

Scherer (Bowling Green State Uni\’ersity) at the IW7 National Educat~onal Computing Conference confirmed this dlfflculry. The}’ maintained that [t IS often easier to pro~ide a separate course on using the

computer, than to con\’ lnce, train, and support methods Instructors

in their content courses. Education students then lack models of teaching with the computer as a tool in various curricular areas.
102

Figure 5-2.—State Requirements and Recommendations for Preservice Technology Programsa

\

HI

 for technology training are pending or under consideration in Colorado, Maine, and Vermont. Requirements apply only to teachers in

certain Minnesota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

 Office of Technology Assessment State Educational Technology 1987.

leasing a professor of education from one of her

courses for 1 year. Teaming up with methods instructors in all subject matter areas to introduce

computer-related activities into existing education

courses, she helped out with more than 60 such class

activities. She indicated that a key to the success

of this program was working with the instructor to

first identify an important problem or topic and then

using the computer as an aid to teaching that topic.

Many of the methods instructors she worked with

had never used the computer in their courses. As

a result of their work with this computer-using colleague, they began to explore computer applications.

As confidence and expertise increased, so did the

probability of use.31 Since teachers typically teach

as they were taught, upgrading the technological

skills of education faculty is an essential first step

for preparing technologically literate entry--level

teachers.

Student Teaching Experiences:—Internships

With Computer-Using Educators.–One of the

most important components of teacher training, and

a focus of teacher reform efforts, is the internship

 Associate Professor of Education, of 171 
103

Photo credit Houston Independent School District

Placing student interns with computer-using teachers

can provide role models for teaching with technology.

or student teaching period. If a teacher candidat e

interns in a classroom where the teacher uses technology creatively and regularly, the teacher intern

sees technology’s promise and problems in a real -

life setting. Conversely, a student teacher who come s

into a classroom and develops lessons utilizin g com -

puters can help bring technolo gy to the experience d

classroom teacher who has not worked with com -

puters previously ,

Where teacher education programs arrange provide schools with technologically-rich classroom

environments (such as the professional development

schools advocated by the Holmes Group), student

teachers can experiment with technology in instruction, Such environments could also serve as settings

for experiments where student teachers collaborate

with mentor teachers, teacher educators, and researchers to examine a particular technological innovation.

An interesting experiment integrating technology

into the student internship program is taking place

at the University of Virginia, With a $1 million

equipment grant from IBM, the University’s Curry

School of Education set up Teacher-LINK, a computer networking system to make electronic communication available in public school classrooms

wher e the student teachers are working. Student

teachers faced with running a classroom can communicate among themselves, with their cooperating teachers, supervisors, and with faculty at the

University, lessening the isolation that many teacher

interns feel. Both student teachers and education

facult y are excited by a resource that lets the student teachers ask questions as they occur and solve

problems in the real time of the computer network.

The system also supports discipline-specific computer

conferences, for example, in English and social

studies, These are to aid students in developing curricula and lesson plans, and in learning classroom

and subject-specific skills,

One of the more practical aspects of the network

is the opportunity it offers student teachers to submit lesson plans and receive feedback from their cooperating teachers and supervisors:

While tired teachers and interns may not want

to stay for several hours after school giving and responding to feedback, they may find it easier to look

at lesson plans, evaluations, and project ideas in the

comfort of their own homes, after they have had

dinner and rested a bit. Then, if the intern prefers

to work until midnight, but the cooperating teacher

chooses to go to bed early and review the uploaded

unit outline at 7 am, neither wakes the other, and

no time is lost in leaving telephone messages.32

The organizers hope this experience will encourage

users to develop an interest in other applications

of networking, such as conferences and collaboration on curriculum development and research. The

computer-networking infrastructure supports activities ranging from elementary student projects, including cross-cultural writing networks, to advanced

faculty research and collaboration. ”

A computer network can also become an informal support system for beginning teachers, extending their training through the first year of teaching.

Unlike doctors, who have supervised internships following medical school, beginning teachers are on

their own once they graduate. Although the first

year of teaching is a crucial period in teachers’ development and can influence whether they stay in

the profession, beginning teachers most often find

themselves isolated, with few to turn to for advice.

‘:JucJi Harris, Curry School of Education, LlnL\crsit\ ~,f \’,rg~nia,

Charlottesville, “Teacher-LINK: An Electronic Culture, ” ~]apcr presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational RewarL h

Avmclatlon, New Orlean\, April 1988.

“For a full dlscussmn of the uses of computer networks in K-12 cduc atl~)n, we Earl Do\\dv, t-; nl\crs[t\ of IIltnolst Urhana-Champaign,

“Computer Networks In Elemental\’ and Seconclary Education,” OTA

contractor report, October 1987’.
104

As a means of providing first-year support to their

graduates, the Harvard Graduate School of Education set up the Beginning Teacher Network. This

network links 50 of Harvard’s newest graduates with

one another, and with several faculty members from

the School of Education. They communicate through

electronic mail and in forums on teaching specific

subject areas, such as mathematics or psychology.

Participants discuss classroom management and discipline, field concrete suggestions on the nuts and

bolts of teaching, or talk about general education

issues. Since the network’s inception, roughly 3,400

messages have been transmitted, averaging some 110

messages a week. The participating beginning teachers,

scattered across the country, value the camaraderie the network offers and the encouragement and

practical information they receive from one another

and from Harvard faculty. 34

“Blake Rodman, “ ‘Hang in There, Bob’: Notes for New Teachers

Via Computer,” EducationWeek, vol. 7, No. 32, May 4, 1988, p. 1.

INSERVICE TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

Inservice education plays an important role in

technology training for several related reasons. As

cited above, most new teachers do not feel prepared

to teach with computers. School systems must therefore play catch-up from the start. Furthermore, with

technologies changing and applications varying so

widely, it may not be either possible or desirable to

expect that preservice education will ensure the effective use of technology by teachers. Just as preservice training prepares a teacher to begin teaching,

so training in technology prior to entering the classroom may be best suited to providing introductory

skills, enabling the new teacher to begin working

with whatever technology exists in the classroom.

Advanced training in applying new technologies can

then occur through inservice and continuing education. Inservice training can also build on experiential learning, based on the teacher’s specific classroom experience and needs. Thus, training for

teachers should be seen as an ongoing requirement for professional growth.

Industry spends up to $30 billion a year on formal education to enhance and upgrade the work

force. 35 Much of the teacher reform literature argues that education must make a similar effort.

Unique Characteristics of Inservice

Training in Technology

Several characteristics and requirements of

technology training distinguish it from other

kinds of inservice training. Equipment is critical.

‘5Anthony Carnevale, “The Learning Enterprise,” Training and De-

~elopment journal, t’ol. 40, No. 1, January 1986, pp. 18-26.

It is possible to run an inservice session on a new

reading or mathematics technique in a traditional

classroom, but teaching teachers to use a word processing or gradebook program requires a computer.

Furthermore, teachers can apply what they have

learned in an inservice session only if they have access to the technology once the training has ended,

both for gaining confidence through practice and

for application in the classroom.

In addition, inservice training in technology must

be sensitive to the concerns or anxieties with which

teachers approach the use of technology. A teacher

taking a course in other subject areas generally has

some experience or background in the topic. But

many teachers, especially those who consider themselves "B.C.’’—before computers—have not yet

worked with computers and admit to being “technophobic.” Others had early negative computer

training experiences. Sometimes programming was

emphasized; sometimes the courses tried to cover

too much, too fast36 and had no relevance to their

teaching needs. Several factors]; contribute to a

teacher’s anxiety about computers; they must be

taken seriously as they underlie whether or not a

teacher adopts technology and how the teacher uses

it in the classroom. (See box 5-E.)

‘A study of teachers and admirmtrators enrolled in a semester-long

introductory course on computer applications found that for those with

no prior experience, the decline in anxiety did not appear until after

some 30 contact hours with the computer. See Gerald Bracey, “Still

Anxiety Among Educators Over Computers,” Electronic Learning, VO!.

7, No. 6, March 1988, p. 20.

‘;See, for example, F. Williams and V. Williams, lvlic-rocompumrs

in Elementary Education: Perspectives on implementation (Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth Publishing CO., 1984).
105

Photo credit: Paul Foldey, Lesley College

or many teachers, especially those who consider themselves “B. C.” (Before Computers), learning to teach with computers

a challenge. Sensitive training, time to practice, and support from peers are the best antidotes to computer anxiety.

Factors Contributing to Effective

Inservice Computer Education

Programs

Studies 38 examining inservice computer education programs have identified several instructional

practices that contribute to effectiveness. (See box

5-F.) In conjunction with the Minnesota Technology Demonstration Site Program, 39 part of the

Minnesota legislature’s educational technology initiative, a comprehensive review of inservice technology training activities was conducted. This evaluation covered 3 years (1985 to 1987) and involved

‘*B. M. Stecher and of Effective

 Programs (Pasadena, CA: Educational Testing 

Ice, 

 et al., “Technology-Related 

 Findings, and Recommendations: An Based on

 of Minnesota’s Demonstration 

 Evaluation and a report of the Minnesota 

 of Education, 1987.

17 technology demonstration sites. Although inservice activities varied widely across the sites, evaluators found that there was a progression of inservice

technology topics at most sites. These were characterized as:

●

●

●

●

“Awareness” stage: large group workshops run

to acquaint teachers with a general overview

of how technologies work and to alleviate

anxiety;

“Overview” stage: workshops that delivered additional detail on how particular technologies

work and usually provided examples of the application of technology to particular subject

matter areas;

“Topical” stage: a more focused approach (for

example, using computers in social studies) with

fewer participants;

“Adoption/implementation” stage: more focused with intense work by each participant;

and
106

SOURCE: CM& of Technology Awcsmwmt, 1988.

● “Integration” stage: characterized by fine tuning of curriculum materials that use technology

or guided assistance in integrating certain types

of technology into a teacher’s lesson.

Teachers reported that they preferred learning

about technology from other teachers or those who

understand the settings in which they work (including the limitations and constraints of those settings).

The teachers said they wanted access to followup

support, and access to equipment and software during and after the inservice training. Seventy-eight

percent reported that they participated because they

were curious, had specifically requested the topic,

or preferred a technology-related topic to other non-
107

technology inservice courses that were available.

Nearl y 80 percent of the teachers in the study said

that they had used the training application in their

classrooms.

Interviews with technology site directors or district superintendents indicated they believed strongly

that teachers should be involved in the planning

of technology inservice activities and that such activities must be based on teachers’ needs.

The evaluators concluded that, for inservice education to be a powerful force in moving technology

into classrooms, it must have a strong practice or

“hands on” component, must be taught by credible sources (most notably other teachers), must be

suited to the competence level of the teachers, must

include followup support and guidance, must be

sufficiently long, and should include extensive instruction in the use of computer software tool applications.

State and Local Efforts

The local school district is the key provider of

all inservice training for teachers, and this role

carries over to inservice training in the use of

technology. Districts use a variety of course providers, differing approaches, and funding sources.

Although the State and/or the Federal Government

may provide some funding for inservice training, the

district decides who will be trained, how, and where.

Providers may include local universities, regional resource centers, intermediate school districts, local

technology departments, hardware companies, software developers, and professional organizations. The

training can be formal or informal, long term or just

a few hours, ranging from a full program of studies

(encompassing a number of courses leading to an

advanced degree or special certificate), to short

courses on a particular software tool, attendance at

a technology conference, or teacher-to-teacher sharing right in the classroom. The technology can be

both the focus of training and the training source,

as happens with electronic bulletin boards, computer

conferencing, and courses broadcast via satellite

from distant locations. Local district monies constitute the principal source of funding, with commitments of State and Federal resources also targeted to teacher training activities.

States play a significant role in furthering the

effective use of technology. In identifying the challenges and issues critical to technology in schools,

the National Governors’ Association recommended: "

. . . that at least 10 to 20 percent of State funds

allocated for acquisition of various machines should

go for training programs. The task force strongly

believes that States must make a greater commitment to support training programs.”40 While State

support has already been a significant factor in the

growing use of technology, it is likely to be even

more so in the future. State influence emanates from

direct and indirect funding, technical assistance, institutional arrangements, and regulations or recommendations.

OTA’s State Educational Technology Survey

found that 41 States have a Technology Coordinator or an Office of Technology. Thirty-three States

and the District of Columbia provide some funding for teacher training in technology. This support

comes from State funds earmarked specifically for

technology training in over half of these cases, but

States may also use their general State aid to education, professional development funds, monies funneled to regional centers, or training funds which

the State has received from special Federal programs,

such as Title II funding for mathematics and science

teacher training, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Vocational

Education, or Special Education monies.41 One

estimate for State spending for teacher training in

technology showed an increase from $10 million in

21 States in 1986 to a total of $25 million in 25 States

in 1987.42

In the OTA survey, States reported wide variations in funding—from as little as $20,000 to a high

of$15 million per year (see appendix A). Most States

have, however, been unable to allocate the level of

financial support for teacher training in technology

that they would prefer. Those which do not directly

support training from State funds find other ways

to assist teachers to use technology, as, for example, in their software evaluation centers or State purchase plans for hardware and software that make

*’National Governors’ Association, Center for Policy Research and

Anal}sis, Time for Results: The Go\w-nors’ 1991 Report on E&ca -

t~on (W’ashtngton, DC: 1986), p. 132.

iIOTA state EduCati[lna] Technology Survey, 1987.

‘:Electronic Learning, “Educational Technology 1987, ” vol. 7, No.

2, October 1987, p. 39.
108

it possible for teachers to purchase materials at reduced cost. Many States run annual technology conferences, while others put on workshops or support

regional training efforts. California was an early

initiator of the concept of regional Technology Education Computer (TEC) Centers, to provide a network of resources for training and technical assistance all across the State. California’s TEC Centers

provided a structure for coordinating services and

resources. Although these centers played a major

support role, their State funding was eliminated in

the 1987 budget by the Governor. Some TEC

Centers have continued with reduced funding, most

of it provided by local districts or other non-State

support.

In contrast, New York State’s Teacher Resource

and Computer Training Centers have expanded

dramatically. In 1984, the New York State legislature created a network of regional teacher resource

and computer training centers to improve teaching

skills and train teachers in the educational applications of computer technology. Teacher organizations

have been instrumental in setting up the centers,

most of which are housed in local schools, and

teachers chose the special focus on technology training. In 1987, the State legislature voted to increase

funding for the centers from $12.5 million to $15

million, in order to support the existing 74 centers

and add 17 new centers. The centers are linked electronically, enabling the teachers in one center to

communicate with teachers in other centers, either

informally on electronic bulletin boards, or more

formally in computer conferences organized by the

teachers on topics of shared concern (for example,

dropout prevention strategies).43

Most States recommend that all teachers participate in inservice courses on teaching with technology; three require it. (See figure 5-3. ) Minnesota requires that every teacher in the State take at least

one computer-related course and West Virginia requires that teachers in certain academic disciples

take a computer course. In Utah, all current teachers

must demonstrate the ability to use technology in

instruction. Other ways to encourage teachers to

use technology include the unusual approach taken

 addition these centers, many of the State Intermediate units

and teacher training Institutions not funded as teacher resource and

computer centers also offer programs of technology training.

by the State of New Hampshire. The State provided

1,950 teachers with a personal computer of their own

to use at home for 3 years. With the computer they

received software and training to enhance their personal productivity. The State is gambling on the fact

that, as teachers become comfortable with computers by using them at home, they will see ways of

applying them to their teaching and adopt technology as a teaching tool with enthusiasm and a measure of expertise.

District Activities

While States play a large and growing role in providing inservice technology training, the major

source of such training is the school district. The

most consistent professional education experience

for a teacher is the inservice program sponsored by

the district. At least once during each year all

teachers attend some type of inservice workshop on

a topic of their choosing or of the district’s sponsorship. Although considerable resources have been

allocated to inservice training in technology, it is

difficult to estimate the overall level of funding support since districts may not separate technology

Photo credit: Computer Learning Month

Some of the most effective teacher training comes

through support from more experienced teachers in

informal sessions where new strategies can be practiced

before use in the classroom, as seen here at the Packer

School, Brooklyn, New York.
109

Figure 5-3.—State Requirements and Recommendations for Inservice Technology Programsa

to take a computer course in West Virginia.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, State Educational Technology Survey,

courses from overall professional development

support.

In a series of OTA case studies44 of various approaches to technology training for teachers, three

school districts were studied (Houston Independent

School District in Texas, Albuquerque Public Schools

in New Mexico, and Jefferson County, Alabama).

In each of these districts, teacher training was a central part of the technology implementation plans.

‘dFor a discussion of seven case studlcs of State, county, district,

school level, and industry supported teacher training, see John Strange

et al., ‘(Alternative Approaches to Developing a Cadre of Teacher Techno]og]sts, ” OTA contractor report, December 1987.

.

1987.

Regarded as one of the Nation’s leading districts

in educational technology, the Houston Independent School District (HISD) established the first Department of Technology for a local school system

in 1982. The goal was to assure that all technology

planning and services to HISD schools would be centralized and coordinated. As a part of this broad

effort, the position of Teacher Technologist was created. Each of the 240 teachers who entered the program received 296 hours of technology training conducted by the department. To qualify for a $2,000

bonus, they take an additional 30 hours of updated

training each year. The Teacher Technologists serve

90 percent of Houston’s schools, and spend 60 per-
110

cent of their time in the classroom, teaching the

State-mandated computer course or helping to integrate technology in other content areas. Additional

school-wide duties include training other teachers,

parents, and administrators; running student computer clubs and other activities; and coordinating

purchases and allocation of hardware, software, and

resource materials. The centralized approach to

Houston’s technology program is currently being reevaluated under a new superintendent. HISD’s 1986-

87 technology budget excluding hardware appropriations was $2.3 million, a 70 percent reduction from

that of the previous year, when $7.7 million was

made available.

Albuquerque adopted a less centralized training

approach. The district established a partnership with

two local institutions of higher education to provide a 64-hour course sequence for interested teachers.

The training program, Computing for Teachers, focuses on mastery of three core applications: word

processing, database management, and LOGO, with

emphasis on developing strategies for integrating

technologies across the K-12 curriculum. The course

sequence can be taken for credit at the University

of New Mexico at the teacher’s expense, or at the

Technical-Vocational Institute, where the fee is paid

by the district at a cost of $5 per trainee. Both

courses use the same materials and teachers from

the Albuquerque Public School staff. Approximately

75 percent of the teachers in the system have completed this computer training cycle.

The Jefferson County study provided a very different model, involving limited local funding but substantial support from local businesses and national

hardware and software companies. An ambitious

multimedia training program involved after-school

workshops and continuing support from the county’s

Office of Staff Development. The goals of the program were to help teachers and students (who were

allowed to participate in the workshops) incorporate

a variety of technologies (radio, TV, desktop publishing, video, electronic keyboards, and telecommunications) into classroom presentations across a

range of curricular areas; to provide hands-on experience in creating media; and to teach media production as a critical thinking process. Approximately

100 teachers from 13 county schools participated

during the 1986-87 school year. All training was conducted by the program’s initiator who received

$5,000 for the 9-month project from Title II funds

committed by the Jefferson County School District.

Because he volunteered the rest of his time to the

project, and the teachers attended the training voluntarily on their own time, no other school system

funding was involved. National and local corporate

sponsors donated equipment, software, and other

materials valued at more than $50,000. Other local

sponsors, such as the Alabama Power Co., contributed space and support for multimedia fairs that

showcase teacher- and student-created materials.

While these three examples show the range and

variety of local district approaches, there is no one

best model which school districts adopt in the scramble to keep pace with technology.

Training From Other Sources

Computer companies, software developers, and

professional organizations also provide training and

support for teachers to use computers in their curriculum. On a more informal basis, classroom teachers

give each other assistance and support, sometimes

through informal peer assistance in the school, as

well as across town or across the continent via the

technology itself when teachers participate in networking activities such as electronic mail, information sharing via electronic bulletin boards, computer

conferencing, and subject-oriented workshops. Sometimes schools even set up systems where students

with computer expertise tutor teachers.

Industry Efforts

Computer companies have a direct economic interest in training. It makes good business sense to

instill in teachers a sense of loyalty to a particular

type of computer. Training efforts therefore are seen

as one cost of selling computers.

An early entrant to the training arena was the

Tandy Corp., which introduced many teachers to

computers through seminars and workshops in Radio Shack outlets. Early efforts reached more than

400,000 teachers. Tandy currently offers training

both at the school site and in Tandy training

centers, providing custom workshops to meet the

needs of individual districts or State agencies that

are working closely with Tandy .45

~5William Gattis, vice president, Radio Shack Education Division,

personal communication, Feb. 22, 1988.
111

One comprehensive effort at computer training

for educators was the 1984 joint venture between

the National Computer Training Institute of

Fremont, California, and IBM to provide training

on the IBM PC Jr. (See box 5-G.) Particularly farsighted was their concept of giving teachers a computer of their own for home use, enabling the

teacher to feel comfortable through gradual mastery,

and eventually to appreciate the computer as a tool

that could also be applied at school, Many of the

major computer companies active in the K-12 market

have now instituted educators’ discount programs.

IBM has also participated in college and university discount programs by making computers and

related technology available at reduced prices. As

noted above, IBM is supporting demonstrations of

telecommunications networks for student teachers

(University of Virginia’s Teacher-LINK) and first

year teachers (Harvard’s Graduate School of Education’s Beginning Teacher Program). IBM also provides implementation workshops for school districts

that have purchased IBM software, and has conducted extensive teacher training efforts for districts

that have implemented the Writing to Read proBox 5-G.—IBM/National Computer Training Institute Cooperative Training Plan

In August 1984,97 pairs of trainers from 49 States and the District of Columbia, chosen for their experience

in using computers, were brought to the University of California at Berkeley for 2 weeks of intensive training

at IBM’s expense. The training emphasized the use of the IBM PC Jr. and applications including four components of the IBM Assistant Series of administrative programs (word processing, report writing, database development and management, and graphing), Multiplan, BASIC, LOGO, telecommunications, and software evaluation. In return for the commitment of 2 weeks training, IBM provided each school’s pair of trainers with 17

IBM PC Juniors, monitors, graphic printers, software, modems, carrying cases, and a variety of additional

peripherals. The sponsoring schools agreed to provide a secure, air-conditioned laboratory for 15 sets of the

equipment, to use the laboratories for computer-related instruction during the school day, and to make the

laboratories available to teachers for evenings, weekends, and summer training sessions. The two participating

teachers were each given a PC, monitor, and printer for their own use at home. In attempting to take a bite

into Apple’s growing share of the K-12 market, IBM was willing to invest a substantial sum. Estimates for the

hardware and software alone were $3 million. The cost of the Z-week training session, borne by IBM and the

National Computer Training Institute (NCTI), was at least another $60,000. The goal was to have these school

sites serve as models for their local area and to encourage other schools to purchase the PC Jr.

There was to be a second stage to the initiative, which called for IBM. to market the PC Jr. to teachers

and educators for their personal use at a very low-price, perhaps as little as $500 per system. With each system,

a teacher would receive two coupons, one good for 7 free hours of training in personal computing at one of

the NCTI sites, and the other worth a substantial rebate on the 40-hour NCTI course designed specifically

for classroom teachers. The theory was that, in order to get teachers to use computers in the classroom, teachers

first had to become familiar, competent, and comfortable with the hardware and software by having computers

in their homes.

The second stage never got off the ground, and NCTI went out of business in September 1985. Several

reasons have been suggested for NCTI’s failure, including NCTI inexperience in dealing with the school market

and the competition from computer courses offered for credit at local colleges, sometimes at a lower cost than

the noncredit NCTI course. Other problems included difficulties with the PC Jr. keyboard, the PC-DOS operating system which required a complex form of loading and disc swapping, and lack of software for the PC

Jr. Additional problems included IBM’s legal concerns over the potential for an unfair trade practices suit if . . . . . ,

the PC Jr. were to be sold to teachers at the proposed below market cost of $500. Potential buyers were also

frightened off by the persistent rumors, eventually substantiated, that the PC Jr. would be withdrawn from

the market. The program suffered a final tragic loss on August 2, 1985 when Phil Estridge, the IBM executive

most responsible for the IBM/NCTl initiative, was killed in a plane crash, With his death, support for the program ended altogether.

SOURCE: Oft3ce of Technology Assessment, 1987. For a filler description of this and other case studies of teachers training see John Strange et al., “Akernative Approaches to Developing a Cadre of Teacher Technologists,” OTA contractor report, December 1987.
112

gram. IBM has also provided equipment for use at

technology demonstration centers.

Apple has supported teacher training efforts

through a variety of company policies. To meet the

needs of districts who want training from a vendor,

Apple has typically contracted with private corporations and consultants to provide teacher workshops. For example, Apple has contracted with the

Minnesota Education Computing Corp. (MECC)

to provide workshops to school districts. This cooperative relationship has worked because benefits

accrue to each of the parties involved. Apple has

resources to subsidize some of the cost; MECC has

the expertise to design, and trainers to conduct, the

workshops; and the district provides facilities and

release time for the teachers as well as some of the

training cost.46

Computer companies are also supporting education through advisory groups made up of experts

from education and industry who meet to discuss

education and technology. For example, Apple’s

Education Advisory Council held a meeting in November 1985 focusing on teacher and administrator training. This was followed in August 1986 by

a gathering of 90 deans of education schools, directors of teacher education, researchers, and industry experts to discuss technology and teacher education. One of the recommendations stemming from

the Conference on Technology and Teacher Education—to establish partnerships among universities, industry, and schools to respond to the challenge of technology in education—has taken root

in the efforts of several hardware manufacturers. The

Apple University Consortium, which links 32 institutions of higher education for information sharing and provides large discounts on equipment, has

been particularly beneficial to schools of education

as they set up computer laboratories.

American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T), a

recent entry onto the education scene, has developed a cooperative relationship with Indiana University’s School of Education. AT&T provides

*

bMinnesota Education Computing Corp. estimates that it costs

$200 to $300 per day, per teacher to conduct its training. School districts at most are willing to pay $100 to $150 per day. Because vendors

like Apple stand to gain from teachers being trained to use their machines, vendors are willing to subsidize some of the cost of the training, thus reducing costs to the district. Don Rawitsch, Minnesota Education Computing Corp., personal communication, 1987.

equipment and technical support for the reconfiguration of the school’s technology program. AT&T

will provide funds for the retraining of the faculty

and for the development of educational programs

for both undergraduates and graduates in education.

This arrangement will give Indiana’s School of Education both the latest technology from AT&T and

the funding needed to utilize equipment effectively

in redesigning the curriculum.

Software Developers Training Efforts

Education software developers are also interested

in helping teachers use the technology, especially

to encourage teachers to use the software sold by

their own company. This training, too, can take

many forms. The most basic gives guidance on how

to use software packages in the curriculum and is

similar to the printed manuals teachers receive with

a new textbook series. For example, in a series of

software packages for simulations based on historical and contemporary issues, each program package includes a teacher’s guide with reproducible materials, detailed lesson plans, and individual reference

books. The materials are designed to help the teacher

use the simulations in a way that gets the most out

of the software, while making it easier for the teacher

to integrate the materials into the curriculum.47

Other software producers make videotapes available to assist teachers to use their products. For example, Sunburst Communications has developed

videotapes to illustrate how a teacher might use its

products, many of which involve problem solving

activities and are more complex to use than traditional drill and practice programs. The tapes show

actual classroom applications and provide clues to

the teacher on how to organize the students and

how to proceed through the lessons. The materials

can be used by an individual teacher, by district

training personnel for group inservice activities, or

by the software sales representative in providing inservice education.

Some software developers give away free software

after teachers have attended a course on how to use

that software in the curriculum. Other developers

(for example, Mindscape, Inc.) are providing work47Tom Synder Productions, Cambridge, MA, Decis~ons Decisions

Series (Software series, 1986).
113

shops on computer applications in content areas (social studies, writing, and mathematics), using a variety of software, not just their own brands. They

are gambling that, with increased training, teachers

will become more informed and enthusiastic users

of computers. This enthusiasm would then pay off

in increased software sales, including sales of their

company’s titles.

As more and more teachers use technology,

hardware and software companies may want to

consider joint efforts with State education agencies, regional teacher resource providers, and

universities to develop workable strategies to meet

the needs of training teachers in emerging technology applications. Substantial efforts will be required in the short term and over the long term to

accomplish technology integration across the curriculum. It is clear that each training provider has

limited resources; there may be ways to combine

these resources more efficiently and effectively.

Informal Training Via

Computer Networks 48

Elementary and secondary schools are also beginning to make use of the communications capabilities of computers for electronic mail, information

retrieval, and computer conferencing. With an investment of $2,000 or less, a school can participate

in using a network, assuming that the school already

has a telephone line. Costs vary over time depending on the types of activities in which the school

participates, long-distance charges for hookup, and

subscriptions to various services. These costs are

proportional to usage and largely under the control of school administrators.

While State, local, district, and commercial networks are proliferating, it is difficult to estimate how

many teachers and students use them. Potentially

thousands of elementary and secondary schools and

millions of students could engage in joint activities

using computer networking. Moreover, teachers and

administrators could share information across, as

well as within, the traditional institutional boundaries. This opens up significant new opportunities

for collaboration, research, and information sharing. Barriers of geographic isolation, socioeconomic

status, and physical handicaps can be overcome.

‘*For further Jlscussion, see Dowcl~, op. cit., footnote 33.

Electronic networks can help to solve one of the

most basic problems in K-12 teaching: the isolation of the classroom teacher. Discussions and

sharing of curriculum ideas, materials, and methods are facilitated by the immediacy of the network.

For the elementary school teacher in particular, who

spends all day, every day, in a classroom with children, the opportunity to reach other professionals

outside the four walls of the classroom can be liberating and stimulating. Whether the novelty of this

effect will wear off with experience is debatable;

nonetheless, it is hard to envision teachers closing

the windows to a wider world once they have been

opened through electronic networking. The capabilities of networks are just beginning to be explored

by teachers. Box 5-H shows an informal computer

conference initiated by one teacher looking for ideas

and curriculum support from other teachers, an example of what can be done by innovative teachers

hooking up via telecommunications.

Other Informal Sources of Peer Support

While the modem can connect teachers in different schools, the computer itself can help teachers

within a school work cooperatively. Perhaps because

of the computer’s novelty, many teachers feel comfortable asking other teachers for help with computer applications, even though teachers do not so

readily ask peers for help with normal course work.

Much is to be gained when teachers open their

classroom doors to the enrichment other teachers

offer. In some cases, this can be formalized. Over

a 5-year period, every secondary teacher in Pitts--

burgh’s Schenley High School spends an 8-week

“sabbatical” working with master teachers at the

school. 49 The National Education Association has

employed the concept of teachers teaming together

in their new Christa McAuliff Institute for Educational Pioneering. The 20 teachers chosen for the

first Institute were selected on the basis of applications suggesting uses of new technologies in the classroom. Each application had to be submitted by a

two to four member team, who will work together

on their proposed technology application at their

home school.

‘qRobert Pearlman, Boston Latin School, Boston, MA, personal

communication, December 1987.
11A . .

Clearly, the teacher is central to full develop- potential. The technology will not be used, and

ment of technology use in education. Teachers are certainly not used well, unless teachers are trained

not the problem, and without them there can be in the use of the technology, provided goals for

no solution. Most teachers want to use technol- new applications, supported in doing so, and reogy, but few have found ways to exploit its full warded for their successes in meeting these goals.
115

OTA finds that there are players on many fronts

who have a stake in providing what teachers need

now and in the future, and new technologies

themselves can become tools for training and

support.

Teacher Education: A Place to Begin

Training in the use of technology will need to be

a part of the preparation every entry-level teacher

receives. Several factors explain why this training

need has not been met: lack of expertise of many

education school faculty; insufficient and outdated

technology resources; and incomplete understanding and attention to how teaching roles may change

as technology changes the teaching environment.

Preservice technology support will need to address

a number of factors.

Training for Education School Faculty.–

Courses or workshops can bring college of education faculty up to speed in current applications of

computer technology in education. Possible sponsors include: Federal agencies, through programs

such as the Department of Education’s Fund for Improvement of Postsecondary Education, or the National Science Foundation; State Departments of

Education; professional associations such as the

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and the National Council for Accreditation

of Teacher Education; or industry,

Equipment.–Because of the costs of maintaining

up-to-date equipment and software, schools of education will need help from both the private sector

and the Federal Government. Improved computer

facilities in schools and colleges of education may

require Federal support comparable to ongoing Federal support for supplying the most up-to-date facilities in university science laboratories. In addition,

special institutional arrangements could be made

with industry similar to the support provided to

other academic departments in the university. Just

as industry has encouraged familiarity with and loyalty to hardware brands and software packages

among undergraduates and graduates going into science and business, so too will they benefit from supporting education students’ use of their hardware

and soft ware as a tool they will expect to use in

teaching.

Undergraduate Competencies.–Schools of education need to cooperate with the college or university at large to establish basic levels of technological competencies for students. A substantial portion

of the undergraduate program for teaching majors

takes place outside the school of education. There

may be university resources that can contribute to

students’ understanding and competence with technology. At the same time, inappropriate or negative experiences with technology can create barriers

to future use in education. How best to nurture

computer-using educators can be addressed in a variety of ways, at different institutions.

Teaching Internships.—Schools of education and

the local school systems they serve could work together to develop teacher internships on the model

of teaching hospitals. These settings make it possible to test and apply state-of-the-art technologies by

the new practitioner under assistance of the experienced teacher. The school provides the real-world

setting for the prospective teachers, and they in turn

can bring to the classroom the most up-to-date information on educational technologies and their applications. Experimental schools could also provide

research internships for both prospective teachers

and education researchers.

Research and Pilot Projects.–Schools of education could be in the forefront of research on how

to effectively prepare technologically literate teachers

and how to upgrade their skills. Currently, the research base in teacher technology education is very

weak. Federal programs can stimulate a wide range

of activities, targeting funds for various programs

and areas of the curriculum, for example, science

and mathematics education, education of at-risk students, and special education. In supporting a number of technology demonstrations, States can provide incentives for local districts to work directly

with university educators and private industry.

Keeping Up With Technology:

Inservice and Informal Training

Training in the use of computers and other technologies should be continued throughout a teacher’s

career. If teachers are to move from the simple use

of technology to more integrated instructional approaches, innovative inservice programs accompa-
116

nied by followup support will be needed. Recommended components include the following:

Incentives.–A wider range of incentives will be

needed to encourage teachers to learn about and

use technology. School boards have traditionally encouraged teachers to gain new skills by providing

higher pay for advanced degrees. However, more

than half of all teachers in primary and secondary

schools already hold a master’s degree or higher, so

this traditional approach will not be enough. Additional incentives could be developed to encourage

teachers to stretch beyond their current levels of expertise or to encourage technologically experienced

teachers to train their colleagues and provide support for them. Extending the teacher-to-teacher connection is a strategy that could bring dividends on

all sides. A wide range of options is possible:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

summer employment;

release time during the school day;

additional pay for technological expertise;

a computer for every teacher to use at home

or at school;

grants for software acquisition for the classroom;

sabbaticals with universities, hardware manufacturers, and software developers to conduct

research or provide advice regarding educational applications;

paid participation in professional conferences;

and

increased status as master teachers or lead

teachers in the school, with corresponding authority and remuneration.

Incentives are important means of holding trained

teachers in the school systems that have invested

in their technology skills. These individuals are in

great demand, and higher paying positions in other

school systems or in the private sector may drain

the best teachers if extra support is not provided.

Communications.– With technology changing

and expanding rapidly, there is a clear need for the

Federal Government to assume a broader role in

disseminating educational technology information

to teachers across the Nation. Technology can be

a medium for communications. While a variety of

computer networks have been set up by some districts or States, none has a national perspective. A

central clearinghouse or collection of regional networks would be a useful way to disseminate information about research, models, and innovative or

advanced approaches to technology use and training. Because there is now no central clearinghouse,

redundancy occurs, common mistakes are repeated,

and few learn from the work of others.

School districts can make up-to-date telecommunications accessible to their staff. Electronic networks could be supported, by installing phone lines

in classrooms or laboratories, and by subsidizing subscriptions and connect costs on bulletin board systems, databases, and other resources which can keep

teachers informed and in communication with their

colleagues and experts around the country. Telecourses and other distance learning options for

teachers (as well as students) are other mechanisms

to make information available.

As use of telecommunications networks expands,

the question of costs will become a critical factor.

There may be a need to examine ways to subsidize

or provide reduced rates for educational use.

Models and Pilot Projects.–The Federal Government could support projects that are models of

technology training for States and districts or institutions of higher education. Principals of effective technology training, at the inservice level especially, have been identified and confirmed by

research. But while these principles seem solid, the

research base to guide decisionmaking about technology training must be expanded. Several educational institutions have developed technology education programs that attract teachers from across

the Nation.50 These efforts provide a rich source of

expertise for further development.

Federal Leadership

The Federal Government, particularly the Department of Education, could provide an important

leadership role. Technology initiatives begun in the

early 1980s have all but disappeared. Many of the

pioneering computer-using educators were originally

trained through direct Federal support via summer

institutes or special courses offered by the National

Science Foundation (NSF) or Department of Education. Precollege Teacher Development in Science

programs were eliminated by the zero funding of the

7“See Lesley College case study in Strange et al., op. cit., footnote 44.
117

Science Education Directorate (part of NSF) in 1982

and the elimination of categorical grant programs

with the Educational Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) of 1982. Although the Education

for Economic Security Act (EESA) provides support

of teacher training in mathematics, science, critical

foreign languages, and computer learning, most efforts have focused on mathematics and science.

Teacher efforts at NSF have also focused on applications in mathematics and science, leaving humanities teachers without Federal training support. If

these NSF efforts were expanded to include all types

of teacher training that utilizes technology, much

greater funding would be required for the Teacher

Enhancement Program,

Yet States and districts continued to support

teacher training in technology on their own, channeling their ECIA or EESA block grant funds into

the purchase of hardware and software and teacher

training in their applications. They have also provided extensive financial support for these activities under their State and local operating budgets.

As a result, there is much activity, but it is highly

varied in size and scope from State-to-State and

district-to-district within States. A national need is

being handled as 16,000 local problems.

A primary role of the Federal Government can

be to provide a vision for teachers, encouraging them

to look beyond today’s classroom computer activities, small but exciting though the changes may be,

and to scan the horizon for tomorrow’s potential.

If technology can offer opportunities for fundamental changes in how children learn, in how schooling is organized, and how teachers function, it is

important that this vision be elucidated, not only

by the hardware manufacturers in double page advertisements in popular magazines or on commercials during the Super Bowl, but by the Federal Government, including the Secretary of Education,
Chapter 6

Software: Quantity, Quality,

and the Marketplace

I

Photo credit: Software
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . .+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ++ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+””...””.”.” 121

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .+””. ... 122

Quantity, Quality, and Scope .. .. .. .. ... ... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Market Characteristics . ,.....+.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....”..”” 122

Quantity and Scope of the Educational Software Supply . . . . . . ............... ...123

Integrated Learning Systems: The High End of the Software Market . . . . . . . . . . . .123

The Low-Priced Market: Stand-Alone Software . .............................125

Scope of Instructional Software .. .. ... ... ..O.... . . . . +. . . . . . . . . . . . ... .4+ ..129

School Use of Noninstructional Software. . . ..........................132

Evaluation and Acquisition of Educational Software. . ..........................133

Effects of Local Public Decisionmaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133

Evaluation of Software Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................,..,....134

The States and Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Public Policy: Issues and Directions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...142

Capital Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..143

Property Rights .. .. .. .. .. ...............................143

Information Barriers and Transaction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Policy Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .+. . . . . . . . . . . + . . . . .144

Summary of Policy Directions ....... .. .. ... .+. .+ .4 ... . .14 7

Boxes

Box Page

6-A. ’’Early Burned, Inc." .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . ................127

6-B. “Major Force, Inc." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

6-C. "Street Vendor Co., Inc.” . . . ..**.... ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129

6-D. Information For Software Decisions: A Sampling . . . . . . . . . .................135

6-E. Software Evaluation in New York City. .. .+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............136

6-F. Software Evaluation in California. . ...........................,,..13 7

Figures

Figure Page

6-1. Trends unavailability of Software for Major Subject Areas.... . .............132

6-Z, Recommended Software Titles Before and After 1985 +.. . . . . . . . .. ...........140

6-3. Software Publishers’ Expectations of Factors Affecting Future Profitability .. ...144

Tables

Table Page

6-1

6-2

6-3

6-4

6-5

Distribution of Educational Software Programs by Subject . . . . . . . .. ... ... ...130

Distribution of Reading Software by Area.. . .............................130

Distribution of Mathematics Software by Area. . ..........................130

Distribution of Educational Software by Subject Area and Grade Range .. ...131

Curriculum Requirements and Available Software:

Middle and High Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...................131

6-6. Distribution of Educational Software by Type... .. .. ... .. .... . ......132

6-7. Distribution of Major Subject Software by Type .. ........................133

6-8. Educational Software Titles Reviewed and Recommended .. ................138

6-9. Educational Software Information Sources: Typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139

6-10. ’’Self-Starter Software Co.’’ Income Statement, 1986 .......................144
Chapter 6

Software: Quantity, Quality,

and the Marketplace

INTRODUCTION

Since its first printed appearance in a technical

computing journal in 1960, the word software has

evolved into a familiar part of the English vernacular. It is now commonly used for technologies that

predate computers, as a metaphor to distinguish machines from people or their attitudes,2 as well as

for codified instructions that make the computer’s

electronic circuitry responsive to decisionmaking,

information gathering, and data processing tasks.

Because the computer is a technology for collecting, organizing, analyzing, and communicating information, it might be argued that all software is

educational. 3 Business persons who calculate profits, losses, and market positions; military analysts

concerned with logistics; physicians who view three

dimensional images of the human anatomy; econometricians who forecast inflation and unemployment; writers who create and revise poetry and

prose; children who use computers at home to play

chess or Pac Man; cognitive psychologists who attempt to simulate brain behavior; and research scientists who model the movement of subatomic particles—all can be said to be learning.

The term educational software, then, which is fast

entering the popular lexicon, can refer to a broad

categor y of programs: generic computational, word

processing, data management, industrial design,

games, and communications tools originall y d e -

signed for business, science, and industry; training

programs that are cost-effective supplements or substitutes for classroom training in business and the

military; as well as didactic or instructional programs

designed expressly for school curricula.4 The last

category includes a range of materials, from simple

drill and practice routines and other electronic

equivalents of the conventional workbook, to sophisticated simulation, problem solving, and tutorial

software that makes use of artificial intelligence and

multimedia technologies, to full curricula that theoreticall y can substitute for teachers.5

While the question whether to install computers

in schools is by now moot, neither the future development and acquisition of appropriate software

nor the effective use of these learning tools is as certain as in other sectors of society. The economic and

social environment of American public schools is

fundamentally different from the worlds of business,

the military, medicine, the arts, and science. Finding affordable software for schools and finding out

how best to use it are challenges that must be met

if technology is to achieve its desired effects.

‘This chapter is based in part on two OTA contractor reports: W.

Curtiss Priest, “Educational Technology: Information Networks, Markets and Innovation,” September 1987; and Ellen Bialo and Jay Sivin,

“An Analysis of the Scope and Quality of the Current Supply of Educational Software and of the Available Sources of Information on Educational Software,” Sept. 30, 1987.

‘A good example comes from the Obsert’er, which noted that an

arms agreement had been phrased “in terms of giving the United States

‘softw’are’-a more flexible attitude on the Middle East—In return for

‘hardware’ -arms and military equipment. ” Cited in Suppkmenr ro

rhe Oxford English Language llict~onary, vol. 4 (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 333.

IScient~fic American devoted an entire Issue to computer software

and Its role in business, science, and medicine, but did not address

education per se. See .%ientifi”c Amer~can, vol. 251, No. 3, September

1984, and especlallv the article by Alan Kay, pp. 52-59.

The administrative software that many schools acquire to automate

scheduling, personnel, and student records clearly plays an Important

role in creating an interactive educational atmosphere, but IS beyond

the scope of this report.

‘OTA has found no evidence of teacher chsplaccment bv computers

and related technologies. Howe\’er, shortages of teachers in some flclcf~

and in some parts of the country has spurred interest In the development of comprehensive, interactive curricula. See Arthur h4elmed and

Robert Burnham (eds.), New ]nformar~on Tec-hnolog}’ Drections for

American Education: improving Science and Mathematic-s Education

(Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, December 1987). A

resurgence in education school enrollments, follou’lng two decades of

shar p decline, may partially offset the predicted teacher shortagm. But

there are still grounds for concern that future requirements will not

be met. See Joseph Berger, “Allure of Teaching Re\lving; Education

Schools Rolls Surge,” The New York Times, May 6, 1988, p. 1.

121
122

This chapter takes a close look at educational soft- this analysis has wider relevance: the challenges eduware’s problems and promise, and suggests how the caters face in using computer software in schools

Federal Government might help to remedy the former are similar to some they already face, or soon will,

and realize the latter. In addition, while educational using many other forms of interactive technology.

computer software is an important subject in itself,

FINDINGS

Quantity, Quality, and Scope

● There are now over 10,000 available stand-alone

(floppy disc-based) instructional programs produced by about 900 firms. In addition, about a

dozen major manufacturers specialize in producing expensive and elaborate “integrated learning

systems” (ILSs) that span large segments of the

elementary and secondary curriculum.

● The technical quality of most commercially produced software is quite good. However, there is

a general consensus that most software does not

yet sufficiently exploit the capacity of the computer to enhance teaching and learning.

● It will be difficult to justify the costs of acquiring

and implementing new interactive learning tools

unless their software genuinely improves upon

conventional learning materials. However, innovative software that departs from familiar teaching methods, and that may be highly respected

by computer scientists and educational technologists, is not necessarily selected by teachers. Pressured to raise test scores and meet other performance mandates, many teachers prefer software

that is closely tied to the curriculum; and software publishers can usually strengthen their market position by developing products that are

linked to textbooks and other familiar instructional materials.

● While commercial software publishers are reluctant to take risks with innovative software, many

of the available titles are attractive and fun to use,

even if they are geared toward familiar objectives.

Even the most rudimentary drill and practice programs have been proven effective in raising some

children’s basic quantitative and language skills.

● Many teachers use database, spreadsheet, and

word processing programs that are not necessarily

new in concept or design. These programs have

●

●

●

●

●

become powerful new classroom tools and are applied in exciting ways to traditional classroom

activities.

Mathematics programs continue to dominate the

market. Although there have been some increases

in the availability of software for social studies and

language arts, at the same time there has been

a slight decrease in the number of new science

programs, especially chemistry and physics.

In the category of didactic programs, the vast

majority of titles aim at basic skills. Software to

teach “higher order” skills, such as hypothesis testing and problem solving, is in much shorter supply. Drill and practice software continues to dominate all subject areas, to the chagrin of many

educators and educational technologists.

Market Characteristics

Most of the firms that manufacture stand-alone

educational software are small—the average firm

has two employees. Even the largest firms have

an average of only 35 employees. Total annual

sales in this market were approximately $170 million in 1987.

Integrated software that covers entire curricula are

very expensive to develop. Firms in the ILS market, as distinguished from the stand-alone market had annual sales of roughly $100 million in

1987. These firms have found that their ability

to raise venture capital is governed by two main

factors: evidence that their learning systems can

achieve positive results on standardized tests, and

evidence that their systems are cost-effective (that

they can achieve defined objectives more efficiently

than other methods).

The demand side of the software market consists

of thousands of independent school districts with

varying administrative rules, serving a diverse pop-
123

●

●

●

ulation of school children with differing needs,

talents, and learning styles.

The number of children in a given grade, learning a particular subject, represents a small fraction of the total student population. An even

smaller proportion have regular access to computers, a fact that poses a formidable problem to

software developers and vendors. Teachers, computer coordinators, and instructional design experts are concerned that in trying to serve such

a fragmented market software publishers will be

inclined toward increasingly homogeneous and

less innovative products.

While the cost of developing software (especially

the type marketed on floppy discs) has dropped

considerably due to advances in programming

environments and the know-how of programmers, marketing to the educational sector remains

a costly, sometimes prohibitive factor.

The existence of numerous information channels

makes it difficult for software producers to receive

clear market signals and to adjust their designs

accordingly. State and local initiatives to define

●

●

●

curriculum needs and invite targeted software development have met with mixed results.

A limited survey of software publishers indicates

that the larger concerns are typically both more

rigid (bureaucratic) and less innovative than

smaller firms. Evidence of the performance of

firms of different sizes and market share is mixed

and inconclusive.

The problem of unauthorized copying (piracy)

continues to undermine investments in new product development, especially among smaller publishers with little experience in the school market.

The principal factors that will determine the structure and quality of the educational software industry are: high development costs for innovative

state-of-the-art applications; marketing advantages

that accrue to incumbents in the school market;

risks associated with idiosyncratic acquisition policies and procedures; small demand for subject

and grade specific products; and the difficulty of

appropriating the returns to investments in software that is easily copied.

QUANTITY AND SCOPE OF THE

EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE SUPPLY

When computers were first used for instruction

in the late-1950s, software consisted largely of drill

and practice materials delivered from mainframe

computers to students working at “dumb” terminals.

Students could not modify the programs. Since

then, educational software has come to include

everything from computer programming languages

to networked simulation programs that allow instantaneous international communication of data.

The companies that manufacture different kinds

of products face different problems and compete in

specific markets. The three principal sources of software are suppliers of free-standing floppy disc-based

programs, manufacturers of ILSs that sometimes

come bundled with dedicated hardware, and developers of public domain and “shareware” products that are accessible through electronic bulletin

boards, interest groups, and various cooperative

organizations. The last group of products are typically produced by teachers, students, and computer

buffs to fill specific curriculum niches that commercial developers have neglected. It is difficult to estimate the size of the informal shareware market for

elementary and secondary school, although a growing number of teachers use shareware via electronic

bulletin boards. In addition, there is considerable

trickling down to the upper secondary grades of software created for postsecondary environments, much

of which is distributed by nonprofit organizations

or by joint commercial arrangements. h

Integrated Learning Systems:

The High End of the Software Market

ILSs are packaged to span part or all of a curriculum (for example, fourth to sixth grade arithmetic

‘One example in higher cducatlon IS the Apple Unl\ersit} Consorr]um, mhlch promotes acaclemlc software exchange through KInkos,

a natlontt!]de L haln of photoc op}’lng c enter<.
124

or K-6 language arts), and typically run on networked systems of microcomputers linked to a fileserving micro or minicomputer. Many ILSs are designed to run on hardware that is already in the

schools, such as Apple or MS-DOS compatible machines, and some ILS manufacturers have become

licensed vendors for one or more computer companies. Some schools prefer to purchase hardware

directly from manufacturers, because of price advantages; others prefer one-stop shopping and purchase

bundled systems from the ILS software developers.

These systems are usually packaged with curriculum guides and management tools, and are typically

geared toward basic skills improvement. They all

claim to “. . . offer the advantages of using computers to diagnose, reinforce, and enhance learning individually, to monitor student improvement,

and to produce documented evidence of gains. Most

companies correlate [software] to district goals, curriculum, and standardized tests.”7

The appeal of these systems is their comprehensive coverage: in terms of lesson planning and integration of electronic media, they make fewer demands on teachers than do individual programs that

treat small sections of the curriculum. ILS developers

are aware that the centralized approach may be perceived as mechanistic and inflexible, so they go to

great lengths to show that their materials can be

tailored to individual students’ needs and abilities.8

An additional important selling point is the system’s

ability to accommodate other companies’ software:

school personnel who want the option of using programs developed by other companies, now or in the

future, often choose integrated systems that run on

standard microcomputers.

Some systems permit students to advance at their

own pace through a fixed curriculum; others permit students to move horizontally within subjects,

for example, to move from a study of the planet

Earth to the larger solar system, depending on prior

knowledge and rate of learning. Nevertheless, all

‘Gwen Solomon, “In An ILS, LANS are Part of a Larger Teaching System,” Electronic Learning, vol. 7, No. 4, January 1988, p. 27.

‘Integrated learning systems programs are not necessarily limited to

drill and practice: “. . . one is as likely to find problem solving, simulations, and tool software in integrated learning systems as one is to find

such programs among the general mix of floppy disk programs. . . .“

Ariela Lehrer, “A Network Primer: How They’re Used . . . and How

They Could be Used,” Classroom Computer Learning, vol. 8, No. 7,

April 1988, p. 42.

these systems permit considerably less flexibility than

generic tools such as word processors and individual instructional programs that teachers can apply

to specific segments of the curriculum.

Another important factor is cost. A typical algebra

course, providing 100 contact hours for the middle

school grades, can cost upwards of $1 million to develop. The costs of installing an ILS, including hardware, software leasing, maintenance, and training,

can run as high as $100,000 for a laboratory with

20 or 25 terminals. For a school district this translates to multimillion dollar contracts, and therefore

necessitates a long-term commitment to both the

network concept and the particular software.9

The companies that manufacture these systems

include Education Systems Corp., Wasatch Education Systems, Prescription Learning Corp., Wicat,

Degem Systems, Houghton Mifflin, and Unisys.

Their products have been heavily influenced by the

early experiences of the Computer Curriculum

Corp. (CCC) and of Control Data Corp. (CDC).

CCC, under the leadership of Patrick Suppes, a

noted philosopher and decision scientist, was one

of the first developers of computer-assisted instruction systems, and has retained a significant market

share. CDC’s PLATO system, once a pioneer in

computer-based training, has strived to maintain its

place in the education market with updated tutorials

and drill materials.

While some firms entered this market with substantial capital resources (CDC, for example, was

already a manufacturer of mainframe computers),

the majority have relied on venture capital. Their

ability to raise venture capital has been governed

primarily by two factors: evidence that their learning systems can achieve tangible results, usually improved performance on basic skills tests; and evidence that their learning systems are cost-effective

(that schools will choose to purchase those systems

rather than rely on other strategies to achieve the

same objectives). Even the smallest firms in this industry have had to raise substantial sums (at least

$5 million), and have devised creative public/private consortia. In one case, private venture capital

of about $1.2 million was leveraged to gain commitments from a consortium of school districts

“See also ch. 4 for a detailed illustration of the costs of acquiring and

implementing an integrated learning system.
125

whose joint participation brought the total funding base to about $5 million. A larger firm, which

was able to raise over $20 million in the same

amount of time, has moved more rapidly in the development and production of more comprehensive

systems.

The grade span of the courseware, as well as its

scope, reflects to some extent the size and capitalization of the company. Prescription Learning Corp.,

for example, with estimated annual sales of $40 million and with installed laboratories in most of the

50 States, offers a complete kindergarten-adult curriculum in basic skills, writing, English as a second

language, adult education, GED preparation, and

vocational education. 10 Smaller and newer entrants

in this market have necessarily focused their efforts

on smaller segments of the curriculum, such as

fourth to sixth grade reading or junior high school

mathematics.

The Low-Priced Market:

Stand-Alone Software

The alternative to networked and integrated learning systems is the use of floppy disc-based programs

that typically cost under $50 and address specific

topics or concepts rather than an entire curriculum.ll There are now over 10,000 such software titles available, covering the major school subjects and

many of the minor subjects, produced by an estimated 900 firms. In the general software market, 85

percent of sales are accounted for by less that 20

percent of firms; in educational software, the top

25 firms account for about 65 percent of sales, with

average sales of $4 million. The average firm in this

segment of the educational software industry has

less than 2 full-time employees, and even the top

25 firms are relatively small, averaging about 35 employees.

The amount of money spent by schools on educational software, about $170 million in 1987 according to the Software Publishers Association, represents a tiny fraction of total 1986-87 expenditures

“’Solomon, op. cit., footnote i’.

] Integrated run on computers that can accommodate disc-based programs as well; but the typical

free-standing microcomputer found in American schools, e.g., the Apple

II-c, does not have sufficient memory handle integrated software s}, stems.
126

on elementary and secondary schools: it is approximately 0.1 percent, or about $1 in $800. Assuming roughly 40 million public school students, the

average outlay for software in 1987 was about $4.25

per student, out of a total of about $35 per student

on all instructional materials (including books).

Firm Size and Innovation

Firms in this market vary significantly by size and

organizational structure, and employ different production and sales strategies. In addition, interviews

conducted with 10 educational software companies

revealed a range of attitudes about important issues

facing this industry .12 From discussions with the

chief executive officers, marketing vice presidents,

or product development managers at the firms chosen for this survey, OTA found that the largest firms

are typically the most bureaucratic, as might be expected. These firms also appear to be less innovative than smaller ones, an impression which is consistent with findings on a wide range of industries

in the United States and abroad.l3 The three

largest firms in the sample, with annual sales in the

range of $25 million to $3.6 billion, were found to

be relatively noninnovative. In fact, small firms believed that scale advantages of their larger competitors did not result in better products or greater market power.

However, some of the most important new software ideas have been successfully commercialized

by large firms, which means that size alone is a poor

predictor of innovative capacity. Firms use different methods to generate new ideas and update their

product lines. In some, current or former educators

are on the full-time staff; in others, teachers are paid

royalties from sales of software they have designed

or written. Another approach is to rely on information from dealers, from the sales force, and from

direct contact with teachers. In addition, professional journals, national computer exhibits and conferences, and regional conventions are cited as important sources of innovative ideas. Hardware

suppliers were never mentioned as sources for software innovations. It is difficult to assess the research

and development efforts of firms in this industry,

‘

: For methodological detail about these Interviews, see Priest, op.

cit., footnote 1.

] ‘Morton Kamlen and Nancy Schwartz, Market Srrucrurc and Innotrarion (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

especially because the smaller ones tend not to distinguish expenditures on these activities from other

business expenses.

Small firms in this sample did not perceive a

greater threat from unauthorized copying than the

larger firms. Advances in copy protection and dedication to providing new learning tools for children

were the reasons mentioned for not being overly

concerned with unauthorized duplication. It should

be noted, however, that copying continues to preoccupy industry associations as well as many publishers, who have issued strident calls for increased

copyright protection. At least one small educational

software publisher has called for a governmental ban

on the sale of disc-copying technology;14 and controversial copyright infringement lawsuits continue

to occupy headlines in the computing and general

press. 

15

The Analogy to Textbooks

Many of the largest firms that supply educational

software are textbook publishers that have entered

the software business hoping to capitalize on their

expertise in marketing to schools. As a result, they

are inclined toward strategies that work well in the

book business but that may inhibit software innovation. By linking computer products to textbooks—

both their own and competitors’—these companies

are further solidifying the curricula that some educators are attempting to reform. Textbook companies argue that products with recognizable curricular goals will be attractive to teachers, who will

therefore be more willing to promote expanded use

and innovative applications of the technologies in

the classroom. But textbook publishers have not always been successful in the software market. Sales

representatives who usually work on a commission

basis can make more money by concentrating on

book orders, which are much larger than software

orders. (This is what is meant by fragmented demand for software, and is a function of the relatively

small amount of time most students spend with coml+Dwlght Johnson, The Home School, San Diego, CA, in U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Transcript of

Proceedings—OTA Workshop on the Educational Software Market,”

unpublished typescript, Aug. 6, 1987.

Issee Richard M. Lucash, “~ok and Feel Lawsuits, ” High Te~-hn~logy Business, October 1987, p. 17; and Katherine M. Hafr-wr and

Richard Brandt, “Does This Lawsuit Compute for Apple?” Business

W’eek, Apr. 4, 1988, p. 32.
127

puters.) As a result, some companies have tried to

separate their book and software divisions, but in

so doing have sacrificed economies of scope (see box

6-A).

Some of the most successful software publishers

are not in the book business, but are subject to the

same types of political and market forces that have

shaped the textbook industry (see boxes 6-B and

6-C). Growing concern with the quality and diversity of that industry’s products, coupled with wide

agreement that innovation is crucial for interactive

technologies to achieve their desired effects in education, has spurred interest in the analogy between

the textbook and computer software markets.

The principal criticism of American textbooks is

leveled not against book publishers, but rather

against the system and environment in which they

operate: “The source of the writing problem is not

in the publishing house, but in the public agency.

Legislators, educational policy makers, and administrative regulators have unintentionally drained the

life out of children’s textbooks.’’” This criticism is

consistent with other analyses conducted over the

past decade. In 1978, the textbook market was described thus:

A planner setting out to design a system guaranteed to discourage the purchase of innovative instructional materials would be hard-pressed to improve on the system for materials selection that is

followed throughout the country today. Although

margins for efficacy and diversity do exist, the overwhelming preference is for the lowest, least unsettling common denominator in instructional materials content. This pattern of preference stems

from a concert of forces. Instructional materials

selection is an open textured process, inviting and

accommodating the opinions and decisions of State

lawmakers, State and local school administrators,

teachers, parents and students, and the variety of

organizations into which they group themselves.

The fact that current patterns of consumer prefer-

“Harriet Tyson-Bernstein, A Conspiracy\’ of Good lnrentlons:

America’s Textbook Fiasco (Washington, DC: Council for 13aslc Education, 1988).

Box 6-A.-"Early Burned, Inc.”

A prominent firm in school textbooks, Early Burned made two critical errors: it separated its software division entirely from the book division, and it produced a line of products that were intended for a computer

that would subsequently be withdrawn from the market. Just 3 years after starting, the software division was

completely shut down. Since then the firm has cut back its software line from over 100 titles to about 25. Lack

of backing from the book division, coupled with software designed for use with a computer that was one of

the first casualties in the hardware shakeout of the early 1980s, led to the failure of the software division. The

remaining 25 software titles produced by this firm account for less than 0.5 percent of total sales. The firm

has become extremely cautious with its innovations and product line. Company executives and market strategists

have adopted a policy to keep software closely tied to textbooks, both organizationally and with respect to content.

Early Burned views the education market for software as “., , . one where the buyers keep demanding higher

quality but are willing to pay less and less.” The market is becoming more and more competitive and will probably never be as profitable as textbooks: barriers to entry and high margins make it a “hot” industry.

The central strategy of this firm is to link software to books. In the words of the Vice President for Marketing,”. . . schools had better be using our texts. , . "to match with the software. This linkage gives the company

an obvious market advantage, especially because teachers know and respect the books and are, therefore, willing to experiment with the computer applications. The implication of this strategy is that high-risk projects

are simply not undertaken. The typical investment is about 1 person-year, and extravagant projects that have

been launched by some competitors would not be approved. In fact, the firm is a bit frightened by new technologies, such as compact disc-read only memory (CD-ROM), and is not planning to invest in the necessary programming talent.

SOURCES: OTA interviews with software publishers; and W. Curtiss Priest, “Educational Technology: Information Networks, Markets and Innovation,”

OTA contractor report, September 1987. The name of the company has been changed ro preserve confidentiality.
128

ence are formed from so many forces helps to ex- than for books. There is some concern that as inplain their persistence and the futility of efforts to teractive media become more prominent in classalter the pattern by altering one or even a handful rooms, software decisions may become entangled in

of the elements that form it. 17 the political forces that have influenced book conDevelopers and publishers of instructional soft- tent- and quality.

ware face-similar problems in their attempt to satisfy The analogy between books and software iS not

the demands of educational consumers. At present,

however, there appears to be far less political intervention in software acquisition than in textbook

adoption. Teachers, parents, children, and administrators all have some say, but the selection process

is typically much less formal and less bureaucratic

ITPaul Goldstein, Changing the American Schoolbook: Law, Politics and Technology (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1978), p. 53.

For a rejoinder see Alexander J. Burke, “Textbook Publishing in America,” The Textbook in American Society, J. Cole and T. Sticht (eds.)

(Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1981), p. 47. See also Harriet

Tyson-Bernstein, “The New Politics of Textbook Adoption,” Phi Delta

Kappan, March 1985; and Frances Fitzgerald, America Revised (Boston: Little Brown, 1979).

limited to bureaucratic features. Market forces, even

in the absence of divergent political interests, play

a role. First, good ideas for textbook revisions

quickly become “public goods,” and their authors

cannot be sure to recoup development costs. 18 In

IsThe relatlonship between intellectual property protection and

returns to innovators, in general but not with specific reference to educational technologies, is the subject in David Teece, “Profiting From Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration,

Licensing, and Public Policy,” Research Policy, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 285-

305. See also Goldstein, op. cit., footnote 17, for a discussion of copyright and other property rights protections as they impinge on instructional materials development.
129

Box 6-C.--"Street Vendor Co., kc.”

For a firm with only one and one-half employees, the annual sales volume of $250,000 and the number

of software packages produced-80-is surprisingly high. The President of the firm has considerable prior experience with large companies, but wanted a greater "sense of service," and, therefore, created this company

in 1980. “, ?,

Many of the programs marketed by Street Vendor are written by teachers. They cover a wide variety of

topics, from alphabet skills to geographical statistics to college-level tutorials. Outside authors are attracted to

Street Vendor by the possibility of earning royalties (15 percent of sales, net of discounts and freight charges),

and respond quickly without the imposition of rigid deadlines.

Products are not matched to school curricula, but teachers and students seem receptive nonetheless. To

avoid the catastrophic consequences of a “big mistake,” projects are kept small and manageable; the ones that

do not seem to work are dropped quickly. Piracy is a problem that this firm cannot solve; besides copy protect-

%

ing some preview discs, they essentially ignore the unauthorized copying problem.A central concern is that

teachers who see many similar programs will increasingly prefer familiar brand names. Finally, Street Vendor

resents having to compete with companies that started out under State auspices and who, therefore, enjoy significant (and unfair) competitive advantages.

Street Vendor perceives the market as reasonably strong, but weaker than some years ago. If the President

were interested in more profit, rather than in the entrepreneurship of owning and managing his own firm, he

says he would go into the business market.

SOURCES: OTA interviews with s&varc publishers; and W. Curdss Mat, “Educational Technology: Mmnsdon Networks, Markets and Innovation,”

OTA contractor reprt, Septetnbet 1987. The name of tlu c~mY haa bc-ta wcserw confidentiality.

addition, there is a strong economic rationale for the balance between generic and content-specific

producing books and software that are familiar to

consumers, rather than attempting to gain market

share by introducing a truly differentiated product.

Together these factors create a disincentive to innovate.

As instructive as these comparisons may be, there

are important differences between books and software that should also be taken into account. First,

as suggested above, the reason so many people are

involved in decisions about books is because of their

content. Most instructional software, on the other

hand, even the didactic kind, focuses on learning

processes, about which there may be less ideological controversy. Even programs that are closely

linked to existing textbooks do not simply translate

the material found in those books into electronic

screen images but rather provide supplementary drill

and exercises. Second, some of the most popular

software programs in the schools are generic word

processors, database management systems, and

spreadsheets. These programs are completely neutral

in content, and are not likely to arouse conflict between parents, school boards, teachers, and legislators. The strength of the analogy between textbooks and software, therefore, depends in part on

(and value-laden) materials adopted by teachers and

schools, and in part on the perceived impact of the

technology upon local curriculum planning.l9

Scope of Instructional Software

OTA analyzed several comprehensive educational

software databases to characterize the quantity and

coverage of educational software products. 20 As

shown in table 6-1, mathematics, science, English,

reading, and social studies account for the greatest

share of these products. Publishers of educational

software are influenced by their perception of the

subject areas that comprise most of the instructional

I“Local curriculum planning and school management, and the degree of teacher autonomy in the classroom, are crltlcal issues in American education policy, with implications for educational software. Some

reformers advocate greater teacher (and parent) participation in school

decisionmaking, along with other initiatives to enhance the professional

status of teaching. Generic software that provides teachers with increased opportunities is compatible with this general strategy of reform.

However, others question whether a sufficient proportion of teachers

currently are able and willing to work effectively with open-ended materials. It is clear that the relationship between expanded individual

choice and quality control should be a central criterion in the design

of appropriate software.

‘~Bialo and Sivin, op. cit., footnote 1.
130

Table 6-1 .-Distribution of Educational Software

Programs by Subject (N=7,325)

Table 6-3.—Distribut[on of Mathematics Software

by Area (N =1971)

Percent of Number of

programs a programs a

Percent of Number of

program s

a program sa

Comprehensive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 427

Computers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 331

English/language arts . . . . . . . . . . . 12 894

Foreign language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 356

Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1,971

Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 869

Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1,148

Social science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 565

Other b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1,329

Whesumof the programs isgreater than Nbacause someprograms We SSSklIWd

tomore than one subject category. Accordingly, the total of the percentages

is greaterthan 100 percent. All percentages were rounded tothe nearest unit. bThe Other categorycomblnes 13subjects(agriculture) aviation, business,driver

aducat ion, early Iearninglpreschool, fine arts, guidance, health, home economics, industrial arts, library skills, iogiclproblem solving, and physical education,

each of which accounts for less than 4 percent of the total number of programs.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on analysis of data in the

Educational Products Information Exchange, July 1987.

day, as well as by their perception of teachers’

preferences.

For example, within the general category of reading, there are more programs in vocabulary and

comprehension than in decoding skills (see table

6-2); and in mathematics the majority of software

titles aim at basic skills (see table 6-3). A strong indicator of suppliers’ attempts to satisfy school demand is the variation by grade range. As shown in

table 6-4, most of the kindergarten software is intended for reading, mathematics, and preschool

skills taught at this level. In the higher grades, the

distribution shifts, with less emphasis on reading and

gradually increasing emphasis on science programs.

In general, the higher grades are served by a greater

variety of subjects, including foreign language and

business.

Table 6-2.—Distribution of Reading Software by Area

(N =869)

Percent of Number of

programs a programs a

Comprehension skills . . . . . . . . . . . 24 210

Decoding skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 87

Reading in content areas . . . . . . . . 6 54

Reading readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 174

Vocabulary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 333

aThe sum of the programs is less than N because some programs would not fit

any of the area categories. Accordingly, the total of the percentages is less than

1000/o. All percentages were rounded to the nearest unit.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on analysis of data in the

Educational Products Information Exchange, July 1987

Basic skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 1,425

Algebra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 201

Geometry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 123

Other b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 225

aThe sum of the programs is greater than N because some Pro9rams were assigned to more than one area category. The total of the percentages Is still equal

to 100 percent, since all percentages were rounded to the nearest unit.

%he Other category combines 10 areas (analysis, calculus, consumer mathematics, differential equations, finite mathematics, general mathematics, number

theory, probability statistics, and trigonometry), each of which accounts for less

than 4 percent of the total number of programs.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on analysis of data in the

Educational Products Information Exchange, July 1987.

Table 6-5 gives an estimate of the “fit” between

software availability and amount of time in the

school day allocated to the corresponding subjects.

For the junior and senior high school grades, the

fit is strongest for mathematics and communications

(which includes English/language arts and reading),

with some apparent discrepancies for social and natural sciences and the fine arts.

The discrepancies (which seem to be more pronounced at the junior high level) point to another

factor influencing the quantity and scope of software. Developers are influenced not only by their

understanding of curriculum scope and sequencing,

but also by their ability to apply state-of-the-art programming and design techniques to different instructional areas. It is clear, for example, that the earliest applications of computers—in all fields—were in

computing: performing arithmetic operations that

would otherwise have taken countless human hours

to complete. With this head start, it is not surprising that much of the early educational software enabled teachers and students to work on basic computational skills (such as adding and subtracting)

through a variety of electronic versions of workbooks, flash cards, and other routinized functions.

Mathematics programs continue to dominate the

market, although there have been some slight increases in the availability of software titles for social studies and language arts. In fact, one of the

most popular programs (Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? published by Broderbund), is used

to teach geography, a subject which has also attracted the attention of developers working in interactive video.
131

Table 6-4.—Distribution of Educational Software by Subject Area

and Grade Range (N =7,325) a

Grade range

Subject K 1-3 4-6 7-8 9-12

Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comprehensive skills. . . . . . . .

Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Early learning/preschool . . . . .

English/language arts . . . . . . .

Fine arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foreign language . . . . . . . . . . .

Home economics . . . . . . . . . . .

Logic/problem solving . . . . . . .

Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Social science. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

00/0

1

7%

41

4%

27

240/o

146

7%

45

5%

32

1%

4

00/0

o

1 %

8

19%

115

31%

192

10/0

4

1%

5

1%

1

1 %

16

4%

86

3 %

61

7 %

139

19%

373

4 %

81

1 %

29

O%

5

3%

58

21%

402

26%

511

40/0

70

40/0

75

20/0

40

2 %

61

5 %

167

4 %

131

0 %

11

18%

646

40/0

143

4%

134

2%

57

30/0

122

22%

775

160/0

545

8%

275

90/0

313

30/0

116

3 %

106

6 %

224

5 %

209

O%

2

14%

532

4 %

144

7 %

264

3 %

125

3 %

115

2 1 %

807

90/o

334

120/0

451

10%

398

5%

208

4 %

205

70/0

363

6%

294

00/0

o

9 %

462

30/0

145

70/0

343

4%

176

20/0

97

160/0

767

60/o

279

21%

1,031

8%

404

7’%

357

Total programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 1,946 3,496 3,919 4,923

apercentages(rounded tothenearestwhole number) refertocolumn totals. Forexample, of atotalof621 programs intended

for use in kindergarten, 31 percent were in reading. Below each percentage is the number of programs in a given subject

Intended for that grade range Total programs are greater than 7,325, because programs can be classified in more than one

grade range

b’other” combines agriculture, aviation, driver education, guidance, health, industrial arts, library skills, ~d physical educa.

tion, each of which accounts for less than 4 percent of the total programs In each grade range.

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, based on analysis of data in the Educational Products Information Exchange,

July 1987

Table 6-5.—Curriculum Requirements and Available Software: Middle and High Schools

Middle schools High schools

Availability Availability

Time spenta

of softwareb Time spent of software

Communication skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High High High High

Social science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High Moderate High Moderate

Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High High High High

Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High Moderate Moderate Moderate

Fine arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moderate Low c c

aThe propo~lon of time spent on any given subject ranges from less than 1 percent to 18 percent in grades 7 and 8, and from 1 Percent to 23 Percent In grades 9.12

Subjects accounting for 13-18 percent are rated “High,” subjects accounting for 7-12 percent are rated “Moderate. ”

bThe propo~lon of available software for any given sublect ranges from less than 1 percent to 23 percent fOr the middle grades, and frOm leSS than 1 PerCent tO 24

percent for the high school grades “High,” “Moderate,” and Low,” respectively, refer to subjects that account for 17 to 24 percent, 9 to 16 percent, and less than

9 percent of available titles, for the middle grades; and to subjects that account for 16 to 23 percent, 8 to 15 percent, and below 15 percent, for the high school grades

f+. Jot included In gracfes 9-12

SOURCES For time spent, data from Departments of Education in eight States; for avatlabtllty of software, Educational Products Information Exchange, July 1987

For methodology of class! ficatlon used in this table see Ellen Bialo and Jayu Sivin, “An Analysts of the Scope and Quality of the Current Supply of Educational SOftWare and of the Available Sources of Information on Educational software,” OTA contractor report, Sept 30, 1987.
At the same time, the number of new science programs, especially in chemistry and physics, has decreased (see figure 6-1), to the disappointment of

many educational technologists who are concerned

about the state of science teaching in the United

States. The reason for this decline is difficult to

establish. However, one explanation may be that

many of the early science programs were quickly

found to be wanting, especially in comparison with

the new “microcomputer-based laboratories, ” and

were discontinued. At the same time, high development costs have prevented all but a few players

from entering this field. The net result is fewer, but

generally more sophisticated, programs.

The importance of perceived teacher demand and

technical-ability in shaping the scope and quantity

Figure 6-1 .—Trends in Availability of Software for

Major Subject Areasa

30 I

m I

of software is demonstrated by statistics on the type

of software available on the market. As shown in

table 6-6, the vast majority of titles provide drill,

skills practice, and tutorials. Software to develop

so-called “higher order thinking skills,” such as

hypothesis testing and concept development, is in

thin supply. In addition, as shown in table 6-7, drill,

practice, and tutorial software continues to dominate all subject areas, to the chagrin of many educators and educational technologists. The fact that

teachers have often preferred this type of software,

which is typically closely linked to curriculum sequences and/or to texts or other instructional materials, suggests that the market responds well to demand signals, but also points to a fundamental

predicament: products that are highly rated by “experts” because they represent the most innovative

uses are not necessarily the ones preferred by most

teachers. 21

School Uses of Noninstructional

Software

Many software products purchased for school use

were originally developed for other applications. The

home market, for example, has influenced the types

of software acquired by schools.22 Some educators

“This issue was discussed at length by participants at the “OTA

Workshop on the Educational Software Market,” op. cit., footnote 14.

‘

: Use of “home” products in schools, and vice versa, makes it difficult to calculate educational software sales and other market statistics

with precision.

Table 6-6.—Distribution of Educational Software

by Type (N =7,325)

Percent of Number of

programs a programs a

Rote drill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1,107

Skills practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3,708

Tutorial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2,447

Concept demonstration. . . . . . . . . . 3 216

Concept development . . . . . . . . . . . 4 270

Hypothesis testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 91

Educational games . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1,425

Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 669

Tool programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 807

aThe sum of the programs is greater than N because some pro9rams were assigned to more than one category. Accordingly, the total of the percentages

is greater than 100 percent. All percentages were rounded to the nearest unit.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on analysis of data in the

Educational Products Information Exchange, July 1987.

87-002 0 - 88 - 3 : QL 3
133

Table 6-7.—Distribution of Major Subject Software by Type

Program type

Rote Skills Concept Concept Hypothesis Educational

Subject

Subject

drill practice Tutor demonstration development testing games Simulations Tools total

English/language

arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26°/0 72% 360/o 0% 1% 0% 240/o 0 % 60/0

229 640 318 1 13 1 216 2 58

Mathematics. . . . . . . .

894 90/o 550/0 280/. 2 % 3 % O% 13% 3 % 50/0

186 1,089 550 49 61 0 264 52 94 1,971

Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . 250/o 740/o 240/o 0% 1% 0% 290/o 0% 20/0

215 645 207 0 12 0 253 4 16 869

Science . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 % 370/o 450/o 80/0 60/0 1 % 12 ”/0 32% 8 %

107 424 514 8 8 70 12 140 365 89 1,148

Social science . . . . . . 180/0 320/o 37 ”/0 4% 7% 2% 320/o 21 % 4 %

100 182 209 25 37 13 183 119 24 565

NOTE: Each row gives percentages (rounded) of all programs in a subject area that are of a given type. For example, 55 percent of all mathematics programs were

in the “skills practice” category. Below each percentage is the number of programs in a subject and category. Rows sum to more than 100 percent of the total

for each subject because programs can be classified in more than one type.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on analysis of data in the Educational Products Information Exchange, July 1987.

are skeptical about games, while others recognize

their potential educational value. Similarly, software

originally developed for the business environment

has also become enormously popular among teachers, children, and parents alike. Word processing

programs, for example, have become a staple of writing classes; some have been customized to allow for

illustrated story composition and other activities

appropriate to primary and secondary grades. A

best-selling software product on the educational market today is an integrated word processing, database

management, and spreadsheet utility. The success

of this program suggests that many teachers prefer

generic materials that improve the way children approach many different subjects over didactic programs that provide specific lessons. This type of software also appeals to parents who want

to be prepared for a world of work

on similar interactive technologies.

their children

that depends

EVALUATION AND ACQUISITION

Effects of Local Public

Decision making

Forty million children are now enrolled in over

81,000 U.S. public elementary and secondary schools

located in close to 16,000 public school districts. On

a typical school day, over 2 million teachers work

with many types of instructional materials to teach

a wide variety of behavioral, intellectual, and soPhoto credit: Scholastic Software

Teachers use word processing software such as the

Bank Street Writer to help students improve their

writing skills, teaching them to analyze and revise

drafts until they have expressed themselves as clearly

as possible.

OF EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE

cial skills. The different needs and abilities of school

children and their teachers, coupled with deeply

held beliefs in universal access and local financing

and decisionmaking, have gained for the American

school system a reputation for participation and

diversity that is unmatched anywhere in the world.

This feature of our public school system is sometimes overlooked, especially by advocates of reform

who focus on the ubiquitous classroom in which stu8’7-002 O - 88 - 4 : QL 3
134

dents passively digest facts and figures as they emanate from the mouth of the teacher.23

One of the consequences of this long-standing history of pluralism and local decisionmaking is that

the way school systems acquire instructional materials is highly idiosyncratic. In some States, such as

New York, there is no central textbook selection

process. Publishers are guided by Regents examinations, which define statewide standards, and local

districts choose books they believe are best suited

to meeting those standards. In California and Texas,

on the other hand, the State role in textbook selection and acquisition is more dominant. The combined effects of State policy, local jurisdiction,

teacher preferences, and parental voice vary widely

with respect to software as well. The major textbook

publishers and suppliers of other instructional materials have an understanding of this market that

can come only from experience, which gives them

a potential edge over newcomers.

In addition to the diversity of acquisition procedures, there is also considerable variation in how

school districts gather information about software

products. To gain further insight into this aspect

of the complex market in educational software,

OTA conducted a series of open-ended interviews

with computer coordinators and other personnel in

school districts throughout the country .24 These

interviews convey the general impression that those

in charge of acquiring software seek information

about competing products, that such information

is available from many different sources, and that

the information is fragmented and largely subjective. Indeed, the need for information upon which

teachers and others can base their selections raises

important policy considerations. (See box 6-D.)

Evaluation of Software Quality

Educational software, like other educational resources, can be criticized or praised on many cri-

‘

] For all their superficial similarities, American classrooms are

remarkably diverse. There is considerable variation in children’s achievement, and subtle differences in teacher backgrounds and styles have

been proven to make a difference. Indeed, one of the most frustrating

conclusions from years of education policy research is that positive results attained in one school are not easily replicated elsewhere by adopting the same apparent teaching style or curriculum. While many teachers

believe they have found a successful method, most teachers recognize

that there is no “one best way. ” See Richard and Richard

Nelson, “Production and Innovation When Techniques are Tacit: The

Case of Education, ’’journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,

 5, 1984, pp. 353-373.

 methodological detail, see Priest, op. cit., footnote 1.
735

most educators are more concerned with program siderable space to software reviews. These reviews

content and educational effects, the costs of technical failures should not be underestimated. As the

Wall Street Journal reported recently: “. . . corporate

computer programmers now spend 80 percent of

their time just repairing the software and updating

it to keep it running. ”25 As educational software

becomes more and more sophisticated, product reliability will become an increasingly important factor

in schools’ purchase decisions.

Evaluating educational effects is far more complicated than measuring technical quality of software.

At one extreme, evaluation is done by academic researchers who design and conduct various sorts of

experiments. Unfortunately, few of the studies to

date have adhered to rigorous norms of scientific

inquiry (see chapter 3). In addition, these studies

typically focus on generic software types, rather than

particular products. At the other extreme are the

many magazines aimed at the diverse audience of

computer-using teachers, most of which devote con-

“W’all Srreet Journa}, “Patching Up Software Occupies Programmers

and Disables Systems,” Jan. 22, 1988, p. 1.

are invaluable, because they are usually written by

computer-using teachers or by specialists in particular subject areas. But magazines are reluctant to publish negative reviews, in part for fear of alienating

potential advertisers; and in selecting which of the

nearly 2,000 new titles per year they will review, they

are influenced by publishers’ prior track records,

which introduces a bias against new entrants.

In addition to magazine reviews and formal academic research, the booming educational software

industry has led to the creation of a number of independent product review organizations. Many of

these are private, nonprofit agencies, supported by

States, universities, or school districts, individually

or in consortia. (See boxes 6-E and 6-F for descriptions of two of the largest public school district and

State evaluation efforts.) They use a wide range of

evaluation criteria and methodologies, and serve a

diverse clientele. Some, such as Educational Products Information Exchange (EPIE), attempt to include in their databases all types of software titles

(although no evaluation agency catalogs every sin-
136

gle one). while others have special interests (such which pertain to technical characteristics rather .

as software for the learning disabled or the handicapped). The States have also become heavily involved in their own evaluations (see below).

OTA finds that among 36 software review organizations, including those funded by State or local

governments and private for-profit and nonprofit

entities, there is considerable overlap in the definition of quality criteria. A complete list of the criteria includes more than 200 items, the majority of

than learning effects. (See appendix B.)26

‘The checklist approach to software evaluation has been challenged

because products that meet certain technical criteria do not necessarily

accomplish their educational objectives. See Joanne Capper, “Computers and Learning: Do They Work? A Review of Research,” OTA

contractor report, ]anuary 1988. For a scientific attempt to specify criteria for software see T. Malone, “Toward a Theory of Intrinsically

Motivating Instruction,” Cognitive Science, vol. 4, 1981, which makes

a more formal effort to identify ingredients of effective software.
137

One of the obvious problems of quality evalua- games have been found to be effective. But many

tion is that there are many instances of tool soft- educators question the value of some of the more

ware not designed for instructional use that have

yielded surprisingly good learning and motivational

results in classrooms. Word processing packages, for

example, originally designed for home and office use,

were quickly found to create new and exciting ways

for children and teachers to write, edit, and publish school newspapers. Database programs have

been applied to science subjects as well as to classroom management; spreadsheets have made strong

tools for teaching basic business subjects; and even

popular packages: speaking at a national conference

of software publishers, one senior marketing executive said that “. . . what we don’t need are more

programs that print invitations and make banners. . . ."27 In a similar vein, the assistant coordinator for technology at a large suburban school district has argued that we send children to school

~TPhil Miller, Scholastic, Inc., speaking at the Tandy/Radio Shack

Software Publishers Workshop, Fort Worth, TX, April 1987.
138

"

. . . to read, write, learn how to communicate, learn

how to develop an argument, and how to get along

with people,” goals that will not be advanced with

many of the easy and fun programs on the market

today .28

OTA tried to compare the different formal review

mechanisms that are designed to help prospective

teachers and other users. As shown in table 6-9,

reviews vary as to their emphasis on the following

criteria:

●

●

●

●

●

basic program data, i.e., whether a review gives

intended age and grade range, a clear statement

of the product’s educational goals, type of software (drill, tutorial, simulation);

reliability, meaning the independence of the reviewing agency and the extent to which its ratings are free from promotional considerations;

evaluative information, meaning primarily the

extent to which measurement biases are eliminated;

number of programs reviewed;

timeliness, measured as the number of months

that typically pass between a product’s release

and the publication of an evaluation; and

z~ch~~l~~ Philipp, Montgomery County Schools, MD, in OffIce of

Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 14.

. accessibility considerations, including the organization’s familiarity, its costs for reviewing

products, its circulation, and its availability.

In order to develop a composite statement about

the quality of educational software, OTA also aggregated the findings of eight evaluation agencies

whose criteria and review procedures seemed to provide a reasonable estimate of the state of the software supply .29

According to data from these agencies, nearly 60

percent of the reviewed software products are “high

quality.” However, it is important to point out that

of the roughly 7,300 titles in the EPIE database, only

21 percent, or about 1,550 titles, were reviewed by

one or more of the eight agencies. Thus, it is difficult to assess what fraction of all available software

would pass muster under the evaluative criteria employed by these agencies. Even these selected agencies can be faulted for not adequately incorporating evaluators’ field test results, and most reviews

provide only partial information about implementation strategies adopted by teachers.

More important than these gross aggregates are

subject area breakdowns. (See table 6-8.) In particuZYSee Bialo and Sivin, op. cit. ~ footnote 1.

Table 6-8.—Educational Software Titles Reviewed and Recommended’

Number Number Percent

Subject reviewed recommended recommended

Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 23 66

Comprehensive skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 53 77

Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4 0 6 9

Early learning/preschool. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 25 41

English/language arts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 103 61

Fine arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 41 76

Foreign language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 36 64

Logic/problem solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 76

Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 49

Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 100 52

Science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 176 66

Social science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 73

Other b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 56

All subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,550C

915C59

ae~~~d on ~valu@iOn~ of ed”~ational software published through July 1987 from eight selected agencies: Alberta (Canada)

Department of Education, Curriculum Branch Computer Courseware Clearinghouse; Connecticut Special Network for Software Evaluation; Educational Products Information Exchange Institute; Florlda Center for Instructional Computing, High Scope

Educational Research Foundations; Microsift, Northwest Regional Laboratory; North CaroHna Department of Publlc lnstructon, Media Evaluation Services; York University (Canada) YESSUS Project.

%’he Other category combines nine subjects (agriculture, aviation, driver education, guidance, health, home economics, industrial arts, Iibrav skills, and physical education), each having less than 35 programs reviewed.

CThe ~um of the programs in the ‘rNumber Recommended” column and in the “Number Reviewed” COIUmn iS 9r0at0r than

N because some programs were assigned to more than one subject category. All percentages were rounded to the nearest unit.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.
Table 6-9.-Educational Software Information Sources: Typology

Number of Familiarity

Source type Basic program data Evaluation information programs Timeliness with source Circulation Cost per year Availability

Independent Moderately complete Always provided 50-500+ 6-12 month lag Low-moderate 5,000 or less Ranges from no

evaluation agencies

Low

Low

Low-moderate

Reliability: high Level of detail: high

Field testing: sometimes

Bias: low

Always provided 200-7,500 +

Level of detail: low

Field testing: sometimes

Bias: low-moderate

Rarely-sometimes 10-125+

provided

Level of detail:

moderate-high

Field testing: sometimes

Bias: low-moderate

Always provided 250-400

Level of detail:

moderate-high

Field testing: sometimes

Bias: low-moderate

Sometimes provided 200 and up;

Level of detail: low varies widely

Field testing: rarely

Bias: high

Sometimes provided 10-500+

Level of detail: low

Field testing: rarely

Bias: high

Always provided Varies widely

Level of detail: low-high

Field testing: sometimes

charge to $275

Independent $20-$75

directories

Moderately complete

Reliability:

moderate-high

3-12 month lag

8-16 month lag

Low 3,000-10,000

Moderate 5,000-160,000

I

Professional journals Moderately complete

Reliability: high

$15-$50

Popular educational

computing

magazines

Moderately complete

Reliability: moderatehigh

2-12 month lag High 45,000-82,000 $16-$24 High

Advertisements Ranges from

incomplete to

moderately

complete

No lag High Varies widely

High Varies widely

High 5-500+

Not applicable

No charge

Ranges from no

High

Catalogs High

Word of mouth

Moderately complete

Reliability: lowmoderate

Ranges from

no lag to 12-

month lag

Ranges from

incomplete to

complete

Reliability: Iow-high

Lag varies

widely

High

charge to $300+

Bias: low-high

SOURCE: Ellen Bialo and Jay Sivin, “An Analysis of the Scope and Quality of the Current Supply of Educational Software, and of the Available Sources of Information on Educational Software,” OTA contractor

report, Sept. 30, 1987
140

lar, the percentage of recommended programs varies

significantly, from 41 percent in the early learning

category to 77 percent in the comprehensive category (for example, tools and multipurpose programs).

Furthermore, among the major subject areas, there

appears to be an inverse relation between quantity

and quality: although mathematics programs are the

most abundant, less than one-half are “high quality.” Social sciences, which constitute the lowest

proportion of titles for major subjects (see table 6-

2), are very well represented in quality terms. Similarly, new science programs, which have dropped

in number since 1985, receive relatively good ratings. Indeed, the overall quality picture seems to be

improving, especially if one considers changes in the

percentage of recommended programs since 1985,

as shown in figure 6-2.30

The software of most ILSs is not typically evaluated by independent review organizations or in the

professional press because it is too costly to set up

an entire system and test it in classroom settings.

EPIE has recently begun to evaluate segments of

some integrated systems, but their findings are preliminary. School districts acquiring such systems rely

primarily on information contained in competitive

proposals. Proposals contain information on a number of factors including correlation of software materials with district instructional objectives, cost per

pupil for various configurations, and examples of

how the systems have been used in other districts.

Those charged with evaluating competitive bids may

also conduct site visits to other school districts that

are already using these systems.

The opinions of computer-using teachers can be

useful indicators of software quality. As the penultimate consumers, their views are often the most

credible, even if their assessments do not conform

to rigorous methodology. Computer-using teachers

are usually months ahead of formal reviewing agencies, who undoubtedly base their choice of which

products to review at least partly on the suggestion

of active teachers.

~LNote that the sample of titles that include a copyright date is a

small fraction of the total, raising questions of inference and generalizability.

In loosely structured interviews with 12 “leading

edge” teachers, OTA found that they listed some

115 “best” programs. Most were characterized as

“open-ended,” allowing students substantial range

of choices and decisions, and/or allowing the teacher

considerable latitude to adapt program content to

the needs of their particular student population. The

highest percentage of named programs were in the

“comprehensive” category (multipurpose tools rather

than structured curriculum-specific software). About

half the programs named by these select teachers

were also rated highly by the eight formal evaluation groups; those not included by these organizations were primarily in the tool category (including

graphics and other utilities), suggesting an important difference between the opinions of “experts”

and the opinions of “expert teachers. ”

Figure 6-2.— Recommended Software Titles Before

and After 1985a

100 I

7

1

i

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on contractor’s analysis of

data in the Educational Products Information Exchange, July 1987.
747

THE STATES AND SOFTWARE

According to a 1987 survey by Electronic Learning magazine, 37 States operate software preview

centers and 32 support software evaluation. 31 OTA

expanded on this survey and obtained responses to

a detailed questionnaire from all of the 50 States

and the District of Columbia. 32 State efforts vary,

Some States collect and evaluate software independently, others are members of consortia, and some

make available evaluations conducted by nongovernmental agencies. In Arizona, for example, staff

from the State Department of Education evaluate

software under guidelines developed with faculty at

Arizona State University. Connecticut provides partial funding for six regional education centers, which

receive additional support from local districts. These

centers provide a range of educational services, including software preview. Washington State does

not evaluate software, but provides curriculum

guidelines for educators and runs a network of technical assistance, training, and preview centers. California has been a leader in software review efforts,

as well as in evaluation and technical assistance (see

box 6-F).

Some States have joined together in collaborative

evaluation and dissemination efforts. Project Software Evaluation Exchange Dissemination (SEED) is

coordinated by the Southeastern Education Improvement Laboratory. SEED facilitates and coordinates the evaluation of software for six Southeastern States (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi,

North Carolina, and South Carolina). Participating States distribute evaluations independently 

to

local school districts. Another consortia effort was

launched in 1983 by the Council of Chief State

School Officers (CCSSO). With funding from the

National Institute of Education, CCSSO provided

States on-line information about educational technology products (including software), gathered data

about State curriculum requirements, and established links between the Federal Government, the

States, and other organizations involved in educational technology. While this project, called the National Technology Leadership Project, was terminated in 1986 due to lack of funds, CCSSO has

remained interested in educational technology and

has been exploring new funding possibilities.

In addition to these review and evaluation efforts,

18 States fund or offer technical assistance to instructional software development projects. 33 Project

IMPAC in Arkansas is a notable example, in which

a comprehensive effort to match software and basic

skills has been supported by business and industry

and coordinated by the State. Project Vision in Kentucky, a pilot program supported by IBM and tested

in eight sites, uses videodisc to teach basic mathematics skills to children in grades K-2. The software

is based on the Kentucky Essential Skills, and was

designed by a former teacher working as a technology consultant to the State. Because the software

is developed in-house, the original cost of $10,000

per site has been cut to about $6,000.

One of the more ambitious efforts by a State to

stimulate quality software development is currently

underway in California. As already mentioned, one

of the results of the Technology in the Curriculum

Projects, started in 1984, was the identification of

areas in the California curriculum for which there

was little or no quality software (including video programming). Papers were subsequently commissioned

to provide recommendations for software development in mathematics, science, history/social science,

and English/language arts. The State then developed a request for proposals, and last year awarded

development grants for six projects in mathematics,

science, and history/social science. (No English/language arts projects were supported, because reviewers

felt that the proposals were inadequate.) Under the

terms of the program, publishers of the software retain the copyright, while the State receives a royalty

‘lE/ectronic Learning, “Educational Technology 1987, a Report on

EL’s Seventh Annual Survey of the States,” vol. 7, No. 2, October 1987.

~:OTA State Educational Technology Survey, 1987. Many States

pro}ided additional information and supporting documentation. For

further derail, see app. A.

~]The States are Arkansas, California, Connecticut, De]altare,

Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York,

North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsyl\,ani~, Texas,

~ltah, and YL’est Virginia.
142

Photo credit: Scholastic Software

With an interactive computer simulation of a frog dissection, students use the computer to probe, snip, remove,

and examine organs; then they attempt to replace them in the right order.

as well as the right to purchase the product at reduced cost. The royalty funds are intended to provide seed money for continued State activity. The

State committed over $1 million to this effort. State

officials found that despite the State’s willingness

to subsidize upfront development costs, few small

developers submitted bids. One explanation is that

the request for proposals stipulated that developers

—not the State—would be responsible for marketing, the high costs of which posed a barrier to developers who were not already well established in

the market. In addition, State officials believe that

States will find it impossible to sustain this type of

development effort unless they group themselves in

consortia or receive additional outside funding. The

cost of developing comprehensive software packages,

for example, would exceed most States’ resources.

PUBLIC POLICY; ISSUES AND DIRECTIONS

Assuming there is general agreement that com- neric—computers are multipurpose machines—the

puters and related technologies can play an impor- “educational” part of “educational technology” really

tant role in enlarging and enriching the school ex- means software.

periences of children, an overarching public policy

question becomes how to best stimulate continued OTA finds a general consensus among de.

production and use of high quality software. Indeed, velopers, publishers, educators, and other users

since most of the hardware used by schools is ge- that the quality of available educational software
143

is not as high as it might be. Moreover, despite the

appearance of an active commercial market, the ability of the private sector to continue to produce and

market innovative programs over the long-run, and

to achieve the promise of new interactive learning

tools, is uncertain.

Capital Limitations

The current national average of 1 computer per

30 children represents a small fraction of most school

budgets. For a medium-sized district with 1,800 enrolled children, for example, the cost of providing

60 desktop computers is roughly $90,000, or less

than 1.5 percent of the average district budget. 34

Indeed, some school districts that began installing

interactive technologies in the late 1970s and early

1980s hardly noticed the expense.35

The problem, however, is that this level of expenditure translates to very limited instructional use of

the technologies. Most computer-using students still

spend only about 1 hour per week with the computer, which means that the demand for software

is too low to allow most publishers to recoup their

development and marketing costs. Consider the

proportion of enrolled students in a given grade who

study a given subject, and among them, the proportion with regular access to computers. It is clear that

software publishers face a severely fragmented demand that can seldom justify the level of investment

necessary to create products for those subjects and

grade levels.

Property Rights

In addition to the capital limitations, software innovation is constrained by problems of appropriability.36 It is difficult (or impossible) for innovators

to recoup investments in products that become public goods. This is a familiar problem in education

‘iThls estimate is based on the assumption of $1,500 per computer,

which may be high, given the possibility of volume discounts. The district budget figure IS based on the national average of $3,449 per enrolled child. LT

. S. Department of Education, Center for Education Statistics, Dlgesr of Education Sraristics (Washington, DC: 1987). See also

ch. 6 for a more detailed discussion of costs.

‘jGeorge Ridler, associate superintendent for admlnistratlon, Prince

Georges County Public Schools, MD, Interview, Feb. 18, 1988.

~’Appropriability IS the term used by economists generally for an ln-

\estor’s abllitv to recoup returns, and specifically in the context of inventors recouping the development costs of their Inventions.

where, for example, one determinant of the quality and diversity of textbooks is the ease with which

new ideas can be copied.37 It is also a familiar problem in the general software market, where both theft

of innovation (the idea for a software design or interface) and unauthorized duplication of discs have

plagued the industry.

Information Barriers and

Transaction Costs

This chapter earlier described various sources of

information about software, and suggested that despite a great many available reviews and evaluations,

purchasers of instructional software often act on imperfect knowledge. (Some would claim that it is the

overabundance of information that complicates decisionmaking.) But software consumers are not alone

in making choices with incomplete information. On

the supply side, too, design and marketing decisions

would be considerably more efficient if producers

had better market information. One study identified four characteristics of the U.S. school system

that erect barriers to information: informal acquisition decisions by teachers, principals, and parent

associations which are not necessarily aligned with

formal mechanisms and funding; adoption processes

that vary from district to district and State to State;

the inadequacy of the installed base of hardware

coupled with the presence of many different computers that run different operating systems; and a

fragmented market with a diverse student population taking many different subjects at different grade

levels. 38

The high costs of marketing are perceived as a critical problem in the industry. As shown in figure 6-3,

over half of all software firms responding to a recent survey cited sales and marketing costs as the

factor most affecting profitability. Moreover, it is

important to note that this problem does not affect all firms equally. Textbook publishers and multiproduct firms are least victimized by the complexities of educational marketing. The former group,

especially those with substantial market share who

‘;See Goldstein, op. cit., footnote 17.

‘%ee Henry Levin and Gail Meister, Stanford University, Center

for Educational Research at Stanford, “Educational Technology and

Computers: Promises, Promises, Always Promises,” Project Report No.

85-A13, November 1985.
144

Figure 6.3.—Software Publishers’ Expectations of

Factors Affecting Future Profitability

Table 6-10.–"Self-Starter Software Co.”

Income Statement, 1986

I

have been selling books and other materials to

schools for a long time, enjoy a significant advantage because of their sales networks and intimate

knowledge of local acquisition policies; and even

these firms must devote a considerable fraction of

their budgets to marketing. By comparison, new entrants need substantial time to catch up and familiarize themselves with the best distribution and sales

channels. The balance sheet of a small software developer, shown in table 6-10, illustrates the relatively

high proportion of total expenses allocated to marketing.

Policy Responses

Federal policy with respect to educational software

must be sensitive to the broader context of educational achievement: indeed, the great appeal of new

instructional technologies lies in their potential role

in raising academic performance. But academic performance depends on many factors, and not just on

the level of expenditures on specific instructional

materials. More computers and more software alone

Income:

Cost of sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ (3,049.88)

Cost of sales (computer

equipment). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3,060.00)

Total cost of sales . . . . . . . . . . . . (6,109.88)

Total net sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,445.89

Services (Joan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,459.49

Services (David) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,420.64

Commissions earned. . . . . . . . . . 228,88

Miscellaneous. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,032.52

Other income and services. . . . . 11,141.53

Gross income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 16,587.42

Operating expenses:

Advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,171.34

Accounting and legal . . . . . . . . . 162.00

Automotive expenses . . . . . . . . . 1,216.12

Bank charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151.88

Electronic communications . . . . 95.38

Depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,669.10

Dues and publications . . . . . . . . 339.67

Donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.50

Entertainment and promotion . . 396.77

Insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 782.92

Interest expense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832.88

Miscellaneous expense. . . . . . . . 17.27

Office expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239,22

Postage ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322.01

Repairs and maintenance . . . . . . 215.97

Computer maintenance . . . . . . . . 20.00

Supplies: general . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.71

Office supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354.87

Tax and license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214.40

Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,292.60

Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770.16

Gas and electric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.14

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.38

Total expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (18,548.29)

Marketing expenses as percent

of total:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 percent

Net profit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (1,960.87)

NOTE: Items in bold considered marketing expenses.

SOURCE: These are actual data from a small software publisher in California.

The name has been changed to preserve confidentiality.

are not likely to bring about significant improvements in children’s learning and achievement. Decisions about educational technology generally, and

software in particular, need to be sensitive to how

the new tools will affect-and how their use will be

affected by—the management and organization of

schools. 39 In this context, OTA finds that the Fed-

~YAn example of an important school organizational issue is “autonomy”: the degree to which schools are free from external political influence, and the degree to which teachers are encouraged to pursue

lesson plans without stringent accountability to governmental authorities. See, for example, John Chubb, “Why the Current Wave of School

Reform Will Fail,” The Pubfic Znterest, No. 90, winter 1988, p. 36; and

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, A Nacion Prepared:

Teachers for the 21st Century, Report of the Task Force on Teaching

as a Profession (New York, NY: 1986).
145

eral Government can respond to problems in the

educational software market through a set of complementary strategies, as outlined below.

Technology Push

As described earlier, the combination of insufficient demand, unauthorized duplication, and theft

of innovation make investments in new software

very risky and may ultimately exclude all but the

largest (or luckiest) players from the market. By subsidizing development costs, the government could

improve the calculus of investment and returns, and

provide partial relief. This “technology-push” strategy would be expected to result in a greater number of developers competing, and in a higher propensity to experiment with innovative software

concepts. 40

While the concept of providing Federal monies

is separate from the question of how to distribute

those monies, institutional features should not be

overlooked. The ultimate success of this type of policy depends in part on the ability of the funding

agency to judge the quality of project proposals, estimate their likelihood of commercial success, and allocate resources accordingly. The Federal Government has in the past supported several excellent

development efforts through the Departments of Defense and Education and the National Science Foundation (see chapter 7). Although the distinction between basic and applied research in educational

software is fuzzy, federally funded projects have

tended toward the former. Most advocates of Federal support caution against involvement with product design and development, while they urge a

steady support of basic research.

The trade-off implicit in this discussion is between

the level of funding and the ability to target the

funds effectively. The Federal Government clearly

has resources and could afford to support the most

qualified and sophisticated researchers. But it is

poorly situated to judge the effects of various instructional tools on classroom teaching and learning.

A variation on the Federal technology-push strategy would involve joint Federal/State funding.

Many States have already proven their interest and

ability to stimulate software development, as discussed earlier. The principal obstacle standing in

‘JSee also Levin and Meister, op. cit., footnote 38.

their way has been fluctuations in funding, which

is often subject to changing political climates and

regional economic shifts. 41 TO overcome these obstacles the Federal Government could partially subsidize State and local development efforts. Local

agencies would retain responsibility for curriculum

definition, identification of software needs, and

screening of project proposals, and their efforts

would be backed by the assurance of continued Federal support.

Note, however, that even State-level software decisions may be insensitive to local needs, and may

undermine efforts to grant teachers greater autonomy in classroom decisionmaking. Ideally, therefore,

Federal and State resources could support local or

school-level software development. This strategy

necessaril y implies a heightened willingness to recognize school and classroom idiosyncrasies, and to

approach software development through classroom

trial and error. The underlying idea is to help schools

and teachers build greater instructional capacity,

and not to reduce that capacity by mandating software standards from high in the educational bureaucracy. (The problem with this approach,

though, is that it does not necessarily overcome fragmented demand.)

Market Pull

The complement to technology push is “market

pull.” As explained earlier, a principal cause of fragmented demand for software is the quantity of computer hardware in the schools and the degree of utilization. If more students had more access, it is

reasonable to expect that more software developers

would compete in the market. But the history of

hardware acquisition by schools and school districts

offers ample evidence of the power of local funding

constraints and annual budget processes. Even the

impressive growth in the number of schools with

computers, and the dramatic reduction in the ratio of students to computers, pale in comparison to

the rate at which business firms and other organizations have adopted the new technologies.

To remedy this aspect of the problem, the Federal Government could support the purchase of

+! The recent experiences of Texas and California are iktrati\’e.

See, for example, LeRoy Finkel, “Obituary: Teacher Education and

Computer Centers (TECCS): July 1, 1982-July 7, 1987,” CUE ~eursIetrer, vol. 10, No. 1, September 1987. See also app. A.
146

hardware in sufficient quantity to improve software

developers’ chances of recouping their investments.42 Again, the analogy with industry is illustrative: with office automation both widespread and

intensive, incentives to software developers have led

to a viable commercial market.43 Here, too, caution should be exercised so that Federal support for

hardware purchase not be perceived as Federal domination over hardware choices.

It is important to emphasize that technology push

and market pull are complementary strategies. A

radical increase in hardware, without assurance of

appropriate software, would be risky .44 On the

other hand, Federal support for software research

and development (R&D) coupled with stimulation

of demand for the outputs of that R&D could be

mutually reinforcing.

Portability

As mentioned previously, an additional complication software developers face stems from the incompatibility of various computer operating systems.

A program written for the Apple line of computers,

for example, does not work in IBM and MS-DOS

machines. Thus, if all schools adopted a standard

computer, software development costs would decrease significantly. However, the choice of a standard might interrupt research and experimentation

on the hardware side, and might lock schools into

systems that meet short-term goals at the expense

of longer-term progress.

An alternative is to continue funding research on

software “portability”: standardized codes to make

programs written in any programming language

compatible with more than one operating system.

This issue has been high on the research agenda of

the Department of Defense, because of incompati4zThis policy is a variation on government procurement as a vehicle to stimulate demand.

+~The French experience with Minitel, a highly successful videotex

system, is a good example of how government purchase of hardware

leads to a strong private sector supply of software. See, for example,

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Znternarional Competition in Services, OTA-ITE-328 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1987), PP. 172- 173; and Steven J. MarCUS!

“The French Videotex Connection,” Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 4, No. 1, fall 1987, pp. 108-112.

‘Experience wlt“ h other instructional technologies, such as film and

television, suggest how important it is to concentrate on software. See

for example, Larry Cuban, Teachers and Machines (New York: Columbia University Teachers College, 1986).

bilities between computer-based training systems in

the various uniformed services.45 There is a clear

Federal role in the development of portability: most

computer manufacturers and software companies do

not have the resources necessary to support this research, and none of them have the incentive to invest individually in a product that will benefit the

industry as a whole.

Copyright Enforcement46

According to conventional economic analysis, unauthorized duplication of computer software (and

other products that are easily copied, such as television broadcasts) causes producers to suffer economic loss, creates entry barriers to new developers,

and threatens the long-run supply of new products.

Stringent copyright enforcement, on the other hand,

causes underutilization, because would-be copiers

who cannot pay the market price for originals forego

use of the product altogether. Recent extensions to

the theory of copyright, however, suggest a more

complex picture,47 with implications for Federal

policy toward educational software copyright infringements.

The relationship between property rights enforcement and underutilization is ambiguous. Under

some conditions increased enforcement does not

necessarily lead to greater underutilization. For example, if the costs of copying are already close to

the market price for originals, then strengthening

enforcement could induce copiers to purchase originals rather than forego usage. There is a similar type

of ambiguity with respect to producers’ losses: if individuals value originals largely because they can

be copied–as in the case of taping television broadcasts for later viewing—then the prevention of copying could lead to reduced demand for originals.

Enforcement costs are another issue. In addition

to the expenses of litigation, there is evidence that

+~see (or examp]e, Dexter Fletcher, Institute for Defense Analyses,

“An A~proach to Achieving Courseware Portability,” internal memorandum, February 1988.

~hFor a comprehensive treatment of copyright see U.S. Congress,

Office of Technology Assessment, lnrellectual Property Rights in an

Age ofElectronics and information, OTA-CIT-302 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1986).

‘

; See especially Ian Novos and Michael Waldman, “The Emergence

of Copying Technologies: What Have We Learned?” Contemporary

Policy Zssues, vol. 5, July 1987, pp. 34-43; and Ian Novos and Michael

Waldman, “The Effects of Increased Copyright Protection: An Analytic Approach, ’’~ournal of Political Economy, April 1984, pp. 236-246.
147

educational software publishers are reluctant to

bring lawsuits against schools for fear of losing their

principal customers (teachers can easily switch to

other less expensive materials).

These issues point to the need for greater empirical investigation as a basis for government policy.

OTA finds that the Federal Government could support research on these subjects, and could facilitate

joint efforts by States, publishers, and school personnel to arrive at new agreements on software

duplication and distribution.48

Firm Size and Market Structure

It is unlikely that any single policy will solve the

problem of appropriability and guarantee innovators sufficient returns to their investments. To some

extent, this problem is related to questions of firm

size and market share: larger firms may have greater

capacity for risk-bearing, but smaller firms may foster

a greater enthusiasm for creativity.49 In the absence of any magical firm size and market concentration ratio, a range of organizational and market

structures should be allowed to coexist. The government could monitor shifts in these variables, for

example, by examining the effects of mergers among

instructional software publishers; and there should

bean openness to experimenting with new organizational forms, such as joint development ventures and

research consortia.

Information

A combination of actions undertaken by the Federal Government can play an important role in alleviating information barriers that impede the software market. To help on the demand side, the

“A model currently under consideration by Educom, a consortium

of colleges and universities participating in academic software development, may be a basis on which to develop effective pricing and distribution mechanisms for the K-12 market.

++The trade-off is at the core of industrial organization research. See

Kamien and Schwartz, op. cit., footnote 13. The authors studied many

industries (but nor educational technology) and conclude that “. , . inventive actlvlt y does not typically increase faster with firm size, except

In the chemical industry . . . [and] research and development activity

. . . appears to increase with firm stze up to a point and level off or

decline.” Accounting explicitly for the effects of bureaucratic organization leads to the finding that size alone cannot account for Inno\’ati\’e

capacity. See Oli\.er Williamson, ,i4arkers and H]erarchm (New York,

NY: Free Press, 1975); or R. Nelson and S. Winter, “The Schumw,terlan

Tradeoffs Re\mlted,” American Economic Re}’i-w, \ol. 721 No. 1, March

1982.

government could consider new efforts to collect and

review software evaluation data, while supporting

or incorporating existing State-level efforts and disseminating that information to school districts and

user groups. For the supply side, information about

State curriculum requirements would be particularly

beneficial to new entrants in the software market.

Summary of Policy Directions

A challenge of educational technology is to devise incentives for the development of innovative

software while encouraging continued and widespread use in the schools of new and existing products. OTA believes the Federal Government could:

●

●

☛

●

●

●

●

●

●

continue to fund a wide range of basic research

on learning and interactive software, including

both advanced laboratory-based research and

field studies of the effects of various software

designs in real school situations;

provide incentives to the States to subsidize software developers’ front-end costs and to identify superior software designs for instructional

use;

provide money to States, school districts, and

schools, independently or in consortia, to study

curriculum needs, define goals for interactive

media, and stimulate demand;

discourage the formation of politicized software

adoption mechanisms that may inhibit innovation and lead to homogeneity 

in the software

supply;

provide money to States and school districts for

the purchase of additional hardware, as a means

to stimulate new software production;

support national and/or regional evaluations

of software that provide commensurable data

on program content, process, and measured

learning effects;

support collection and dissemination of data on

school district acquisition policies and curriculum requirements;

encourage publishers and school officials to craft

mutually beneficial policies on software duplication; and

explore innovative alternatives to strict copyright enforcement, including (but not limited to)

site-licensing and State purchase of copyrights.
Chapter 7

Research and Development: . Past Support, Promising Directions

Chapter 7

Research and Development:

Past Support, Promising Directions

INTRODUCTION

American education is at a crucial juncture. The

demands on schooling in our pluralistic society are

greater than they have ever been. An increasing percentage of students are educationally at risk, and

demographic projections make clear that this problem will continue to grow. In addition, schools must

prepare all young people with a new set of skills and

understandings to assure the Nation’s economic

competitiveness. At the same time, technology makes

it possible to consider real improvements in the

productivit y of both teaching and learning. Taken

together, these forces could change what is taught,

when it is taught, how it is taught, and the nature

of teaching as a profession. * Because of the great

‘See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technolog y

and rhe American Economic Transition: Choices for the Future, OTATET-283 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May

1988), pp. 47-49.

●

●

●

promise offered by interactive technologies for

learning, Congress needs to consider a substantial

Federal investment in research and development

(R&D) to exploit more fully the power and potential of technology for education.

In the past, education has been at the far end of

the information technology R&D pipeline. Ideas

have taken up to 20 years to move from basic research to school application. Although the technology is changing rapidly, current policies inhibit the

flow of ideas along the continuum from research to

development, evaluation, and dissemination. Many

barriers block this flow. They include the absence

of a coordinated Federal policy, limited and shortterm funding, erratic political support, and disorganized R&D efforts across agencies. As a result,

many opportunities have been delayed; others may

have been lost altogether.

FINDINGS

Public education K-12 is a $150 billion a year busi- ●

ness. The Federal Government spends not even

0.1 percent of that amount on research to improve

it.

The Department of Education’s $128 million

share of the $63 billion fiscal year 1988 Federal

R&D budget amounts to 0.2 percent of all Federal R&D. And the Department of Education’s

own budget devotes less than 0.5 percent to research.

Funding for educational technology R&D has ●

been inconsistent over the last 30 years. Educational priorities have been buffeted by the winds

of political change, making long-term commitments rare.

With no lead agency for educational technology

R&D and no structure for coordinating activities across agencies, there has been no strategic

planning, little long-term evaluation, and missed

opportunity for transferring findings across agencies with similar research interests. Despite these

difficulties, some of the best educational technology products in use in schools today are the outcomes of Federal investments in R&D since the

1960s.

Military agencies provided approximately threequarters of all funding for educational technology research over the last three decades, supporting much of the early work on computer-assisted

instruction (CAI), cognition, and simulation for

151
152

skills training. Research in artificial intelligence

and advanced computing applications continues

to be important for education, but military research may no longer be the patron of such work.

Where civilian R&D finding for educational technology has been focused and consistent, the investment has produced important results. Examples include technology to improve educational

opportunities for the handicapped and learning

disabled; development of public broadcasting facilities and innovative children’s programming,

from Sesame Street to Square One TV; and the

development of LOGO, a computer programming

language for children.

Research in cognitive science, allied with developments in computer-based technology, the installed base of technology in the schools, and

teachers willing to experiment create today’s

“window of opportunity” for improving education. R&D seeding could bear fruit. Among the

most promising new research developments are:

●

●

●

●

●

●

Intelligent tutoring systems that can make the

services of an expert and responsive tutor regularly available to the learner.

Applications that exploit the computer as a flexible multimedia controller, enhancing curriculum with the richness of video, graphic, and audio representations of information.

Simulations, microworlds, and exploratory laboratory experiences in all disciplines that enable students to gain understanding through exploration, manipulation, and guided discovery.

Integrated tools and “intelligence extenders”

that help students to move beyond low-level

tasks and concentrate instead on more cognitively demanding learning and problem solving.

New assessment measures that track learning,

diagnose students’ conceptual understandings,

and evaluate the attainment of nontrivial skills.

Design tools, authoring systems, and knowledge

kits that enable teachers to create and shape

●

their own teaching materials, to modify curriculum, or develop individualized lessons for their

students.

New curriculum based on a changing vision of

the skills students need in the information age,

shifting much of the emphasis from what to

learn to how to learn.

Promising developments require closer ties between the research community and the classroom

and contributions from many fields.

●

●

A new dialog must be established among

teachers, researchers, and school administrators

to tie classroom needs and realities to promising research findings and technology applications. Without close ties between the laboratory, the design facility, and the classroom,

technology that is needed may not be developed; that which is developed may not be

adopted or successfully used by teachers.

Educational technology R&D requires interdisciplinary research, pulling together expertise in

cognitive science, artificial intelligence, computer science, anthropology and sociology, psychology, instructional design, and education.

Interdisciplinary researchers are in short supply, and their research requires stable, long-term

investments, to support advanced hardware and

software and to sustain projects from prototype

development to evaluation in real school settings.

OTA concludes that the Federal Government

must play a much greater role in supporting and

coordinating research, development, and demonstration in educational technology. While the

States and local districts can and will support some

aspects of technology implementation, and private

industry should continue to play a role, neither the

States, the districts, nor the private sector has the

capacity or incentive to conduct long-term research,

promote comprehensive development, or disseminate promising results.
153

EDUCATION AND R&D: A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The national investment in education and training is huge. As a nation we spend somewhere in

the range of $300 to $500 billion a year on all types

of education and training, in schools and in industry.: About $150 billion of that is spent by States,

localities, and the Federal Government on public

education. The Department of Education’s budget

request for fiscal year 1989 is $21.2 billion.

R&D is also a major investment. The United

States currently invests over $120 billion per year,

just under 3 percent of the gross national product,

in public and private R&D. The Federal Government share of R&D is $63 billion, 62 percent of

which is military R&D. Education R&D commands

less than 0.1 percent of the Federal R&D budget

(see figure 7-1). Since 1980, funding for education

‘Ilxd., ~. 47.

Figure 7-1.— Obligations for R&D in the U.S.

Department of Education as a Percent of All Federal

0.6

R&D Obligations, 1979-88

0.5

0 . 4

0.2

0.1

0

197960 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 1968

Year

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, based on National Science Foundation, “Federal Funds for Research and Development,” detailed

statistical tables, 1987.

R&D has decreased dramatically, while both Federal and overall spending for education increased. ]

Moreover the National Institute of Education’s expenditures for research have decreased since the

early 1970s by more than 70 percent in constant

dollars at the same time that the overall Federal investment in education increased by 38 percent4

(see figure 7-2a and b).

‘See U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Ser\’ice, U.S. Department of Education: Major Program Trends, Fiscal Years IWO-W, Report 88-330 EPW (Washington, DC: April 1988), pp. 97-100; and U.S.

Congress, General Accounting Office, R&D Funding: The Department

of Education in Perspectit’e, Report PEMD-88- 18FS (N’ashlngton, DC:

May 1988).

‘For a fuller analysis, see U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Education In formarlon: Changes In Funds and Prmrities Ha~’e AL

fected Production and Quallty, Report PEMD 88-4 (Washington, DC:

November 1987).

Figure 7-2a.—U.S. Department of Education

Obligations in Current and Constant 1972 Dollars for

Year

aln~l”des the Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation, the National Center

for Educational Statistics, and the National Institute of Education. Constant 1972

dollars are computed by using the implicit price deflator for federal Government purchases of goods and services as reported in Survey of Current Business.

SOURCE: US. Congress, General Accounting Office, “Education Information,

Changes in Funds and Priorities Have Affected Production and

Quality,” Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Select Education,

House Committee on Education and Labor, November 1987,
154

FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY R&D’

It is exceedingly difficult to isolate and quantify

the exact amount the Federal Government invests

in R&D for educational technology. Expenditures

are fragmented among and across departments,

agencies, bureaus, offices, and programs. It is even

harder to trace these funds over the years, because

of reorganizations and shifts at all levels of government. OTA’s estimate of Federal support for educational technology R&D is based on an analysis of

the three agencies that have been the major funders in this area: the Department of Defense (DoD),

the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the

Office of Education/Department of Education. Di5This section draws heavily on Charles Blaschke et al., Education

Turnkey Systems, “Support for Educational Technology R&D: The

Federal Role,” OTA contractor report, Sept. 30, 1987.

Figure 7-2b.—National Institute of Education

Obligations in Current and Constant 1972 Dollars for

Fiscal Years 1973-86°

.

.

1 , I , I 1 , ( I , , t 1

19737475767778796081 826384051980

Year

%onstant 1972 dollars are computed by using the implicit price deflator for Federal Government purchases of goods and services as reported in Survey of Current Business.

SOURCE: U.S. Congress, General Accountha Office, “’Education Information,

Changes in Funds and Priorities Have Affected Production and

Quality,” Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Select Education,

House Committee on Education and Labor, November 1987.

rect Federal funding for R&D which impacts

educational technology accounts for total spending of approximately $240 million per year,6

never approaching the billions committed to

other major categories of technology-related

R&D, such as energy, agriculture or transportation.

The Department of Defense

DoD has played a major role in the development

of computer technology and its applications to education and training. In fact, one of the earliest technologies, the chalkboard, was created at West Point.

An instructor, Frenchman Claude Crozet, found

himself in a dilemma. Unable to speak English and

with no textbooks to teach his science course, he

painted a wall of his classroom black and wrote on

it with chalk.7 The computer itself was developed

using defense R&D funds.

With its growing demand for technologically

skilled service personnel able to maintain and operate increasingly sophisticated military equipment,

DoD training requirements have increased. As

noted by two military analysts:8

A current and probably correct assumption behind U.S. defense planning is that in any major confrontation, ranging from deterrence to combat, our

adversaries will be able to supply greater numbers

of people than we can. We have sought to counter

this superiority in manpower quantity with quality, partly in manpower but primarily in advanced

materiel . . . faster tanks, more heavily armed aircraft, more sensitive radar and sonar, more accurate

fire-control devices, more powerful and more complex computers to aid tactical and strategic decision

This figure is a rough estimate that includes the Department of Defense manpower and personnel education and training research and

development in technology ($207.6 million), the National Science Foundation precollege technology activities ($1 1.8 million), and the Department of Education discretionary research and development technology activities ($18. 1 million) (fiscal year 1987 figures).

‘C. Anderson, History of Technology 1: Technology in American

Education, 1650-l$W, Occasional Paper No. 1 (Washington, DC: National Education Association, Technological Development Project,

1961); also J.R. Ollsen and V.B. Bass, “The Application of Performance Technology in the Military: 1960- 1980,” Performance and instruction, vol. 21, 1982.

bJ. Dexter Fletcher and Marty Rockway, “Computer Based Training in the Military,” Military Contributions to Instructional Technology (New York, NY: Praeger Publishers, 1986), pp. 172-173.
155

making, and so on. However, we must operate,

maintain, and deploy this materiel close to the limit

of its intended performance. If we do not, the high

cost of the materiel will be wasted, and the competitive edge it is intended to buy will be lost . . . no

understanding of military systems is complete without consideration of the human performance they

require to function as designed. Put another way,

human performance is an inseparable, essential component of every military system. Given this perspective on military-system effectiveness, it is not surprising to discover that the military investment in

training is immense.

Furthermore, as more recruits enter the Services

with low reading, writing, and mathematics skills,

the military has had to spend billions educating and

retraining the failed products of our educational system.9 Investments in instructional technology R&D

are viewed by the military as a means of making

their huge personnel education and training system

more efficient,

The level of DoD’s investment for education and

training has consistently exceeded that of all Federal civilian agencies combined. The military now

spends approximately $208 million a year on R&D

technologies in education and training, while civilian spending on technology R&D for K-12 education is estimated at $30 million. Put another way,

the military spends $7.00 for every dollar spent by

the civilian sector on R&D for instructional technology.

DoD R&D in technology ranges from basic cognitive science investigations to applied development

of course materials and electronic teaching machines. Figure 7-3 shows a timeline of representative projects supported by the services since the

1950s. Sustained efforts, combined with large levels

of support for projects carried across the R&D continuum, resulted in training applications of direct

utility to the military agencies. The military also explored high-risk but potentially high-payoff technology developments that reaped benefits for education (see box 7-A).

Two major lines of support can be traced over

time. The first line traces research in programmed

“[t has been estimated that, on an a~erage day In 1984, some

265,000 military and civilian personnel ~ere undergoing some type of

formal training, requiring a support staff of another 194,700 personnel, at a cost of $13.3 bllllon for that year. Ibid., p. 173,

instruction leading to applications in CAI and computer-based instruction (CBI), and research in computer-managed instruction (CMI) for individualized

training systems for military personnel. Examples

along this line of development include:

●

●

●

●

PLATO, envisioned as a “book with feedback”

as early as 1959, and supported by combined

DoD resources for numerous iterations of development. 10 An important component was a

large-scale longitudinal evaluation. This evaluation and other studies of PLATO provided important lessons for developing CBI with the

next generation of computers.

The Air Force’s Semi-Automatic Ground Environment for Air Defense System (SAGE), a prototype and progenitor for a host of military and

civilian computer-based information systems.

In designing SAGE it was found most efficient

to embed training instruction directly in the system. The system taught the operator how to

use it. This concept led to further development

of projects utilizing computer controlled instruction in educational systems (e.g., AIRDALE,

DIOGENES, and the Advanced Instructional

System).

Applications of the IBM System 1500 for CAI

training. The Naval Academy used the System

1500 for CAI in physics, chemistry, Russian,

and Naval Operations analysis; while the Naval Station in San Diego and the Army Signal

School at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey developed CAI in electronics training.

Research by the Office of Naval Research

(ONR) and the naval laboratories on programmed instruction led to the largest CMI effort of its time, the Naval Air Station project

in Memphis, serving more than 6,700 students

daily.

The other major line of research has led to simulations for various training applications, such as:

● Navy’s Taskteach Tutorial, which simulated

equipment for maintenance training and led to

development of a General Maintenance Trainer/

Simulator and the Sophisticated Instructional

Environment (SOPHIE). SOPHIE received TriService support and is considered the “mother”

“~he National Science Foundation also supported development of

PLATO in the 1970s. See National Science Foundation section below.
156
157

Box 7-A.-The Special Characteristics and Contributions of

the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

DARPA was particularly important for the development of computer technologies, many of which have

been applied to education and training applications. The agency was established in 1958 in response to the

Sputnik crisis, to explore high-risk but potentially high-payoff technology developments and to protect the United

States against technology surprise. While most of DARPA’s support focused on air missile and space defense,

some observers have called it “. . . the single-most influential government agency for the development of instructionally relevant capabilities such as computer speech interaction and artificial intelligence.”l

From 1960-75, DARPA funded a number of major projects related to computer-assisted instruction and

artificial intelligence. DARPA provided funding arid served as an umbrella for support from each of the services

for the PLATO project. During the late 1960s, DARPA also supported path-breaking R&D in artificial intelligence at Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Other developments focused on applications

of microprocessor-controlled videodisc technology, such as interactive movies, surrogate travel, and low-cost

visual simulators such as the tank gunnery trainer. Other DARPA contributions include developments in computer-based authoring systems, learning strategies, and skills acquisition. Research in the 1980s focused on largescale networks, computer systems software development tools, tutoring systems, and human factors research

in “embedded” training.

In the cognitive science and computer science research community, DARPA was seen as the agency most

open to far-reaching ideas. Innovation was encouraged and researchers came to believe that they could walk

into DARPA with an interesting idea and walk out the door with a check to try it out. Several characteristics

of DARPA in the 1960s and 1970s contributed to this responsiveness:

●

●

●

Procurement flexibility: Few DARPA contracts followed the traditional competitive bid process, Iargely

because it was assumed that some of the expected outcomes could not be adequately prescribed in RFPs. 2

Management flexibility: DARPA’s staffing philosophy tallowed project officers, themselves highly qualified researchers and scientists, unusual discretion and responsibility but limited their employment to relatively brief periods to minimize empire building and to cross-fertilize the government and outside R&D

communities.

Mission priority and umbrella coverage: The high priority of the DARPA mission was reflected in its

position in the Department of Defense hierarchy. Its director reported directly to the Secretary of Defense.

DARPA often provided seed or risk money to conceptualize an idea or initiate a small program. As an

official noted “The implicit mission of DARPA was to fund important areas of R&D which the services

overlooked or refused to support.”3

Because of its flexible authority and management, DARPA was able to provide continuity, effective communications and continuous support within its R&D community. The initial development and subsequent use

of ARPANET, the agency's electronic network, provided unique opportunities for those on the network to

exchange information including findings, "bounce ideas off experts,“ “refine thinking,” and test the rigor of

research in process.

The long gestation period required for ideas to become useful innovations made DARPA’s ongoing support

extremely important. However, a recent trend toward more directed and applied R&D projects is now also

reflected in DARPA funding priorities. If the research community can no longer look to a DARPA for early

and consistent support of innovative concepts, the next decade’s innovations may not get any further than

the “interesting idea” stage.

IJ, Dcxmr Fletchef and Marty ~m% ~Bared Tmining tn the Military? Af@@rY Cf3dnAm to lnatructioml Tml-mology (New York,

NY: Praeger Put&he% 1986), pp. 206M.

%wolurionery not evoiutifmaty i$sQ@09ed tochwaerke d th%2@A w.?$w% % ~y’$ _W *if~ project can be prescribed by a requesr

for opals, rhen DARPA should not lie dctbg k.” ~, p. 206.

Lhall Farr, pcraonal communication, August 1987.
158

●

of several other intelligent tutoring systems developed by the services for training personnel

in troubleshooting tasks and equipment operation and maintenance.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA) research on videodisc- technology,

which led to interactive movies (allowing the

student to control such aspects of viewing as

perspective, detail, plot, and simultaneous action), surrogate travel (enabling the learner to

“walk” through an area as it is displayed visually

and to see what lies ahead or around the corner of each chosen path), microtravel (surrogate

travel through places where people cannot go,

as through a jeep engine while it is running),

spatial data management (allowing users to “fly

over” an array of information and select what

they want through joystick controls), and lowcost portable simulators such as the tank gunnery trainer.

Early top-level support for R&D in educational

technology came from a 1965 memorandum from

then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to the

Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Noting that little was being spent on innovations and

new methods and techniques for education and

training, the Secretary directed that a line item be

placed in the budget for educational R&D “. . . to

be used primarily on specific projects directed toward

the improvement of existing Defense Department

education and training programs.”11 His support

was based on evaluations of previous CAI projects

showing a 20 percent reduction in training time, the

opportunity to individualize instruction, and the

ability to control and manage a variety of media

projects.

These evaluations of effectiveness have been important for generating ongoing support for projects.

Training, in contrast to education, is relatively easy

to evaluate, both because of methodology (it provides a tight feedback loop for instruction research

and evaluation) and motivation (because training

can be linked to specific jobs, cost-effectiveness tradeoffs are more readily and immediately observable

than they are in education.)

The military services continue to support important work on basic research on cognition, artificial

1 IS~C~~t~~Y RObert S. MCNamara, U.S. Department of Defense!

memorandum, Aug. 16, 1965.

intelligence, speech recognition, interactive learning systems, and converging technologies. The military has been a major, and occasionally the major,

player in advancing the state-of--the-art. Implications

for education in the civilian sector are clear. Computers would probably have found their way into

classrooms sooner or later. But without work on

PLATO, the IBM System 1500, computer-based

equipment simulation, intelligent instructional

systems, videodisc applications, and research on

cognition, it is unlikely that the electronic revolution in education would have progressed as far

and as fast as it has.12

Nevertheless, there are important limitations that

must be considered. First, adults, not children, are

the focus of the military’s training efforts. Children’s

needs are different. Training and education have

different goals. Although skills development may

have some carry-over, educational goals are more

complex than the specific objectives of military training applications. Finally, although there have been

civilian benefits from spinoff in technical areas, in

general DoD spin-off benefiting the K-12 education

community is shrinking as DoD research increasingly focuses on military applications.

As shown in table 7-1, the military’s “6. 1“ (basic

research) budget category has remained relatively

static, while funds in the “6.2” (experimental development) and “6.3” (advanced development) budget

categories have grown. Furthermore, it has been suggested that less than one-third of the $25.7 million

listed under 6.1 research has application to educational technology .13 Significantly, although the

amount of DoD R&D funding for instructional

technology overall is considerably greater than that

provided by all other agencies, no system exists to

facilitate technology transfer to civilian education

counterparts. 14 This continues, as it has for three

decades, to be a missed opportunity.

12Fletcher and RO&Way, op. cit., footnote 8, p. 212.

“Judith Orsanu, director, Basic Research Institute, Army Research

Institute, personal communication, May 1988.

I+one official noted that one of the best, if only, mechanisms of

technology transfer from the Department of Defense to civilian agencies probably comes from the fact that many researchers receive support from both sources and move freely between sponsoring agencies;

Susan Chipman, personal communication, November 1987. Others

have noted that informal exchange occurs more often under 6.1 funding, which typically supports university researchers, than in the case

of 6.2 and 6.3 funding for applied research. These grants and contracts

for experimental and applied development ofien go to private contractors and industry, where sharing of information is less prevalent.
159

Table 7-1.—Department of Defense Manpower and Training:

Technology Research and Development Expenditures, 1976-87 (in millions of dollars)

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

6.1 Research . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 10.3 11.8 13.7 13.77 19.77 17.65 21.20 20.64 27.12 26.54 25.73

6.2 Experimental

development . . . . . . 28.8 37.7 47.5 57.6 54.65 69.14 62.16 72.12 80.64 83.48 89.60 96.97

6.3 Advanced

development . . . . . . 24.6 34.5 44.6 57.2 50.57 55.74 53.75 61.36 68.03 85.55 90.64 84.87

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.6 82.5 103.9 128.5 118.99 144,65 133.56 154.68 169.31 196.15 206.78 207.57

SOURCE Funding levels for the years 1980-87 are supplied by the Manpower and Training Research Information System (MATRIS). The figures for 1976-79 are from

the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The differences between 1979-80 may be due to some slight differences in the selection criteria and changes in program elements when MATRIS was established. The congressional categories for education and training, human factors, manpower and personnel, and simulation and training devices are included. The above figures have not been adjusted for inflation. For further detail, see Charles Blaschke et al., Education

Turnkey Systems, “Support for Educational Technology R&D: The Federal Role,” OTA contractor report, Sept. 30, 1987.

The National Science Foundation

NSF support has been, and continues to be, an

important basis for educational technology in the

schools today. Although only a small proportion

of science education funds were earmarked for technology R&D at the K-12 level, this support has been

critical. From 1968 to 1981, precollege technology

projects received from 1 to 3 percent of NSF’s science education budget. More recently, however, this

proportion has changed. Since 1984, an average of

8 to 11 percent of the Science and Engineering Education (SEE) Directorate funding has supported

precollege technology activities.

1968-78: The Early Years

In 1968, President Johnson issued a memorandum

directing NSF to take the lead in supporting computer use in schools. NSF responded with the establishment of an Office of Computing Activities

(OCA) directly responsible to the director of NSF.

This high level of support was an important springboard for action. Although most of OCA’s projects

were at the university level,15 10 to 15 percent of

projects supported early work in CAI and other applications of technology in elementary and secondary schools. Projects included the Huntington Two

Project, to create educational materials based on

computer simulations for high school biology,

physics, and social studies; development of CAI materials for mathematics and reading drill and practice; and studies of the effect of CAI on teaching

programming and data processing concepts to innercity secondary school students. At this time, NSF

also provided research support for a new programming language “so simple that it can be taught to

second graders, ” which became LOGO (see box

7-B).

Support for CAI and LOGO continued when the

educationally-oriented technology work moved to

the newly formed SEE Directorate in 1972. New

CAI projects included PLATO IV16 and TICCIT,

and the development of a computer-based high

school mathematics laboratory. Much of the software for early educational computing systems came

from NSF support.17

As the SEE Directorate suffered declining appropriations ($7 million in 1974, $5.9 million in 1975, $2.9

million in 1976), educational technology R&D support decreased as well. Nonetheless, further development, field tests, and evaluation of CAI systems

continued. Other activities included support for

LOGO and work on computer graphics, the development of laboratory 

instruments connected to

microcomputers for science education, and examinations of various new telecommunication technologies for the delivery of instruction.

The decade following President Johnson’s call for

more research on school computer applications was

an important one for educational technology despite

limited funding. NSF support during this period

made important and lasting contributions. Nearly

15These Included support of ur-uversity and college regional computing networks; CONDUIT, a project supporting the transfer of computerbased Iearnlng materials and expertise across unit,ersities; and projects

aimed at furthering expertise in the use of computers In specific disclpllnes, such as the Commission on College Physics.

‘Qver a period of 5 years, PLATO received $7.8 million in National

Science Foundation funding.

‘

; One analyst estimates that by 1973 over 800 of 2,750 educational

software programs had been supported in part by, the National Science Foundation. Beverly Hunter et al., Learnin g Alternatives in U.S.

Education: Where Srudenr and Computer Meet (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Educational Technology Publications, 1975).
160
161

Concepts in engineering, physics, and robotics are

made real as students write computer programs to

operate machines they have created in LegoLOGO.

all the technological tools, pedagogues, and methodologies now widely used in education had their

instructional origins in these early NSF projects—

telecommunications and computer networks,

graphics, speech synthesis, programming languages

such as LOGO, laboratory instrumentation, instructional simulations, interactive dialogs, economics

modeling and gaming, social science data analysis,

interactive videodiscs, career counseling systems, and

computer literacy for educators.

1978 to 1988: Commitment to Educational

Technology Despite Setbacks

At the time when schools were beginning to acquire microcomputers in large numbers, NSF had

no program focused on educational technology

R&D per se. However, from 1977-81 approximately

$1.6 million per year was targeted to technology in

the Research in Science Education (RISE) and Development in Science Education (DISE) Programs

in the SEE Directorate. While the research sum was

small, it was significant because it supported work

in cognitive science and artificial intelligence applications to instruction. This was the only research

of its kind being supported outside the military. NSF

officials point to this early work as seminal in the

field of intelligent CAI and intelligent tutoring

systems. 18

Other activities supported by RISE and DISE included the development of computer literacy materials and studies, the use of computers to teach reasoning skills to junior high students, a study of new

applied mathematics techniques using the PLATO

system, development of mathematical reasoning programs for young children, and development of prototype materials for interactive videodiscs.

In 1981, the SEE Directorate was dismantled, a

political event which had traumatic results for the

science and technology community. Research groups

were disbanded; some researchers moved into industry, some to military training, and others left the

field altogether. Many observers believe it created

a serious hiatus from which science education is still

recovering. During this period, NSF personnel who

remained made creative efforts to seek alternative

means of continuing support for research in educational technology.

Two approaches were adopted: industry partnerships and interagency cooperation. Neither came

easily, but both produced important results. Industry

partnerships were forged under the program “Development in Science Education Involving NSF/Industry Cooperation for Science and Engineering

Education Using Computers. ” The program encouraged universities to develop innovative prototypes of CBI materials or model programs in science

and engineering education. Support was shared

almost equally between NSF, industry (through donations of computer equipment), and the grantee

institutions, each of whom had to provide at least

one-quarter of the project cost to receive an

award. 19

The second focus was interagency cooperation.

In order not to lose momentum and skilled research-

‘

h

Andrew R. “intelligent Tutors in Education,” paper presented at the Conference of Applications

of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems, 1986.

 K. Deringer and Andrew R. “University, Industry, and Federal Cooperation—A Case Study, ” Science, Technology },,

and Human Values, 8, No. 1983, pp. 40-45.
162

ers in the middle of projects, other program offices

in DoD and the Department of Education picked

up some of the NSF projects. For example, NSF and

the National Institute of Education (NIE) provided

joint funding for research on cognitive processes that

provided a basis for closer relationships between cognitive science and technology. But interagency funding has its drawbacks: it is difficult to negotiate and

subject to short-term support, especially if dual funding is perceived as duplication of effort rather than

cooperation. NSF took this risk because the situation was desperate and interagency finding was the

only way to support important work in progress.

With the reestablishment of the SEE Directorate

in 1984, R&D activity in technology expanded.

Funding for science and engineering education,

while not yet returned to its 1968 level, has grown

(see figure 7-4). A 44 percent increase for 1988

pushed NSF’s education budget to $139 million, folFigure 7-4.-National Science Foundation Budget,

o

1952-88

Total NSF

asEE: science and Engineering Education Directorate.

SOURCE: Michael S. Knapp et al., Opponunities for Strategic Investmerrt in K-72

Science Education: Options for the National Science Foundation

(Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, June 1987), vol. 2, from data supplied by NSFISEE.

lowed by a fiscal year 1989 request of $159 million.

Educational technology R&D aimed at elementary

and secondary education is also receiving more emphasis, now approximately 10 percent of the SEE

budget. (See figure 7-5.) Four programs sponsor

activity: Instructional Materials Development, Informal Science Education, Research in Learning and

Teaching, and Applications of Advanced Technologies.

Several projects in the Instructional Materials Development Program are exploring alternative methods of delivering instruction via computers, videocassettes, and telecommunication technologies.

Figure 7-5.—National Science Foundation Obligations

for Research and Development of Educational

Technology in Elementary and Secondary Educationa

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

n

Year

aEstimates are based on the following NSF Pr09rams:

1968-71 —10°/0 of the Office of Computing Activities for elementary and secondary education

1972-76—20% of CIE and Technological Innovations in Education for elementary and secondary education

1977-76—15% of Development in Science Education and Research in Science

Education

1979-61 —15°A of DISE and RISE + $333,000 joint program with NIE

1964—66-200/0 of Instructional Materials Development (lMD) + 1000/. of Advanced Applications of Technology (AAT) + S500,0001year for

Research in Teaching and Learning

1987-88—NSF estimates based on IMD, AAT, and Teacher Preparation and Enhancement programs

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1986.
163

The Informal Science Education Program supports

several media projects, some funded jointly with the

Department of Education. Television programs include NOVA, 3-2-1 Contact! and Square One TV.

The Research in Learning and Teaching Program

funds several projects in cognition and studies of

student difficulties in understanding concepts in science and mathematics. Computer projects include

a study of the effects of computer-based curricula

in school algebra; a project looking at how high

school students and teachers solve problems in

genetics using computer simulations; and an assessment of elementary and middle school children’s

LOGO debugging skills.

Examples of work supported by the Applications

of Advanced Technologies include study of intelligent tutors in calculus, algebra, geometry, prealgebra, and algorithmic problem solving; creation

of a computer work station for children; creation

of Boxer, a new educational computing system; synthesis of research findings on key factors in science

teaching and learning using instructional technology; several projects applying or extending LOGO

in mathematics; and development of microcomputer-based laboratories.

Summary of NSF Impact

NSF educational technology R&D made important strides when it enjoyed periods of secure, longterm funding and when Presidential interest made

it a priority. At other times herculean efforts were

required to maintain and support critical research,

development, demonstration, and evaluation. It

took several years after the shutdown of the SEE

Directorate for momentum to return. Since the first

new major grants were made in 1985, results are only

now beginning to percolate through the system. 20

Even with increased funding, organizational divisions inhibit the flow of research into development,

and on into school demonstrations and evaluations.

As one manager noted, “We fund research but have

no money for development, or development with

no funding for demonstration, or demonstration

with no funding for field tests or evaluations.”21 It

‘J]ohn Walsh, “Breakthrough for Education at NSF?” Science, vol.

24o, Apr. 15, 1988, p. 2?2.

‘lAndrew Molnar, National Science Foundation, personal communication, May, 1988.

is difficult to conduct good research, to hold good

Federal managers, or to attract new researchers to

the field under these conditions,

Another important factor to note is that NSF’s

R&D has primarily influenced technology use in science and mathematics, because of NSF’s mandate

in these subject areas. The impact has been important for these disciplines, but educational computer

applications in the humanities and arts have not

benefited in equal measure. This would not be a

problem if other agencies, particularly the Department of Education, were to fill in the gaps. As the

next section outlines, strategic support has been lacking at the Department of Education.

Office of Education/Department of

Education22

Education’s support for educational technology

spans three decades and includes efforts to develop

educational television and public broadcasting facilities, to increase access to technology by enabling schools to purchase hardware and software, and

to expand the base of knowledge and innovation

through R&D. Support for the technology infrastructure and materials acquisition far exceeded the

dollars invested in R&D.

Much of Education’s finding for educational technology came from categorical programs and block

grants that allowed school districts to purchase

technology—televisions in the 1960s and 1970s; computers, videocassette recorders (VCRs), and software

in the 1980s. Enabling schools to acquire instructional technologies creates a “bottom up” incentive

for innovation and research. As the base of machines in schools grows, their use expands, driving

development of new products to feed the school market. Consequently, Federal policies that encourage

purchases of technology can indirectly stimulate

R&D.

Education’s limited spending for R&D in the area

of educational technology is not surprising when one

looks at the overall low priority granted education

research in general. Barely half of one percent of

‘:The Office of Education was a part of the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare until the establishment of a cabinet-level Department of Education in 1980. In this report, both organizational entities are referred to as “Education.”
164

the Department of Education budget goes to research.23 By comparison, the Nation spends about

as much annually on health care as on education,

but it spends 60 times as much on health research.24

The military, where R&D has been increasing at

an average increase of 7.8 percent per year since fiscal

year 1984, devotes about 12.8 percent of its total

DoD obligation to research.25

Of all the Federal agencies, it is most difficult to

extract consistent figures on funding for educational

technology from Education. Technology has been

supported in various pockets of programs, often

without a line item in the budget. OTA estimates

that between 1961 and 1987 Education spent approximately $200 million for educational technology R&D on computer-based applications. Although

a sizable total investment, given the 26-year time

span, it is in fact small from the perspective of overall

Federal R&D in this area. (DoD instructional technology R&D expenditures from 1971 to 1987, a 16-

year time period, is over $1.9 billion.) In fact, each

year the military spends approximately as much for

R&D in educational technology as the Department

has over the last 26 years.

Early Efforts

Education’s largest investment in technology has

been in support of public television, both through

the creation of the public broadcasting infrastructure and in television programming that addresses

critical educational needs. The American public and

‘]’’This is of special concern since the Federal Government is the primary source of funding for such research, as there is no education industry investing in educational research as we find in other areas.”

Nancy Cole, president, American Educational Research Association,

testimony before the House Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Select Education, Apr. 21, 1988.

~+ Institute for Research on Learning, The Advancement of Learning (Palo Alto, CA: 1988), p. 11. The expenditure on health services

for 1987 is estimated at $496.6 billion in “National Health Care Expenditures, 1986-2000,” in Health Cam Financing Retrieu, summer 1987,

p. 24. The 1987 expenditure on health research by the Department

of Health and Human Services is from the 1989 fiscal year budget. Total spending on education and training at all levels is estimated at $453

billion ($ 144 billion at the elementary and secondary level, $94 billion

for post-secondary, $210 billion for employee formal and informal training, and $5 billion for government training); see Anthony Carnevale,

American Society of Training and Development, “The Learning Enterprise,” Training and Deve/opmenr -lournai, January 1986, p. 18.

‘;Richard E. Rowberg, chief, Science Policy Research Division, Congressional Research Service, testimony before the House Committee

on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Select Education, Apr. 21,

1988.

the schools are still enjoying the fruits of this investment. The Educational Broadcasting Facilities

Program was created by Congress in 1962 to assist

(through matching grants) in the construction of

noncommercial educational television or radio

broadcasting facilities. Between 1962 and 1978, when

the program was transferred to the Department of

Commerce, Education spent a total of $151 million

on public broadcast facilities. Television and radio

programming support began in 1968 with support

to the Children’s Television Workshop for R&D

on Sesame Street, and continued with funds provided by the Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA),

passed in 1972 to eliminate minority group segregation and discrimination. One of the activities supported by the act was the development and production of integrated children’s television programs of

cognitive and affective value. ESAA funds provided

a total of $67 million for television series and related activities, including such series as Villa Allegre,

Vegetable Soup, and Infinity Factory. Funding for

television programming from 1968 to 1980 totaled

$134.3 million.26

One of the most important changes in the Federal funding of education was the 1965 passage of

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,

which focused national attention on education and

provided increased financial support.27 The “War

on Poverty” looked to education as a means of creating social change, and computer-based education

was seen as a potentially powerful tool for improving

the educational opportunities for the disadvantaged.

Time-sharing on mainframes made it economically

feasible for students to begin to have access to expensive computers.

One of the best known computer-related projects

supported by the Office of Education in the 1960s

was Stanford University’s development of instructional materials for educationally disadvantaged

elementary school children. The Stanford computers

in California were able to serve students as far away

‘6Andrew A. Zucker, “Support of Educational Technology by the

U.S. Department of Education: 1971 -1980,” )ournal of Educational

Technology Systems, vol. 10, No. 4, 1981-82, pp. 303-320. Department

of Education staff indicate that an additional $25 million was spent

on educational television since 1980. Arthur Sheekey, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, personal communication.

‘;Overall Federal funding for education increased from $375 million

in 1958 to $4.2 billion in 1968.
165

as Kentucky and Mississippi via telecommunications—

itself a powerful demonstration of technology. A n

unusual financial feature of the project was the use

of Title III funds, which were awarded to States and

localities for services, to supplement the direct support made available to Stanford for R&D.

During the 1960s, the Office of Education also

funded several significant R&D projects involving

video technology, including evaluation research

comparing conventional teaching and video presentations; the establishment of a video clearinghouse,

the National Instructional Television Center at Indiana University, from which grew the current Agenc y

for instructional Television (now the Agency for Instructional Technology); and support for improved

capacity of public radio and television stations under the Education Broadcast Facilities Program. In

1964, NIE funded the Learning Research and Development Center (LRDC) at the University of Pittsburgh. One of LRDC’s mandates was to study the

potential of technology for education.

The 1970s: Educational Television,

Special Education, and CAI Evaluation

In the 1970s, much of R&D continued to focus

on television as an educational tool, Education also

spent approximately $200 million on computer-related activities during the 1970s, of which about $50

million was for R&D, including demonstration projects. Many significant R&D projects in the Bureau

of Education for the Handicapped opened new

learning opportunities for the handicapped. These

projects included closed captioning of television, enabling the deaf to have access to a substantial portion of television programming for the first time; development of the OPTACON for the blind, a device

which produces images of printed letters using small,

raised, vibrating wires; and support for the development of the Kurzweil reading machine, another

device for the blind, which scans text and reads text

aloud through synthesized voice technology. Subsequent funding supported dissemination of these

devices. The Bureau of Education for the Handicapped also supported a computerized database on

instructional materials for the handicapped; studies

of reading and mathematics CAI materials for deaf

and hearing impaired students; and demonstrations

of electronic mail for communication with the deaf.

Other technology programs during this period included several applications of telecommunications

for education: the Educational Telecommunications

for Alaska project, which provided the scattered and

small Alaskan schools with electronic mail, CAI,

and other services via microcomputers; and the Appalachian Community Service Network, which used

satellite distribution of instructional programming.

Research on the effectiveness of CBI, as well as

development and evaluation of computer software

was also begun. Projects included an extensive 5-

year longitudinal study of the effectiveness of CAI

in the Los Angeles public schools, conducted by 

the

Educational Testing Service; an educational software

review and distribution service for school districts

(MicroSIFT) under contract to the Northwest Regional Laboratory; and development of software in

mathematics (Ohio State University), writing (Bolt,

Berenek & Newman), and language arts (WICAT).

Products created by these software development

projects were made available for commercial distribution and were used by schools. In addition, development of a multimedia science and mathematics

program series for children that included broadcast

television, computer software, and videodisc materials was funded through a multiyear award to the

Bank Street College of Education for the creation

of the Voyage of the Mimi.:28

Early 1980s: Block Grants, Computers,

and a Technology Initiative

As computers became widely available, there was

great excitement surrounding them; Time magazine

chose the personal computer as “Man of the Year”

for 1982. Schools no longer had to purchase large,

expensive systems in order to use computer technology; they could buy as many or as few computers

as they could afford. Parent-Teacher Associations

bought them for schools as fast as bake sale proceeds came in. Federal Chapter 2 funds also became

an important resource. 29

‘additional funding was prot’ided by the National Science Foundation in subsequent years. This was due in part to efforts by Department of Education program managers who, recognizing the need for

additional funding beyond Department of Education allocation, turned

to their colleagues in the National Science Foundation for help.

‘The Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 conSOI idated discretionarY~ grant programs into block grants that were

directed to the States and local jurisdictions through formula fund-

(mnrlnued nexr page)
166

Where separate authorizing legislation existed, and

where program managers had a commitment to

technology, the Department continued to fund technology R&D activities.30 From 1981 to 1987, an

estimated $129 million was spent on educational

technology R&D and demonstration projects with

computers. 3l The Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services continued studies of computer use for handicapped students, with followup

projects that developed a variety of applications including hardware, adaptive devices, and special

education software. Dissemination efforts were designed to bring research findings and development

efforts to schools and the special education community. Additional studies were conducted in the Office of Vocational and Adult Education and in NIE,

but most were not given adequate support to move

beyond research into development, classroom trial

and evaluation, and dissemination, particularly after a shift in Department research priorities after

1984.

The Department of Education began its participation in the congressionally-mandated Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program in 1983.

The SBIR Program is aimed at accelerating the commercialization of new devices developed under government support. With funding levels that are based

on a percentage of the agency’s overall external

R&D budget, SBIR grants were awarded for tech-

(cormnued from pretious page)

ing. These funds (Chapter 2), distributed on the basis of the number

of students, were to be used for educational improvements as the States

and districts saw fit. Many districts used their block grant monies to

purchase computer hardware and software. Chapter 2 and its predecessor programs have provided about $510 million for computers and related expenditures. A study of the Chapter 2 block grant program

showed that, for the third year of block grants (1984-85), support for

computer applications was the most popular activity, accounting for

30 percent of all local expenditures under block grants. During this

same period, 72 percent of the Nation’s schools used Chapter 2 for

computer-related purchases. Michael S. Knapp et al., The Education

Block Grant at the Local Level: The Implementation of Chapter 2 of

the Educacion Consolidation and Improvement Act in Districts and

Schools (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, January 1986).

‘For a full list of these projects, see Susan Klein, Computer Education: A Catalog of Projects Sponsored by the U.S. Department of

Education (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1983).

One example was the Title VII 3-year grant awarded to the Seattle

Public Schools to develop computer-assisted instruction in U.S. history for Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian high school students.

See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Trends and Status of Computers in Schools: Use in Chapter 1 Programs and Use With

Limited English Proficient Students,” staff paper, March 1987, pp. 86-

87, box B.

3*OTA extrapolation, based on Klein, op. cit., footnote 30.

nological innovation in areas proposed by the

Offices of Special Education, Vocational Education,

and Educational Research.

Several computer projects were supported by the

Department of Education in the early 1980s under

the Secretary’s “Technology Initiative.”32 Although

not a new funding initiative, this effort signaled Secretary Bell’s support for technology through a variety of programs under existing authorities within

the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). Among these were 12 technology

demonstration projects where computer applications

were studied and showcased; studies of the availability and quality of software in reading, mathematics, sciences, and foreign languages; and continuing support for The Voyage of the Mimi television

series and accompanying computer materials, and

for two other educational television series, 3-2-1

Contact and Spaces.

The Department sponsored a research conference

in November 1982 on the potential of computers

for education.33 Recommendations made by the

distinguished group of experts from the fields of artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and education

provided a conceptual framework for the Depart-
167

ment’s technology research agenda, and were included in planning the competition for a Departmentsponsored Educational Technology Center. A nationwide competition for the center was held, and

the award was made to the Harvard Graduate

School of Education, funded at $7.7 million over

5 years to conduct R&Don the role of technology

in teaching mathematics, science, and computing.

The center focused on “targets of difficulty,” curricular topics that are both critical to students’ further progress in these fields, and widely recognized

as difficult concepts to teach and learn. Various research projects at the center studied the nature of

students’ difficulties in understanding, exploited the

educational capabilities offered by computer-based

technology, and designed experimental lessons using

computers as well as traditional materials to address

these difficult topics. Teams made up of researchers from the center and participating classroom

teachers tried out some of these promising units in

local high schools to learn how they worked in the

classroom. 34

As part of a plan to increase Department of Education involvement in educational technology, Secretary Bell created a National Task Force on Technology in 1983, “. . . to investigate the potential of

appropriately integrated technology to improve

learning in our nation’s schools.”35 It was Bell’s

hope that this Task Force would set a national

agenda for educational technology.

1984 to Present: A Lower Priority

for Technology

When Secretary Bell left the Department of Education in 1984, the technology initiative and related

emphasis on computer activities ground to a near

halt. The new Secretary, William Bennett, did not

share Bell’s vision of improving education through

technology. The climate in the Department, reflected partly in the declining number of new grants

involving computers, shifted significantly.

Illustrative of Bennett’s lack of interest in technology is the Department’s response to Transform-

“Educational Technology Center, Harvard Graduate School of

Education, “Making Sense of the Future,” a position paper on the role

of technology in science, mathematics, and computing education, January 1988, p. 1.

~$National Task Force on Educational Technology, “Transforming

American Education: Reducing Risk to the Nation,” a report to the

Secretary of Education, unpublished manuscript, April 1986.

ing American Education: Reducing the Risk to The

Nation, the report to the Secretary by the National

Task Force on Educational Technology, referred to

above. Unlike A Nation At Risk, which was released

at a special ceremony at the White House and given

major nationwide distribution and publicity, the

technology report was held several months and

eventually released but not printed or made available to the public through the normal Government

Printing Office channels.

The reductions in computer-related R&D were

especially notable in the obligations of OERI, which

was not bound by the legislative mandates as is the

case in the Office of Special Education36 or the Office of Post-Secondary Education. OERI, which took

over the National Institute of Education in 1984,

has a more open charter and is therefore more responsive to general priorities in elementary/secondary education established by the Secretary and Assistant Secretary. The trend is displayed in several

ways. A recent computer printout listing OERI technology projects supported since 1980 illustrates how

many were supported in the early 1980s and how

many fewer have been started since 1983.37 Another

change is in support for R&D projects of long duration. In the 1970s, the Department supported

quite a few projects lasting 5 or more years (e.g., the

longitudinal study of CAI in Los Angeles, development of closed captioning of television, the Kurzweil reader, and the OPTACON). During the 1980s,

few projects received comparable long-term support.

Finally, the number of research grants to individual researchers decreased substantially.38 While this

decrease affected educational research as a whole,

projects with a technology orientation were particularly notable by their absence.39 

Summary of Department of Education’s

Impact

The Department of Education has had an off and

on love affair with technology. Where research support has been consistent, as in support of children’s

36A detailed discussion of the various programs and projects for the

handicapped and others with special needs can be found in Blaschke

et al., op. cit., footnote 5.

JiSheekey, Op. Cit., footnote 26.

‘KGeneral Accounting Office, op. cit., footnote 3.

’90f the nine grants to Field-Initiated Research Studies funded in

fiscal year 1987, one had a technology focus. Sally Kilgore, director,

Office of Research, Department of Education, letter to colleagues, May

13, 1988.

169

in addition to this funding40 (see box 7-C). NASA

also has an extensive education program in astronomy and space sciences, and has developed software

and videodisc materials for schools, and satellite

broadcasts and telelectures for teacher education.41

These and other government-supported R&D

programs contribute information and innovations

to the area of educational technology, but it is difficult to identify the most promising projects for education or to measure the cumulative level of funding or impact. Project goals and priorities are

targeted to each agency’s mission, and are not generally considered for potential applications in

schools. Typically, these agencies share a common

problem with the Department of Education, NSF,

and DoD—the lack of enthusiasm or support for

‘i Melvin D. Montcmerlo, Office of Aeronautics Space Technology,

Dit’lslon of Information Sciences and Human Factors, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, personal communication, March

1988.

‘! National Aeronaurlcs and Space Administration, Educational Affairs Dlwsion, @ffIce of External Relatlons, Educational Affairs Plan:

A F[\re-Year Srrarcg\ F’Y 1988-1992 (Washington, DC: October 1987).

technology transfer within programs in house or

across agencies.

Box 7-C.--NASA’s Intelligent Computer.

Aided Training: Spinoff for Schools

At the Johnson Space Center, NASA researchers are conducting research in the area of expert

systems in advanced physics and astronomy for use

in flight training modules. They are also developing a tutoring system using CLIPS, an authoring

language which subject matter specialists can use

to write their own tutoring programs. Both these

projects have applications for education, and the

researchers at NASA are looking for ways to share

their findings with the Texas schools. Because

NASA has a technology utilization program whose

mandate is to encourage technology transfer to civilian and industrial programs, there is funding to

facilitate this research spinoff to schools. The projected cost of applying the research toward the

development and school-based testing of a high

school physics course which uses intelligent tutoring software is approximately $1.3 million.

CURRENT FEDERAL PRIORITIES

Although the military, through DARPA, ONR,

and the Service laboratories, has been a major contributor to basic research in technologies that have

later led to educational developments, both Federal

officials and researchers suggest that this may no

longer be the case. Overall funding for basic research

in DoD has received a smaller share of the Defense

R&D budget as big ticket items falling into the 6.2

and 6.3 categories of exploratory and advanced development take a bigger bite (see table 7-2). Furthermore, present research priorities preclude projects

in cognitive science that have an education, rather

than training, orientation. Many fear that the pipeline for innovative developments for education will

suffer from the lack of support from a once powerful funding patron, the military R&D agencies.

Educational technology research at NSF, however,

is on the upswing. As shown in table 7-3, the fiscal

year 1989 budget request for precollege technology

efforts is 61 percent higher than that for fiscal year

1987. As noted above, however, NSF’s focus is predominantly on mathematics, science, and computer

Table 7-2.—Department of Defense Research and

Development Funding, 1984-89a (in billions of dollars)

Fiscal year

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989b

Research , , ., 0.84 0.85 0.95 0.89 0.90 0.92

Exploratory

development, 2.22 2.27 2.28 2.34 2.39 2,36

Advanced

development c ., 1.41 2.70 4,07 5,03 5.43 6,51

(SDI) , .,,,.... (0.05) (1.39) (2.66) (3.26) (3,53) (4.52)

Other ., . . . . . . . 22.27 25.28 26.20 27,82 29.17 29,09

Total. ., . . 26.76 31.10 33.50 36.09 37.90 38.87

aData provided by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

bcurrent administration request.

clncludes funding for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

SOURCE: Richard Rowberg, Chief, Science Policy Research Division, Congressional Research Service, testimony before the House Committee on

Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Select Education, Apr 21, 1988.

programming. The Department of Education, which

has responsibility for research in broader areas related to education, has just recently begun to again

target limited spending on technology (see table 7-

4 and appendix C). In a recent Department of Education informal survey asking education researchers to list the areas of education research most likely
170

Table 7.3.–NSF Funding for Educational Technology

Research and Development, 1987-89

(In millions of dollars)

Fiscal year

NSF program 1987 1988 (est.) 1989 (est.)

instructional materials

development. . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 7.4 9.0

Applications for advanced

technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 5.6 6.0

Teacher preparation

and enhancement . . . . . . 2.5 3.5 4.1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total technology . ........11.8 16.5 19.1

Total precollege. . .........60.0 83.0 97.0

aFUnda frOm the Tegcher preparation and Enhancement Diviaion that Were Used

for technology are estimates. The amount is difficult to separate from other activities.

bDoe~ not include the budget for informal education and major broadc=t

projects, totaling approximately $7 million in fiscal year 1987.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on data from the National

Science Foundation, 1988.

to produce significant breakthroughs and the greatest impact on practice during the next 5 years, “computers in the classroom” tied for third most frequently

mentioned. Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement, Chester Finn, summarized

the educators’ comments on this breakthrough area:

The computer will deepen its presence in schools

and classrooms as software improves and teachers

begin to see it as a powerful tool for getting the job

done. The microcomputer offers more information

than any teacher can, and it puts that information

directly into students’ hands, permitting them to interact with it—to manipulate graphs, enact simulations, edit texts. Eventually, a keyboard will be at

the fingertips of every student in every class.42

‘~C~ester Finn, “What Ails Education Research,” Educational

Researcher, vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 7-8, January/February 1988.

Table 7-4.—Department of Education Funding for Educational Technology Research,

Development, and Demonstration, 1987-89a

1987 1988 1989

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI):

Regional educational Iaboratoriesb . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“. ... ... ... ... .$1,808,798

National research and development centersc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000,000

Educational technology center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000,000

Field-initiated research grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,508

Programs of national significance:

Technology awards under science and mathematics, and

critical foreign languages discretionary funds

competition d 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530,000

Technology competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -oEducational television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,250,000

Small Business Innovative Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,700,000

ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288,000

National Diffusion Network—technology projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310,000

Star Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

Special education:

Technology for special education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,670,000

Vocational education:

Research center-technology projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 192,091

High technology demonstrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -oAdult education:

Job Skills Education Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -o-

(EO)

(EO)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

(A)

(EO)

(EO)

$ 1,225,926

1,000,000

900,000

unknown

970,000

1,000,000

2,225,000

1,700,000

298,283

150,000

19,148,000

4,790,000

1,810,000

-ounknown

9,600,000

128.000

(EO)

(EO)

(0)

(EO)

(EO)

(EO)e

(EO)

(0)

(EO)

(A)

(A)

(EO)

(EO)

(0)

$1,148,456 (EO)

Pending

1,000,000 (EO)

unknown

unknown

unknown

unknown

1,700,000 (EO)

unknown

unknown

-o4,790,000 (R)

1,270,000 (EO)

300,000 (R)

unknown

9,600,000 (EO)

—> . . unknown

Abbreviations: O: Oblifration: EO: Estimated Obiiaation; A: APwoPriation; R: Budget Request

%her programs supp;rf technology demonstrati~ns and applications, but there iino information avaiiable to document funding reiated to technology. These inciude:

the Magnet Schoois Assistance Act (Title Iii, Education for Economic Security Act —EESA), the Bilingual Education Act (Title Vll, EESA, Parts B and C), and three

programs authorized under the Higher Education Act (the Fund for improvement of Postsecondary Education, HEA X-A; Leadership in Educational Administration

Development, HEA V-C-2; and the Christa McAuliffe Feiiowships, HEA V-D-2). Formuia funding programs also support technology. These include: Chapter 1, Economic

Consolidation and improvement Act—ECiA; Chapter 2 (ECIA); EESA, “Mathematics/Science Program; the Bilingual Educatjon Act (Part A, State and iocai grants); the

Education for the Handicapped Act (State grants); and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act (Titie Ii). With the exception of Chapter 2 biock grants, information

to document activities related to technology is not availabie. An eatimated 30 percent of appropriations for Chapter 2 block grants is used for technology applications.

bNine regional educational Iaboratodes car~ out applied research gnd development and provide technical assistance within multistate regiOnS. The tOhi anIWd appropdatlon is $17 miiiion for 19S7, 19SS, and 19S9. Funding for educational technology activities comes from OERi grants and other sources. Additional funds for

technology were provided to the laboratories through the Rurai Education initiative (Education Appropriations Act of 1986) which appropriated S4 miilion over 2 years

and g}ves a priority to applications of technology. The amounts shown inciude only Federai funding.

Cfqineteen centers conduct research on educational topics of national significance over a 3 to 5 year period. The total annual appropriation has been $17.5 nlilliOrr

since 19S5. Center awards range from S500,000 to $1.2 miilion annualiy. One center has designated responsibility for educational technology R&D, but severai others

support research projects that have a strong technology component. Some centers support research that may iead to future applications of technology for iearning.

dinclude9 Criticai foreign language projects involving technology, which account for approximately 10 percent of critlcai foreign ianguage discretionary funds,

einciudes $1 million for Square One TV, currently under review.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on data from the U.S. Department of Education, The Fiscal Year 19S9 Budget, Summary and Background /formation

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, February 1988); personai communication and iists of Departments of Education grants and awards, April 1988.
171

A new technology competition under the Programs of National Significance in the Title II Program for Mathematics, Science, Computer Education, and Critical Foreign Languages will have a

funding level of $1 million. There is also a new competition for an Educational Technology Center.

However, the RFP calls for less support ($5 million

over 5 years, versus $7.7 million from 1983 to 1988

under the current contract) with a much broader

research agenda. The new center will be responsible for all curriculum areas, not just mathematics

and science, and its mandate will cover not only

technology, but also teaching, learning, assessment,

and school leadership. Despite the limited budget,

interest in the center competition has been very

strong. Indeed, the new technology center is perceived as “the only game in town” by the educational technology research community.

No new educational television initiatives are

planned, and although the new congressionally

mandated Star Schools Program for distance learning projects is authorized at a level of $19.1 million

for 1988, no funds are requested in the Department’s

1989 budget.

OTA concludes that these efforts fall short of focused, long-term commitments called for by the National Governors’ Association, the National Task

Force on Educational Technology, and the National

School Boards Association.43

“See National Governors’ Association, Center for Policy Research

and Analysis, Time for Results: The Go\ernors 1 ~~1 Report on Education (Washington, DC: 1986); N’atlonal Task Force on Educational

Technology, op. cit., footnote 35; and National School Boards Association, A Nar~onal lmperatlt’e: Educating fiw the 2 Isr Cenrur}’ (Alexandria, VA: 1988).

PROMISING DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH44

OTA finds that both recent research results and

current demands for change in schools make increased research on technology and education

especially promising at this time.45 Three major

factors make this so:

1. The technology makes possible the testing

and trying of new ideas. Some of the best and

the brightest scientists and researchers today

see education as an important frontier for research because of the potential offered by interactive technologies.46 Work in psychology,

computer science, and artificial intelligence is

contributing to understanding coherent the-

‘+h!uch of this discussion comes from Roy D. Pea and Elliot Solowav, “Mechanisms for Facilltatmg a Vital and Dynamic Education System: Fundamental Roles for Education Science and Technology,” OTA

contractor report, December 1987.

‘<See Dean Brown et al., “Influences on Development and Innovation In Educational Technology, ” OTA contractor report, October

1987. Both this report and Pea and Soloway, ibid., draw heavily on

research documents, and personal and written interviews with preeminent researchers in the field. For a complete bibliography, see the contractor reports.

‘Alan Colllns, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., personal communlcat~on, December 1987. For example, Xerox has sponsored, with $5

million ]n startup funds, an Institute for Research on Learning. One

of the goals of the lnst]tutc IS ‘t. . . to forge a s;. nthesls of technology

and Iearnlng theory so that the instructional capacity of new tools can

be exploited. ” From Institute for Research on Learning, op. cit., footnote 24.

2.

3.

ories of how people think and learn. These theories can now be tested on powerful computers.47

Experimentation at all levels is leading to new

uses of technology and demands for increased

capabilities. As the installed base of technology in the schools grows and becomes more

powerful, new applications will become possible. Administrators want the technology 

to be

used, and publishers want to exploit markets.

As teachers become more sophisticated users

of technology, they will demand better products.

Critical educational needs are not being met.

The American public is painfully aware that

too many students are dropping out of school,

test scores are declining in relation to those of

students in other industrial nations, industry

is demanding a more skilled and technologically

‘;’’ The ability of today’s scientists to model the mind on computers

was made possible by generations of psychologists who watched and

recorded people at work on mental tasks of all sorts, and by the accumulated efforts of artificial intelligence researchers who have been trYring to understand the nature of intelligence for over 30 years. Researchers, finding thousands of regularities in the mind’s handling mental

tasks, are now using the computer to try to assemble those regularities

into a larger picture of how the mind performs. ” David L. Wheeler,

“From Years of Work in Psychology and Computer Science, Scientists Build Theories of Thinking and Learning,” The Chronicle ofHigher

Education, hlar. 9, 1988, p. A4.
172

competent work force, and the number of difficult to teach students (special education students, non-English speaking students, and those

from homes where educational support is lacking) is increasing. These problems, coupled with

a shortage of teachers in some locations and

subject areas, and growing concern over whether

we can produce and keep the most talented

teachers, all create a demand for change and

for a more productive system for schooling.

Research in the cognitive, social, instructional,

and computational sciences is changing the understanding of learning and teaching. This different focus is important—education viewed from the learner’s

perspective, not from the traditional curriculum/

subject matter perspective (see box 7-D).

Some of the areas where current research shows

promise for educational applications include the development of intelligent tutoring systems, tools

which act as intelligence extenders, microworlds for

learning, multimedia learning systems, new measures of testing learning, and research on how technology affects teaching and the social structure of

schools (see table 7-5).

Intelligent Tutoring Systems

Much of the research on human learning and effective teaching has been channeled into developing artificial intelligence technologies that could

simulate human tutoring. There is no question that

human tutoring produces the most effective learning. For example, one researcher found that only

11 hours of individual tutoring produced the same

level of mastery of the LISP programming language

as 43 hours of traditional classroom instruction with

supplementary student homework. What is also obvious is the prohibitive expense of one-on-one tutoring. The technological opportunity lies in the potential applications of artificial intelligence in

simulating human tutoring.48

Cognitive science research is focusing on those

aspects of human learning that could be used to develop intelligent tutoring systems. Work supported

by the Personnel and Training Research Program

at ONR indicates these include:49

“Susan F. Chipman et al., “Personnel and Training Research Program: Cognitive Science at ONR,” Ara\’al Research Re\’iei~’s, vol. N,

1986, p. 14.

“’Ihid., pp. 15-16.

Box 7-D.--Guided Discovery: Teaching

From a Learner’s Level of Understanding

The learner-centered approach looks at the

learner’s prior level of understanding, how preconceptions or misconceptions from earlier formal or

informal experience may affect understanding, and

where conceptual stumbling blocks exist. Recent

research has focused on diagnosing the understanding, preconceptions, and interests a learner brings

to formal instruction, so that additional instruction can build upon this base and deal with specific areas of difficulty.

Studies of how students learn science illustrate

this approach. Students’ preconceptions about concepts such as light, gravity, motion, heat and temperature, weight and density, and other physical

phenomena are being examined. The Educational

Technology Center at Harvard has identified “targets of difficulty,” curricular topics both critical to

students’ further progress in science and widely recognized as difficult to teach and learn. For example, in the Weight/Density Project, the research

group began by analyzing students’ beginning conceptions. Although most middle school students

do not know what density means, they do have

related ideas about "heaviness for size” and what

makes some objects sink or float. Most youngsters

have one undifferentiated concept for thinking

about weight v. density where physicists require

two. The distinction physicists make is hard to

teach because an object’s density, unlike its weight,

is not directly observable. The researchers are

therefore exploring the use of interactive computer

models to help students observe density in a simulated environment they can manipulate and explore.

These activities are combined with hands-on activities with objects of different weights, sizes, and densities, along with problems posed by teachers to

guide the students as they consider the connections

between their experiences with real materials and

the computer representations.1

=~~ T~C- #rim, HarvardCraduate~~10{~-

cation, “Msk@ Sense of the Future,” a poaition paper on the rok of

technology in tdrmce, mathematics, and computing education, January 19ss, pp. 7-s.

● understanding how novices and experts solve

problems in order to create an “ideal student”

model;

. understanding where misconceptions occur

when a real student does not perform as the

“ideal student” would;
173

Table 7-5.— Promising Directions for Research: Selected Examples of Intelligent Tutoring Systems,

Intelligence Extenders, Complex Microworlds, and Multimedia Learning Environments in K-12 Education

Funding

Projecta Topic Grade level Institution source

Algebra

Workbench

Boxer

Early algebra instruction using LOGO. Sixth grade Lesley College

Bolt, Berenak & Newman (BBN)

University of California, Berkeley (earlier MIT)

NSF

Programming environments for educators,

students, and others

Tool kit to create graphics intensive

programs.

Middle school to adult NSF

DoD

NSF

DoD

NSF

ED

NSF

DoD

Carnegie

Foundation

ED

NSF

ED

Spencer

Foundation

NSF

Annenberg

Apple

NSF

NGS

DoD

NSF

DoD

DoD

NSF

IBM

DoD

NSF

ED

NSF

GE/RCA

DoD

DoD

ED

Chips Designers

of instructional

software

Educators and instructional designers

Learning, Research and Development Center

(LRDC)

CMU Tutor Authoring language to create instructional

programs that help diagnose student

responses.

Uses artificial intelligence and cognitive

theory to diagnose subtraction errors.

Collaborative learning and experiments in

earth science using LANs,

Hypothesis exploration in plane geometry,

Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU)

Debuggy Elementary school Xerox PARC (earlier BBN)

Earth Lab Sixth grade Bank Street College

Geometric

Supposer

Geometry

Tutor

Middle school Harvard University Educational Technology

Center

Uses cognitive theory to diagnose student CMU

errors in creating geometry proofs,

Tenth grade

Green Globs Uses games and multiple representations to

foster understanding of relationship between

algebraic functions and graphs,

Helps students understand heat and temperature through microcomputer lab activities

with dynamic visual representations.

Helps students learn to use systematic decision methods to solve problems.

Tool programs for active investigation of

scientific phenomena.

Hypermedia environment to create programs

linking images, text, and other representations,

Collaborative science experiments using

telecommunications networks,

Children control Lego machines using the

LOGO programming language.

Middle school University of Illinois

Heat and

Temperatures

IDEA

Ninth grade Harvard University, Educational Technology

Center

Middle school to adult New York University

Middle school

Undergraduate

Inquire Bank Street College

INTERMEDIA Brown University

Kids

Network

LegoLOGO

Fourth-sixth grade

Elementary school

and up

High school and up

Elementary school

and up

Middle school

Elementary school and

up

Technical Education Resource Centers (TERC)

National Geographic Society (NGS)

MIT

BBN

LISP Tutor Intelligent tutoring system that provides instruction on introductory LISP programming.

Introductory programming language

CMU

LOGO MIT

BBN

Macro- Vanderbilt University

contexts

Microcomputerbased

laboratory

Modeling

Uses interactive video technologies to provide

functional contexts for science learning.

Inquiry-oriented science tools that connect

data collection hardware to graphing software

TERC

Computer-based tools that let students build

models of systems to learn calculus,

Prototype using digital-video interactive

technology that lets user ‘‘explore” a Mayan

archeological site.

Diagnoses bugs in students’ Pascal

programs.

A simulation environment for teaching basic

electrical theory,

A set of computer-based writing activities

that use real documents to teach writing

skills.

Tenth grade

Elementary school

TERC

Lesley College

PALENQUE Bank Street College

Proust

QUEST

Quill

Middle school and up

High school

Elementary school

Yale University

BBN

BBN

(continued on next page)
174

Table 7-5.—Promising Directions for Research: Selected Examples of intelligent Tutoring Systems,

intelligence Extenders, Complex Microworlds, and Multimedia Learning Environments

in K-12 Education—Continued

Funding

Project a

Topic Grade level Institution source

Rat

Reasoning

under

uncertainty

Sketch

Smithtown

SOPHIE

STEAMER

Tinker Tools

Vivarium

Voyage of

the Mimi

West

Word

Learning

Word

Problems

Microworlds that allow children to interact

with representations of everyday objects to

learn basic arithmetic concepts.

Introductory statistical reasoning.

Tutor to help teach graphing of simple

algebraic expressions.

Discovery world using simulations to teach

macroeconomics.

Electronic troubleshooting skills.

Uses simulation to teach about operation of a

steam propulsion power plant.

Uses game format to help learn basic concepts in Newtonian mechanics (mass,

energy, and velocity).

Computer-based models for ecology.

Uses multimedia materials for informal and

classroom-based learning of mathematics and

science.

Employs the coaching paradigm and a computer game format to teach basic arithmetic

skills.

System that helps children learn the meaning

of words by providing different characterizations of the meaning of words in a passage.

Prototype using multiple representations to

help students learn about reasoning with intensive quantities.

Elementary school

High school

Middle school and up

High school and up

High school and up

Vocational training

Sixth grade

Elementary

Fourth grade and up

Elementary

Elementary school

and up

Elementary

LRDC

BBN

Carnegie-Mellon University

LRDC

Xerox PARC (earlier BBN)

BBN

BBN

MIT

Los Angeles elementary school

Bank Street College

BBN

Princeton University

Harvard University

Educational Technology Center

NSF

NSF

NSF

DoD

DoD

DoD

NSF

Apple

ED

NSF

CBS

Sony

DoD

DoD

Spencer

Foundation

ED

Abbreviations: NSF = National Science Foundation, DoD = U.S. Department of Defense, ED = U.S. Department of Education, GE = General Electric, MIT = Massachusetts Institute of Technology, LANs = local area networks

aprojects listed represent the broad range of innovative applications of technology to probiems central to cognitive, social, and instructional sciences Of education,

particularly in the area of K-12 education. This is by no means an exhaustive list

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

●

●

●

defining the strategies of effective human tutors

(knowing how to present information, what

problems to present next, when to interrupt,

when to explain);

developing representations of real systems which

learners can manipulate and explore, to try out

hypotheses and “what if?” kinds of thinking.

(What if I change this variable? What if it breaks

down? What if I want to make another like it?)

trying out various student-tutor interfaces to determine how easily the student can get at the

knowledge contained in the tutor’s ideal student model;50

‘{’’’The interface between the user and the computer may be the last

frontier in computer design. ” James D. Foley, “Interfaces for Advanced

Computing,” Scientific American, October 1987. Examples of interfaces are touch-sensitive, plasma-panel screens, the “mouse” pointing

●

●

showing various graphic means which can illustrate ways of solving problems; and

studying how instruction can be adapted to

limitations in the student’s attention span or

ability to absorb information.

An example of an intelligent tutoring system

which incorporates at least limited capabilities in

all these areas is the Geometry Tutor developed at

Carnegie-Mellon University. ONR funding for early

research, later supplemented by NSF support for development and the Carnegie Foundation support

for testing in the schools, brought this concept from

device, the chorded key set, and on-screen windows; icons, menus,

browsers, overlapping windows, and the bitmapped display; eyetracking; and the Dataglove. (See Brown et al., op. cit., footnote 45, app. III.)
175

basic research to classroom trials in the Pittsburgh

public schools. Other intelligent tutors are being supported by NSF for Pascal programming and an intelligent tutor for high school algebra.

Intelligence Extenders

There is a major class of tools for learning and

problem solving, variously described as “cognitive

technologies, “ “intelligence extenders, ” “cognitive

workbenches” or “mental prostheses. ” These software tools enhance the utility of computers by their

capacity to quickly and accurately manipulate symbols, including pictures, text, diagrams, numbers,

and sound. They can be used in various combinations as needed.

For example, text editors and graphics tools in

word processors enable the writer to manipulate language with new ease and grace. Using these tools,

writers find that revisions come more easily, thoughts

can be reformatted, rearranged, and given new expressive shapes previously not possible in the world

of erasures and cut-and-paste editing. These adjustments and revisions in writing are techniques that

are associated with expert performance among

writers, yet even the most inexperienced of students

can benefit from the assistance these intelligence extenders provide to help them write more fluently.

As these tools now approach second-generation

or integrated tool levels, they can be customized by

teachers and publishers for different curricular areas

and topics. Like dBase III, a powerful general tool

for various database applications, or Lotus 1-2-3,

which offers multiple spreadsheets and modeling applications for business, comparably powerful “engines”

for education could spawn customized development

and applications by the teacher for classroom use.

HyperCard, the latest associative tool, allows the

Photo credit: John Camp, Wayne State University

HyperCard software lets teachers create their own instructional software, linking topics as desired. In this “School of

Athens” HyperCard stack, students “click” on a figure to bring up more information about the philosopher or on the

question mark for general information or help.
176

user to create and link together “cards” of intermixed

text, graphics, videodisc images, and sound. This

software tool also includes a powerful, but simple,

programming language. HyperCard’s lineage can be

traced back to Memex,51 the forerunner of today’s

“hypertext, “ “idea processing, ” and outline processing systems. Much of the work creating tool “engines” has been taking place at the university level

over the past 5 years, as in Project Andrew at

Carnegie-Mellon University, Project Athena at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Brown

University’s IRIS Project.

Among the most promising uses of technology

tools are those for exceptional students. Innovative

projects include braille word processors for the blind,

specially designed materials for teaching English syntactic structure to improve the reading and writing

skills of the deaf, and synthesized speech generated

by touching graphics tablets, enabling students with

little or no capacity for oral language to communicate.

Increasingly Complex Microworlds

In increasingly complex microworlds a computer

representation of a situation or environment enables the student to learn about the content area by

exploring the representation, and to practice a skill

in progressively more complex computer-generated

simulated environments.

Microworlds are valuable learning tools because

students can learn by doing, by acting on the microworld rather than merely observing phenomena.

They can be very powerful stimuli for understanding how things work. Some microworld systems let

students build or program their own worlds, allowing them to explore the properties of the system and

their relationships by examining the consequences

of changes to these properties.

For example, in the LegoLOGO project, students

write LOGO programs to control Lego machines,

connecting programming and real-world objects

such as gears, levers, and sensors, to introduce key

concepts in physics, engineering, and robotics through

an experimental approach. In microcomputer-based

laboratories students learn science by doing it. Alternatively, imaginary microworlds can also be constructed (e.g., non-Newtonian universes) which offer new opportunities to bring to life things that

students could never see or imagine without the

technologies. The microworld can offer novel opportunities going beyond the limits of the real world,

allowing the learner to delve into created worlds of

fantasy and exploration. Examples of microworld

R&D include systems for early physics learning (Dynaturtle; Thinker Tools); systems for exploring electrical circuit behavior (SOPHIE; QUEST); economic

systems (Smithtown); physical systems (STEAMER);

and ecosystems (The Vivarium Project).

Multimedia Learning Environments

Print remains the medium of instruction in schools

today, just as it was a century ago. Video, audio,

graphics and other representation of information

are used far less, despite the fact that they are highly

motivating and effective for learning, and most often

the sources of the learning that takes place outside

the schoolroom.

Researchers are studying ways learners process information presented in nontext media, and how

various symbols (pictures, diagrams, graphs, flowcharts, etc.) affect understanding. 52 As discussed in

 Mary Alice White, What Curriculum for the Information Age

(Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Associates, 1987).
177

chapter 8, new developments make it possible to

combine video, audio, and graphics to provide information in varying formats that the teacher can

control and access quickly. Object-oriented graphics

editors, digital scanners for photos and video frames,

and animation tools are available for computers at

reasonably low cost, and are being used in learning

technology development work in the research laboratory.

A future scenario illustrates how these multimedia

tools could be used in the classroom. Picture the

elementary school teacher discussing earth science

and plate tectonics with the class. Using the computer as a multimedia control device, the teacher

pulls up for computer projection dramatic online

video clips of volcanoes. Students use an interactive microworld to examine how continental drift

operates, and slides of fossil remains from different

continents show how now-dispersed land masses

were once connected. One student has the idea of

photographing local geological strata, another brings

in a home video of television footage on volcanoes

he thinks might be relevant, another tapes the sound

of storms to produce an audio soundtrack. When

they return the next day these auditory and visual

images are scanned into the classroom archives for

other students to use. Electronic messages flow between students and from teachers to students when

difficulties arise or to share new ways of thinking

about what is being learned. Students work at multimedia composition work stations, revealing what

they have learned by constructing and revising their

own reports about plate tectonics from these and

other materials they have found and pulled together.

New Measures of Assessing Learning

Tests play a role in the learning process by telling students what in the curriculum is important.
178

If, for example, testing is confined to memorizable

end results, teachers will teach facts and students

will memorize them to score well on tests, ignoring

the more sophisticated levels of understanding and

reasoning which education aims to foster. At present, very little school testing is directed toward

measuring students’ conceptual understanding. Researchers suggest the need to devise new assessment

strategies that analyze the attainment of nontrivial

skills, with particular attention to “complex thinking skills” such as the ability to generalize appropriately, to invent analogies and use them critically,

to take problems apart into interacting parts, to effectively manage and deal with complexity, to lay

Photo credit: Kalamazoo Area Mathematics Center

New kinds of problem solving are made possible using

the real-life tools of mathematics, a graphing

calculator and computer.

out a procedure as a sequence of approximations

which converge to a solution, and to analyze a situation from a viewpoint other than one’s own.

Another important feature of testing should be

the ability to diagnose the student’s present level

of conceptual understanding, taking into account

the preconceptions or misconceptions he or she

brings to the learning situation. These prior beliefs

may frustrate traditional instruction and need to be

identified so that the teacher can address them

appropriately. Research is needed to develop instruments for measuring deep conceptual understanding and diagnosing prior understandings.

An additional approach to assessment calls upon

learners to evaluate themselves as they are learning (e.g., testing comprehension in reading) and to

work strategically to overcome difficulties as they

are experienced. Here, too, today’s tests are inadequate for self-assessment of understanding or skills.

Research on How Technology

Affects Teaching and the Social

Structure of Schooling

A last but important area of educational research

focuses on the social context in which learning takes

place. For example, teachers can make a difference

by creating and maintaining an open environment

in which making mistakes is an accepted part of the

learning process, and in which different approaches

to problems are welcomed as opportunities for group

learning. Such an environment appears to influence

whether a student treats work on a problem as an

opportunity for learning or as an occasion for failure and low self-image. And a teacher’s negative expectations for a student’s performance often become

self-fulfilling. The computer, with its immediate and

private response to the student’s input, can be one

antidote.

Social relations with peers in the classroom can

also be harnessed to contribute to cognitive growth.

Numerous studies indicate that group discussions

of strategies for solving a problem can be important

vehicles for learning, by making explicit to each

member the merits of different approaches and viewpoints.

All the ways technology can enhance what students learn, how learning is measured and how the
179

curriculum can be reconfigured will have major implications for the teacher’s role (see chapter 5). Without new training efforts to teach with, not about,

technology, the innovations discussed above will

make little impact on education. As one researcher

said:

The problem with education now is not what students are capable of, but what teachers are capable

of, given their previous education. The main problem of educational research and development is to

educate teachers to teach to students’ conceptual

understanding, and to teach them to diagnose students’ alternative frameworks for thinking about

what is being taught. 53

Few experts see the technolo gy replacing th e

teacher. Some believe that this is what intelligent

tutors are being designed to do, but most think only

a small part of formal education can be mechanized

in that fashion. instead, most experts see ways in

which the computer can be used to revitalize the

teaching profession. For example, the compute r

could provide better ways for teachers to see incremental changes in students’ understanding of concepts to diagnose areas of special difficulty. This will

improve teachers’ abilities to teach based on an un5] Susan Carey, “Cognitive Science and Science Education,” American Psychologist, vol. 41, 1986, pp. 1123-1130.

derstanding of the student’s particular stumbling

blocks.

Computers could also help make the teacher’s role

more one of “coach” than delivery agent of learning. Such tools as microworlds, word processors, and

database programs enable students to work individually or in small groups focusing on problem solving

activities. In this mode, peer learning is facilitated,

while the teacher guides the students in a process

of discovery learning. (See box 7-D. ) Some see this

as an even more intellectually challenging role for

teachers than that required in the lecturer/testdeliverer teaching model common today. Computers

could also promote more effective learning for the

teachers themselves as they use technology in preservice, inservice, and networking activities.

Technologies may have a special role to play in

research on the “Microsystems” of schooling, which

deal with the social organization of instruction and

curriculum content. For example, networking technologies could fundamentally change the communication systems of classrooms, connecting teachers

and students to a nearly limitless number of learning and teaching resources, including information

databases and teachers, specialists, and others students, as close as the next seat and as far as across

the ocean.

BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION

A number of barriers stand in the way of mov- Problems of funding, leadership, and strategic

ing from research to application in the classroom. planning have been highlighted in previous sections

Many educators fear that without major restructur- of this chapter, while others are discussed in detail

ing of schools, such as allowing teachers much more in other sections of this report (see chapter 5 on the

flexibility in controlling the curriculum, opening up teacher’s role and chapter 6 on software). There are

the time-in-grade system to that of student move- additional barriers:

ment based on individual progress in meeting in-

●

structional goals, and other improvements to the

educational system, no significant changes will or

can be made, with or without technology R&D.54

“’Technology can never replace teachers. But the lack of new technologies in our schools—or the use of technology as if it were no more

than a modern blackboard or drill sheet—is certainly squelching real ●

teaching and learning. We’ve always talked about getting out of the

rut of teaching as information dispensing and overcoming a ‘one best

system’ of student learning that denies individual differences and needs,

despite all our rhetoric to the contrary. Well, in technology we have

the opportunity. The question is, will we take it and what will we do

with it?” Al Shanker, president, American Federation of Teachers, per- ●

sonal communication, Mar. 22, 1988.

The lack of consistent stable funding means that

ideas rarely can be sustained through experimental and applied development with appropriate classroom testing and evaluation. Prototype development is not enough to bring the

results of basic research into classrooms.

The hardware necessary to conduct sophisticated artificial intelligence research is extremely

expensive. Small grants or contracts to researchers will not suffice.

The installed base of technologies in the schools

today is not powerful enough to run some of
180

●

the more sophisticated software applications

produced by advanced research. In order to experiment with advanced applications, research

projects need to be allied with schools and make

the necessary advanced hardware systems available to them.55

There is need for long-term comprehensive

evaluations of different approaches, including

those utilizing technology. Schools are justifiably cautious about using real students as “guinea

‘5For example, in order to test the Geometry Tutor in schools, the

researchers at Carnegie-Mellon University had to loan computers to

the test sites in the Pittsburgh schools. The Geometry Tutor’s highlevel software required more powerful machines than the schools had.

Although the final version has been adapted to run on a Macintosh,

even these are rare in high schools at this time.

●

●

pigs” for radical approaches without some track

record of success.

There is a shortage of research scientists to do

this kind of interdisciplinary research. Currently

we have not infused “. . . enough sense of national emergency into the work to attract them

away from other attractive projects. ”56

Differing design features in the technology bedevil the education R&D community and practitioners. Many argue for standards in interface

design so research can translate across machines, to ensure compatibility, to reduce learning time for users, and to make finding and storing data easy for even the youngest students.

‘George Miller, Princeton University, personal communication, December 1987.

POLICY OPTIONS

The Federal Government has a clear responsibility in supporting R&D for educational technology.

Only the Federal Government can marshal the

resources to conduct the R&D necessary for the

development of high quality teaching tools and

materials, for creating and testing technological

systems, and for demonstrating and evaluating the

applications of technology to a wide range of

educational problems. Several options are possible.

Option 1: Take No Action

Under this option, current levels of funding and

organizations for educational technology R&D in

Federal agencies would be maintained. Some suggest that the existing Federal organization for R&D

is appropriate and has served to support important

research that eventually makes an impact on classroom teaching and learning. Under this option,

funding for technology would probably reflect Federal budget restrictions. The private sector could be

encouraged to provide greater support for educational technology R&D.

This approach would be appropriate if we wish

to maintain the status quo. Some educators feel that

technology is overrated and costly. They contend

that educational priorities must first address measures that upgrade the teaching profession and restructure the organization of schooling. However,

these reforms are also very costly and carry no guarantee of improved student learning. The promise

offered by new technologies for improving learning

suggest that, although technology has significant

costs, it could be as promising an investment opportunity as any other major school reform proposals.

Furthermore, maintaining the current level of effort for Federal R&D on technology could result

in missed opportunities for significant educational

change. Existing problems in Federal support for

R&D (gaps in subject areas, poor coordination, inability to support major, long-term research projects,

shortages of research facilities and manpower, and

lack of classroom testing and evaluation of products and procedures) would be perpetuated. Finally,

adopting a policy of no change would send a signal

to the education and research communities that

technology is not a priority area for educational improvement.

Option 2: Increase Resources in

Existing Programs

Congress could direct Federal agencies to provide

a greater focus on educational technology R&D and

increase funds for the R&D budgets of existing technology programs. As shown in tables 7-3 and 7-4

and in appendix C, there are many programs that

could do more if resources were increased and con-
181

gressional intent were made clear. Congress could

direct the Department of Education and NSF to increase funding for R&D in these programs, while

also increasing funding for the 6.1 research components in DoD which contribute to this effort.

Under this approach, agencies could plan to target greater amounts of money over the next 5 to

10 years to R&D in technology. Staged growth

would allow for support to greater numbers of graduate researchers whose growing expertise could seed

further research. Funds could be targeted at several

levels: to individual researchers, to existing centers

such as NSF and the Department of Education’s

Technology Center, as well as other laboratories and

centers. These grants and contracts could require

school system collaboration, and might require contributions from the private sector to leverage Federal dollars.

Larger levels of support could make possible an

integrated approach to curriculum development in

areas of special need which require stable, long-term

support. For example, a recent NSF planning grant

for a pilot demonstration on the use of advanced

technologies concluded that “. . . in the absence of

private sector investment in the computer curriculums necessary . . . the Federal Government should

subsidize their development at an estimated cost of

$20 million for eight secondary-school science and

mathematics courses.”57 This same report suggested

that a front--end investment of between $1 million

and $3 million per course is necessary to begin such

large scale efforts. Similar levels of effort would be

required in other areas of the curriculum.

However, increased funding is not likely to resolve

other problems of research coordination and longterm implementation.

Option 3: Facilitate R&D Transfer

and Applications

Congress could direct the Federal agencies to

adopt policies which would enhance R&D transfer within and across agencies, and from laboratories

into schools. Activities could include:

‘-~rthur S. hfelmcd and Rohcrt A. Burnham, “14ew Inforrnatlon

Tc~hnt>l(Jgy Dlrc~ti(]ni for Amcrlcan Educatl(>n, ” Report for the Na -

t]onal S~ Ienc c F(~undat]c]n, Deccmhcr 1987,

Interagency funding of projects. This is one

mechanism that could increase coordination and

support larger efforts.58 However, past experience

with this approach points to difficulties of securing

interagency agreements on objectives, procedures

for awards, and requirements for reports or contracted products. Congress has sometimes viewed

joint funding as duplicative.

Collaboration among programs. Support from

a variety of discretionary or operating funds within

agencies can bring together Federal program

managers, in-house researchers, and external grant

and contract recipients to present findings on work

in progress. Meetings on topics of mutual interest

could provide cross-fertilization of research ideas.

With better awareness of work in progress, Federal

officials could target discretionary and operating

funds to developments that seem most promising,

as well as to areas where gaps exist.

Coordinating activities and meetings of this scale

requires resources—staff time and funds for travel

and per diem. While these are not large expenditures, many grants today, especially in the Department of Education, do not include travel funds for

researchers, nor have agency staff been encouraged

to travel to professional meetings.

Electronic networks for research and dissemination. The history of ARPANET and the recent

establishment of research networks in NSF demonstrate the important resource these provide for communication and collaboration among funders, researchers, school practitioners, and policy makers.

5~The Departments of Education, Lahor, and Defense have supported an lnnot’atl~e technology, transfer pr(]grarn ln~o-i~lng the mllltary’s Job SkIlls Education Program (J SEP). Rcprmcr~tatl~,m frc>m each

agency met for nearlv 2 years as an Interagency} Vrorklng C~r(>up [~n

Adult Literacv to accomplish this transfer. \X’ith ]olnt funding fr{,m

the Department of Labor ($500,000) and the Department of Edu~atmn ($128,000), the military’s computer-based job sk]lls educational materials are being converted for use in functional llterac~. Pr(>grams In

the civilian sector (students In high school and adults In other pr(}-

grams). Florida State UnlJ’erslt} and Ford Aero<pace Corp. wtl] transfer the JSEP materials for use on IBM compatible hardware and &-

velop manuals for using the s~’stem. Staff fr(>m the Arm\’ Research

Institute who had worked directlv on the JSEP program ~oordlnatcci

the details of making this technology’ transfer feasible. The Department

of Labor is fund~ng three demonstration sites In California, Delaware,

and Indiana, i~here State ~ocatlona] education and Job Training Partnership Act personnel are playlng a kc}’ role, New York State is supp<)rt]n~ two clcmonstratlon >Ites as t~ell. Karl Ha]gler, director, Adult

Llteracv Inltlatlte, L’. S, Department ~}f Education, persc>nal communlcat](>n, June 19S8.

87-002 0 - 88 - 5 : QL 3
182

Nevertheless, various research communities have

limited access to one another, with the education

community the most infrequent user. Congress may

want to study how national networks can better

serve the needs of the education and research community, especially as rising costs discourage network

usage.

Congressional oversight. Congress could request

an annual or biannual report that: a) reviews the

activities of all Federal agencies involved in educational technology, b) identifies opportunities to

transfer technology from one type of activity to

another, and c) recommends steps to be taken for

further research or in transfer activities. Requests

for periodic reports to Congress are not unprecedented, particularly in areas of rapid development

and high national interest. Periodic reports could

motivate agencies to collect and analyze information in a more systematic fashion.

Agencies may consider this an extra reporting burden. Some agencies are organizing information on

technology funding and project scope for their own

purposes (e.g., DoD), but considerable resources are

required to make information databases useful. Assembling an annual report would require expenditures to provide trained personnel to coordinate the

assessment and the computer support for developing and maintaining databases.

Option 4: New Initiatives

The magnitude of the problems facing education,

increasing demands for a better trained populace to

meet international economic competition, and

promising applications of technology for learning

argue for a different approach. More than band-aids

on the existing system may be required; instead,

some suggest consideration of totally new initiatives

that would provide a national focus on technology

and educational improvement. That technology can

improve the productivity of the workplace is no

longer in doubt. Whether it can offer comparable

improvements to education needs to be tested. Major commitments to R&D could explore classroom

applications and changes to make learning more

productive: allowing teachers time to spend with individual students, coaching and tutoring them; and

tailoring instruction to each student’s level of understanding, learning speed, and learning style. To

find out whether these goals could be realized requires a major investment in R&D. Perhaps it is

time for education to invest the same fraction of

gross expenditures on research as does the average

privately owned business in the United States. If

that were the case, about $9 billion a year would

be spent for education research. This is 60 to 90

times more than the present allocation. 59

Options incorporating this level of focus and investment include support for centers for interactive

technology and education, major long-term demonstrations of technology in schools, and funding

a national “education futures” project, or a combination of the above.

Centers for interactive technology and education. These centers would conduct research, development, demonstration, evaluation, and dissemination of educational technology projects. h{’ They

would be tied closely to schools and involve teachers

in research. The work could be modeled on the Department of Education’s Educational Technology

Center; the differences would be the scale of effort

and funding, the interdisciplinary research focus,

and the long-term commitment. Such centers would

have several attractive characteristics. They would

encourage the coordination of technology use in

teaching and learning. They would integrate all

stages of R&D, from science to classroom, in one

setting, providing opportunities for technology

transfer among the center and schools, Federal laboratories, private industry researchers, and university research. They would stabilize the R&D effort,

making it possible to attract and keep the best personnel who could see projects through to final evaluation and dissemination. There would be economies

of scale, making it possible to support costly advanced hardware and bring together a variety of

people from various specialities, enriching the research mix. Finally, centers would provide training

opportunities for teachers and graduate students,

enlarging and enriching the manpower pool for educational technology R&D.

But there are drawbacks. Such centers are expensive. A new major funding commitment (from $5

to $10 million per year) in a time of budget deficits

5uSee Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 49.

““For a fuller discussion and description of centers for interactive

technology and education, see Pea and Soloway, op. cit., footnote 44.
183

may be unrealistic. Centers could duplicate current

efforts. What would be their relationship with existing Federal centers and their research in this area?

Would important work in progress now lose support to continue? Would independent researchers

still be supported for smaller efforts not tied to the

work of the centers? Would new centers strip existing universit y research centers of their best people,

given the shortage of highly skilled personnel? Finally, the long lead time for research applications

to reach fruition could be politically unpopular and

jeopardize future funding. Experts estimate that

many products in the R&D pipeline now could take

a decade or more before they can be expected to

make a significant impact on the classroom.

Long-term demonstrations of technology. The

scale and scope of these demonstration schools

would be much larger than current demonstrations

that typically focus on one technology product or

process with just one class or a small group of

students in a school. Technology demonstration

schools could be representative of the student population nationwide and involve all the school resources (teachers, researchers, equipment, curriculum, parents, community support) for applying

technology in school activities. Demonstration sites

would make it possible to evaluate the educational

effects of a technology-rich school environment.

The costs of setting up and sustaining demonstration schools would be large, requiring the Federal

Government to reimburse States and local districts

for the extra required resources. States and districts

sponsoring demonstration sites would have to agree

to relax standard requirements for curriculum,

teacher staffing and salaries, and organizational and

administrative restraints, in order to provide a site

allowing for experimentation. And not all schools

would benefit equally at first, raising concerns about

equity and the choice of sites.

A “national education futures initiative” for research, development, and demonstration in educational technology.6l This option, on the order of

$1 billion per year for 10 years, could include the

initiatives suggested above, as well as support all

levels of research, development, and demonstration;

teacher training; software development; longitudinal and comparative evaluations; and dissemination.

Congress could include a sunset provision, using the

year 2000 as an endpoint, a period in which the Federal effort would make enough of an impact on education to create significant change. In addition to

focusing the Nation’s attention on technological

solutions, an initiative of this order could also

strengthen the hardware, software, and telecommunications industries, which have become important

industries for U.S. economic competitiveness. Many

educators have suggested that the magnitude of U.S.

educational problems, and the Nation’s decreased

economic competitiveness, require an initiative on

this order.

This effort would require the establishment of a

coordinating body—possibly a new institution made

up of staff from existing Federal agencies, university laboratories, school personnel, and members of

the private sector.62 It would draw resources, both

personnel and financial, from other sectors as well

as from other approaches to educational improvement. Other social programs might suffer funding

cuts to support an educational buildup of this order. Finally, this level of Federal activity 

in education could prove politically difficult if it led to the

development of national curricula or national educational standards, or if the public became impatient

and did not detect significant educational improvements after the first few years of funding.

Option 5: Support International

Cooperation

The European community, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, the Soviet Union, and other nations are

embarking on major efforts to use interactive technologies to improve instruction. These efforts share

common concerns, experiences, and outcomes with

U.S. educational technology activities, despite vary-
184

ing educational goals and cultural differences. There

is much we can learn from one another.

As information technologies are used to link students and classrooms all over the world, it may be

appropriate to support larger efforts for international

cooperation. Congress may wish to consider international cooperative efforts such as sponsorship of

conferences, 63 exchange of researchers, and joint

funding of projects. Models for this occur in other

areas of science, but little has been done to date for

cooperative educational technology projects. As the

Chairman of the 1987 Organisation for Economic

Development and Cooperation conference stated:

Some educators would advise caution and warn

against the possibility of creating too great expectations. . . . Such views are praiseworthy but we

should not be daunted by the magnitude of the task.

The application of information technology to education requires new and imaginative approaches.

The potential return is very high indeed.64

“’The Center for Educational Research and Innovation of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has sponsored

international conferences on education and information technology.

See Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, New’

Information Technologies: A Challenge for Education (Paris, France:

1986); and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,

Information Technologies and Basic Learning (Paris, France: 1987).

‘Quote from Denis Healy of Ireland, Information Technologies and

Basic Learning, sponsored by the Center for Educational Research and

Innovation (Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and

Development, 1987), p. 13.

On the other hand, some would argue that the

resources available for enhancing educational technology in this country are already scarce. To attempt

to support international efforts might put too great

a strain on our system. Others suggest that the centralized educational systems of other industrial nations, or the special problems of developing nations,

would make it hard to generalize research results

into useful programs for this country. More study

is needed to identify the U.S. position with regard

to other countries and to consider ways in which

international efforts could proceed.

Conclusions

OTA concludes that increased coordinated support for R&D in educational technology is necessary. Significant improvements in education can be

made if sustained support is made available for development of new tools for teaching and learning.

The private sector, while a contributor to this effort, does not have the primary responsibility or

appropriate vision for making this a priority. States

and localities do not have the capacity. The magnitude of the challenge facing education, allied with

the potential offered by new interactive learning technologies, requires that the Federal Government accept this responsibility and opportunity for leadership.
Chapter 8

Technology and the Future of

Classroom Instruction
CONTENTS

Page

Figures

Tables
Chapter 8

Technology and the Future of

Classroom Instruction

. . . the computer is an innovation of more than ordinary magnitude, a one-in-several-centuries

innovation and not a one-in-a-century innovation or a one-in-ten years innovation or one of

those instant revolutions that are announced every day in the papers or on television. . . .

Herbert A. Simonl

What we need to do, then, is to educate as though this technological revolution is what it really

is—the third learning revolution—the most important change in learning since the 16th century.

Mary Alice White2

INTRODUCTION

The current wave of educational technology,

which began roughly in 1981, when schools first began acquiring computers in large numbers, is a good

news, bad news, good news story. The good news

is that schools showed a remarkable willingness

to invite computer technologies into the classroom, and to see how these interactive cognitive

tools could be applied in a setting devoted in large

part to training young minds to think. American

schools are often criticized for their slowness to

change,; for their lag in adapting to modern times.

Yet their eager embrace of computer technology may

signify a break with the past: despite the constraints

of local budgets and the exigencies of distributional

equity,4 the United States has been among the

world’s leaders in providing public school children

access to new technologies. The fact that U.S.

schools were willing to meet the challenge of the

‘Hcrhcrt A. Simon, “The Computer Age, ” Compurcrs In Educar)c)n: Rc>s)]:]ng rhc P<)renria), Report of a Research Conference (Washington, DC: ( ‘.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Rewarch and Impro~ement, August 1983), p. 37.

-Nfarv Alice N’hltc (cd.), “Information and Imagery Education,”

W’h,7t L’urricu/um fi~r rhe Information Age? (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, 1987), p. 63.

‘See, for example, David K. Cohen, “Educational Technology and

.’ihool Organization, ” paper prepared for the Confercncc on Technol(>gv In Education In 2020: Thinking About the NTot-Distant Future,

Har~’ard Unlvcrsity Educational Technology Center, Oct. 15-17, 1986.

Thl~ c~>nfcrencc was supported in part by OTA. This paper and others

presented at rhe conference will be publlshed in Ravmond S. Nickerson and Phlllp P. Zodhiates (eds. ), Technology’ in Edu~arion in 201U

(Hlllda]e, NJ: Lattrence Erlbaum Assoclares, in press).

‘See ]amc< Guthr]c, “(uampalgn ’88 and Education: A Ptvmer for

Prcsldcntlal Candidates,” f’hl Delra Kappan, \rol. 69, No. 7, March

1988, pp. 514-519.

new information world and to attempt to integrate

a nascent tool into their already dense curricula is

perhaps more important than the limited “proof’

of educational improvements.

The bad news, however, must be reported too:

even this remarkable achievement in the schools

pales in comparison with the rate and magnitude

of entry into the age of information experienced

by business, the military, higher education, and

medicine. A handful of classrooms have one computer for each child and another one for the child

to use at home (see box 8-A). But in general, classrooms today resemble their ancestors of 50 and 100

years ago much more closely than do today’s assembly plants, scientific laboratories, and operating

rooms. A number of information technologists point

out that if business organizations today evolved at

the same rate as the schools, they would still be using

quill pens instead of electronic word processors. It

might be argued that the complex goals of education are not necessarily advanced by application of

new electronic gadgets, and certainly not in the same

obvious way that accounting tasks have been simplified with the electronic spreadsheet or file management has been streamlined with database systems.

Nevertheless, the chasm in technological sophistication between our schools and the environment

in which students will work gives pause.

But there is more good news: under the right

conditions there is reason to hope that the new

technologies will continue to spur major school

187
188
189

improvements. Polled for their interest in emerging technologies, over 20 percent of public school

teachers were found to be “very interested” in networks, integrated learning systems, on-line database

access, and distance learning. Perhaps even more

impressive, 31 percent of surveyed teachers indicated

that they “. . . would like to see publishers concentrate on developing innovative programs that teach

problem solving and higher order thinking skills,”

while 17 percent desire software that”. . . reinforces

and closely matches the skills taught in the basal

textbook series.”5

If this level of enthusiasm can be sustained, new

information technology may prove to be a principal catalyst of educational improvement. Some

of the economic and institutional prerequisites have

been the subject of preceding chapters. This chapter takes a close look at the technology 

itself, and

asks: What can state-of-the-art information tools do

for classroom learning?

‘TALk!IS, “The K-12 Nfarkct for Technology and Electronic Media: A Rcwarc h Report Prepared for TALhlIS Continuous Information Serklcc Clients, ” unpuhllshed manuscript, March 1988 (itallcs

added).

CONVERGENCE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES

As indicated earlier (see chapter 2) the desktop

computer is currently the prevalent electronic tool

used for instruction in U.S. elementary and secondary schools. However, along with acquisition of computers, schools are gradually becoming consumers

of communications and mass storage (memory) technologies. The former refer to technologies that connect students or teachers working in different places

via phone lines or other electronic link; the latter

are devices that store large quantities of data, such

as magnetic disc or optical media. Many of the new

learning tools are computer related: they must be

connected to a computer to be functional. Others

can be used independently, but their appeal stems

largel y from a principle of “interactivity” made familiar by computers. In video, for example, which

is already found in over 90 percent of schools, the

advantage of the videocassette recorder (VCR) over

ordinary television is “time shifting. ” Few teachers

today would settle for less than the ability to control the timing, if not the selection of televised

programs.

It is the convergence of information technologies

that holds the greatest potential for the development

of new learning and teaching tools. In some instances,

the three principal information technologies—computer processing, telecommunications, and television

(video)–have already converged into state-of-theart instructional applications. A good example is the

marriage of video and computer technologies through

digital video interactive (DVI), developed by researchers at the David Sarnoff Laboratory. The

Center for Children and Technology at the Bank

Street College of Education has applied DVI to a

project called PALENQUE, which affords users a

television “walking tour” of that ancient Mayan village, as well as the occasion to control the direction and order of their tour (see photo). Perhaps

most exciting about PALENQUE is that users can

collect images in a “scrapbook” for future viewing

and studying.

There are other examples of convergence. The

Kids Network Project uses computing and communications to allow children to collect and process

scientific data and transmit their findings to peers

across the country. b

Electronic teleconferencing,

made possible by the convergence of television and

switched (telephone) communications technologies,

is commonplace in large corporations and is gradually finding applications in schools.

Distance Learning

Although instructional television has been widely

used for several decades, more recent advances that

‘ For details, sw Technical Education Research Centers, “National

Geographic Soclct~ Kids Nctuork Project, Annual Report, October

1986 -September 1%7,” n.d.
190

enable teachers and students to communicate interactively over thousands of miles have special appeal. There are many rural and isolated communities with teacher shortages where “distance learning”

has overcome potentially significant instructional

barriers. Distance learning allows students to hear

and sometimes see teachers, and, perhaps more important, allows those teachers to react to students’

questions and comments. The declining costs and

increased accessibility of satellite technologies have

enabled 35 States to support some type of distance

learning program7 (see figure 8-l). Transmission

methods vary. Some involve two-way video and audio

“Educational A on

 Annual of States,” 2, 

 p. 41.

while others make use of electronic mail services for

communication and evaluation of homework.

Some State distance learning programs offer

courses developed and taught by local educators,

while others offer courses provided by universities,

private organizations, or other States. In most cases,

distance learning courses are similar to regular

courses, with teacher lessons, print--based materials,

and tests. For example, TI-IN Network, Inc., a

Texas-based private company, provides courses and

staff development opportunities via satellite to more

than 250 subscribing school districts and other

educational agencies in Texas and in over 20 other

States. During the 1986-87 school year, TI-IN offered

23 high school courses, including calculus, honors

English, Latin, and computer science and over 400

Figure 8-1 .—States With Distance Learning Projects

HI

SOURCE: Electronic Learning, “Educational Technology 1987, A Report on EL’s Seventh Annual Survey of the States,” No. 2, October 1987
191

hours of inservice training. Master teachers in each

subject broadcast their courses from studios located

in San Antonio and at California State University

in Chico. Each subscribing school receives the signal via satellite. Students view the lesson and communicate with the teacher via a telephone call-back

system. Students who miss a class need not miss a

lesson but can watch it later on videotapes

New transmission technologies, such as fiber optic cables, will help facilitate the delivery of video,

audio, and computer communications allowing

many more signals to travel over one fiber than can

travel over many conventional copper cables. As

one example, seven rural school districts in Minnesota use a system of fiber optics, multiple video

monitors, and cameras to link together classrooms

up to 78 miles apart so that the teacher can see students in up to three other locations simultaneously.

The originating classroom has eight video monitors

and three cameras: one on the teacher, one on the

students, and one above the teacher’s desk for demonstration materials. Three monitors, a camera,

microphone, and telephone are installed in each remote classroom. Y

Facsimile transmission (fax) is another technology that has recently become inexpensive enough

to be used in distance learning projects. Fax units

now cost about $1,000. Students and teachers with

access to such machines can send documents over

telephone lines: each telephone in a fax link is connected to a device about the size of a VCR, which

produces a printed copy of transmitted material.

What normally would require photocopying and

mailing of a document can be accomplished in

minutes.

Networking

Networking is a generic concept that includes

different types of communications links, usuall

y

computer-related. Local area networks (LANs)

connect the computers in a laboratory or school to

‘Gregory M. Benson, Jr. and William Hirschen, “Distance 

 Windows for Education, ” T. Journal, vol. 15, No. 1, August p. 

“Robin “Interactive Breaks New Ground,” 

 p. For other examples of distance learning 

 Karen Kitchen and Will Kitchen, 

 Learning: A Primer (Alexandria, 

School Association, 
192

already found in the school, and do not include special software for electronic mail or monitoring of

student progress through computerized lessons.

However, some experimental projects and recently

introduced products incorporate such educational

networking software.

Modems are devices that permit the transmission

of data over regular telephone lines. They have led

to the creation of thousands of informal networks:

users sharing ideas, programs, data, and messages.

There are currently over 6,000 schools (about 7

percent) with computers connected to modems.ll

Schools, therefore, are slowly beginning to take

advantage of the many available on-line financial

services, news, database services, and public information networks that businesses and homes have

enjoyed for years. Experimental projects have also

been designed and implemented that exploit modem

communications for nationwide sharing of student

research data (see box 8-B).

Some teachers reach their colleagues on-line from

home via commercial networks like CompuServ or

the Source, or via networks set up by their districts,

regional education service centers, or State education agencies. Judging from lists published in the

bulletin boards themselves, public access educational

boards number at least in the hundreds, perhaps

thousands.

In addition, there are a growing number of online services designed expressly for teachers and students working in classrooms or school computer laboratories. 12 One example is MIX, a commercial

network for education operated by McGraw-Hill.

In December 1987, high school students in different classrooms began participating in an international negotiations game, with each classroom representing an opposing power. Other conferences had

students communicating with electronic pen pals

across the Nation and in foreign countries; one allowed teachers and their students in agriculture

classes to hold a corn growing contest (see table 8-1).

There are few teachers with telephone lines in

their classrooms, but many of them are creatively

“Quality Education Data, Inc., Microcomputer Usage in Schools:

A QED Updare (Denver, CO: spring 1988).

!:Earl Dowdy, “Computer Networks in Elementary and Secondary

Education,” OTA contractor report, October 1987, p. +.
Table 8-1 .—On-Line Conferences for Teachers and

Students Available to Subscribers to MIX (McGraw-Hill

Information Exchange), December 1987

Conference name Description

stix. talk

pen pals

debate

student, books

round robin

time. capsule

writers assist

video

Iogo. pen pals

us. ussr

Australian .reg

living, history

other, side

politics

orillas

coordinacion

astronomy

water

flat earth

twistedscience

science

zoo

weather

plant

weather, data

Discussion and information about STIX projects

Student pen pal conference

On-line debates for high school students

Student compiled books dbase; discussion

Shared student story writing

Student collection of writing on one day

Student writers’ assistance by students

Student video exchanges

Student pen pals via LOGO projects

Communications between Minnesotan and Hawaiian students about USSR

Registration/information on the Australian Bicentennial

Project

Interact with living figures from history

Global conflict simulation for students

Student interaction with politicians

Bilingual and foreign language sister classes

For Project Orillas Coordinators

Minneapolis Planetarium staff on-line

Student water data collection/discussion

Students v, Flat Earth Society

Students argue/explain science to Dr. Misconception

Science discussion, experts, data from 86-87

Minnesota Zoo Online

Weather data and experts on-line

Online plant growth data project

Weather maps, tables, etc. from the U.S. Weather

Service

SOURCE: MIX, McGraw-tilll Information Exchange, December 1987

experimenting with networks. As shown in table

8-2, there are already several exemplary efforts

underway in various subject areas that exploit the

convergence of processing and communications

technologies. Cooperative science and writing

projects for students are being developed by some

groups; teachers and administrators are collaborating on curriculum research and development and

writing with this technology.

The number of commercial and informal networks

is expanding as the cost of operating local bulletin

boards is dropping. However, important policy questions related to pricing and regulation of telephone

communications must be addressed before networking becomes a regular feature of classrooms. In particular, there is the question of whether information transfer companies (such as CompuServ or the

Source) should pay access charges to local telephone

companies (as do long-distance telephone companics).13

] ‘The Federal Communications Comrnlsslon rcccntl~ postponed Indeflnltely its rullng t~> charge access fees to information networking

193

Audiographic Communications

A different kind of communications system, called

audiographic, allows teachers or students in one

location to communicate with others in distant locations via a common electronic graphics system and

telephone conference call. In Norwich, New York,

18 rural schools are connected by telephone lines

to a central location where a teacher with a regular

class has an AT&T Alliance teleconferencing bridge.

Each location also has an electronic graphics system, called the Optel Telewriter 1 l-PC, a desktop

device that is easily moved from student to student,

The students gather around the computer, tablet,

and speaker phone. The teacher or any participant

can then write on the tablet or type on the keyboard

and their input shows up on all of the remote graphics

system screens in the network simultaneously. 14

Broadcast

Broadcast television also has the potential to disseminate computerized information. Experiments to

broadcast software to schools have been conducted

by the Software Communications Service, an organization of 17 State-licensed public broadcasting systems and 5 Canadian provinces. A demonstration

program in Maryland showed broadcast television’s

capacit y to carry computer information, along with

pictures and sound. It will eventually be possible to

distribute instructional software to thousands of

schools at a fraction of the cost of conventional distribution. 15

An experimental project in Kentucky takes advantage of slack in the State’s enormously powerful

Early Warning System network, a Department of

Defense facility that provides advance notice of incoming missiles. A mainframe computer at Western Kentucky University uses telephone lines and

the emergency broadcast system to communicate

with terminals at the 21 participating schools. One

advantage of this communication link is its costeffectiveness: using long-distance calls to connect to

companies following a massive “electronic” Ictter wrlt]ng campa]~n

mounted by subscribers to popular information netuwrk wrxlccs. Su~ h

fees uould significantly raise the costs of telephone data communications and could se~’ercl, hinder schools’ abilities to use bullerin boards

and other networks.

‘+13cnson and Hlrschen, (>p. cit., fo~wnotc 8, p. 65.

“Fhan K. Callahan, dlrcctor, Learning Technology\, Central Educatlortal Network, personal communlcatlon, January 1988.
194

Table 8-2.-Examples of Electronic Networking Projects in Education

Project Subject/activities Participants Sponsors

Big Sky Teacher training and support 114 one-room rural schools in Western Montana College;

Telegraph Montana

Bread Net Writing project for English

teachers and their students.

(Teachers plan lessons via

computer conference or electronic mail; students exchange

compositions and information

electronically y.)

De Orilla a Bilingual education: communicaOrilla (from tion through writing to proShore to Shore) mote bilingual Iiteracy

Kids Network Science activities on weather

forecasting, acid rain, water

pollution, etc. Students/classrooms collect data, make

measurements, analyze

results, and share them via

the network

PSI Network Technical assistance and information exchange in science

education (People Sharing Information Network)

SOURCE. Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.

1,023 students, 60 teachers in 45

classrooms in rural schools

across the U.S. (2 sites in London and Lima)

20 classrooms in San Diego,

New England, Puerto Rico,

and Buenas Aires. 5 classrooms from Quebec Province

to be added

Students in grades 4-6 in 200

classrooms, participating in a

national field test and

evaluation

Murdock Charitable Trust;

Mountain Bell Foundation;

Fund for the improvement of

Post Secondary Education

Bread Loaf School School of

English; Middlebury College;

Apple Education Foundation;

private foundations

New England Multi-Functional

Resource Center, University of

Hartford, and Quebec Ministry

of Education

Technical Education Research

Centers/National Geographic

Society; National Science

Foundation

the schools in remote areas would be prohibitively

expensive. 16

Integration of Technology

In the future, many benefits will flow from the

implementation of digital integrated networks. These

systems, such as the Integrated Systems Digital Network (ISDN), provide digital communications for

voice, data, and video signals, and will make computer networks and related services much cheaper.

National Science Foundation;

IBM

Inter- and intra-state computer

conferencing system links

State science supervisors and

other science education

policymakers

1

’Electronic Learning, “Kentucky’s CAI Capabilltv,” vol. 5, No. 5,

February 1%6, p. [0.

It may become possible for any home, office, or

school to access any combination of computer programs and video, data, or audio information sources

from anywhere in the world. Due to enormous capital costs and long-range planning necessary to install this kind of “information infrastructure, ” most

telephone companies target full implementation of

ISDN for the beginning of the 21st century, at the

earliest. 17

‘TFor a discussion of Integrated Systems Digital Network see U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, lnrcrnational Comperitlon in Scm’ices (Washington, DC: U.S. Go~’ernment Printing OffIce,

July 198’7).

ADVANCES IN MEMORY AND DATA STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES

The advent of cheap and efficient microminiaturi- advanced technologies. Although today’s typical

zation in electronics has spawned new digital stor- classroom computer (such as the Apple 11-e) has

age media that dwarf their low-density floppy-disc much greater capacity than its forebears of 11 years

predecessors (see figure 8-2). Schools lag behind ago (e.g., the Commodore PET), it is still extremely

other sectors, including industrial and military train- limited in the size of programs it can run (see table

ing, in the acquisition and implementation of these 8-3). And although it is possible to link desktop com-
—

8 inch Floppy Disc

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment

puters to high capacity storage devices, the latter

are still not found in most schools. Nevertheless,

the capacity of interactive media to store entire

libraries of information and to provide high resolution graphics, full-motion video, sound, and text

has attracted a growing communit y of scholars and

educators.

CD-ROM

and programs. There are already some integrated

instructional systems that use CD-ROM to house

software. 18 Other examples include the General

Post Office in Great Britain, which has placed 23.5

million addresses on one CD-ROM; the 31 volume

Grolier Encyclopedia; and Standard and Poor’s

Compustat PC Plus, a compilation of traded companies and annual report data. Only a handful of

Compact disc-read only memory (CD-ROM)

units can store over 500 megabytes of digitized data

‘ ‘For onu cx~mp]c SCT c h. -1,
196

Table 8-3.—Advances in Technical Capabilities of Computers Used in Schools, 1977-87°

Computer Processor Memory Displayb

Commodore Pet

Models 2001,

4016, 4032 (1977)

discontinued

Radio Shack

TRS-80 (1977)

discontinued

Apple II+ (1977)

discontinued

Texas Instruments

TI 99/4A (1979)

discontinued

Atari 400/800 (1979)

discontinued

Commodore Pet

Models 8032,

8096, 9000 (1981)

discontinued

Radio Shack

Color Computer

(1981)

IBM PC (1981)

Commodore 64

(1982)

IBM PC Jr. (1983)

discontinued

Apple Ile (1983)

Macintosh (1984)

Apple IIGS (1986)

IBM PS2 - Model 25

(1987)

6502

8 bit

Z-80

8 bit

6502

8 bit

9900

16 bit

6502

8 bit

6502

8 bit

6809

8 bit

8088

16:8 bit

6510

8 bit

8088

16:8 bit

6502

8 bit

68000

32:16 bit

65816

16 bit

8086

16:8 bit

8K

16K

48K -

64K

16K -

64K

16K -

64K

8K

4K -

32K

64K -

128K

64K

64K -

128K

64K -

128K

128K -

512K

256K -

1 Mb

640K +

Black and white; 40 characters by 25 lines

Black and white; 40 characters by 23 lines

Color; 40 characters by 24 lines; 15 color low resolution at 40 by 48; 8 color

high resolution at 280 by 192

Color; 32 characters by 24 lines; 16 colors at 256 by 192

Color; 40 characters by 24 lines; low resolution, 40 by 24, 16 colors; medium

resolution, 160 by 96, 8 colors; high resolution, 320 by 192, 2 colors; (total

available palate has 128 colors)

Black and white; 80 characters by 25 lines

32 characters by 16 lines; 8 color low resolution at 32 by 16; black and white

high resolution at 256 by 192

Black and white; 80 characters by 25 lines; color (optional) 16 foreground and

8 background colors; high resolution, 320 by 192, 4 colors

40 characters by 25 lines; 16 colors at 320 by 200

80 characters by 24 lines; 4 color high resolution at 640 by 200; 16 color,

medium resolution at 320 by 200

40 to 80 characters by 24 lines; 7 color high resolution at 280 by 192; 16

color low resolution at 40 by 48

80 characters by 24 lines; black and white screen resolution at 512 by 342

40 to 80 characters by 24 lines; 4 color high resolution at 640 by 200; 16

color medium resolution at 320 by 200

80 characters by 24 lines; 256 color high resolution at 720 by 400

aThe~e ~pecification~ represent the most typical configurations found in the classroom and do not reflect the many variations that are possible with peripheral add-on

memory and color cards, for example.

bManufacturer,s specifications are not always consistent in the description of graphics resolution modes and display capabilities

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988

U.S. public schools, however, currently own CDROM units. [

”

Analog, Digital, and Optical

Storage Media

Phonograph records, audiotapes, and videotapes

have long been used to store pictures and sound,

and have become abundant in schools as the costs

of consumer electronics have dropped. The videocassette recorder for example, is now found in most

schools, and offers several important features: teachers

can record and play back selected broadcasts, they

can rent or purchase selected tapes, and they can

ITAL,MIs, op. ~lt., footnote 5, reports between 2 and 5 percent of

schools with CD-ROM, depending on grade Iet”el.

preview programs on their home VCRs. In addition, the VCR is a simple technology to install and

use.

Laser optical storage technologies such as the

videodisc can be used to store both analog and digital information. (For an explanation of the differences between analog and digital, see box 8-C.) The

storage density of the laser videodisc is astonishing:

on one side of a 12-inch disc, 54,000 individual

pictures can be stored along with stereo audio and

digital data.20 In the last 5 years, laser videodisc

programs have been developed for military and industrial training, and for advertising and education.

~JBen Davis, “Image Learning: Higher Education and Interacti~c

Video Disc,” Teachers College Record, vol. 89, No, 3, spring 1988.
197

Box 8-C.--Analog v. Digital

The difference between analog and digital technology is perhaps easiest to understand through a simplified

description of phonograph records and compact discs (CDs). With phonograph records, sound is picked up

by a microphone that transforms sound waves into electronic waves. The electronic waves are impressed on

the record in the form of fluctuations in the amplitude of the groove. When the record is played, these vibrations are sensed by a stylus (or needle) that sets up similar vibrations in the amplifier and then in the cone

of a loudspeaker. The loudspeaker pushes the air and transfers the same vibrations to the ear.

With digital CD technology, the sound is taken from the microphone into a processor, broken up into

miniscule entities of time, and analyzed and converted into on/off pulses. In computer terms, these on/off pulses

are ones and zeros that are encoded onto the CD. This is called analog-to-digital conversion. When a laser

beam scans the tracks of the CD it sends these ones and zeros to another processor which interprets them as

discrete increments of sound and creates a new wave form out of them. This is called digital to analog conversion, and the resulting signal drives the speaker to reproduce the sound.

The trouble with analog signals is that they lose their strength and acquire noise as they pass through a

medium (such as wire), just as sound does as it travels through the air. Moreover, each time a signal is copied

it also loses fidelity. The advantage of digital technology is that after signals have been converted to on/off

pulses, even though the strength of the signal may deteriorate, as long as the receiver of the information can

distinguish on from off, it can reproduce the original information exactly. Therefore, no loss of fidelity will

occur when digital messages are transmitted or copied. This means that each copy will be equal to the original

and transmissions of information can be made with little or no degradation,

Photo credit: Optical Data Corp.

Computer-generated interactive videodiscs offer new ways to present information combining video, audio, text, and graphics,

87-002 0 - 88 - 6 : QL 3
198

They use a computer to control the playback of audio and video from the videodisc player, sometimes

adding computer-generated text and graphic materials, so that sequences can be arranged to suit the

input of the viewer/participant. Schools seem to be

increasingly aware of videodisc technology, but it

is unclear how many own and/or use videodisc

players.21

There are increasing numbers of videodiscs available for educational use. The Minnesota Educational

Computing Corp. 1987 directory of educational

videodiscs lists 360 discs, double the number entered

in the 1986 edition.22 Not all of these products

were originally created for classroom use. Programs

range from studies of outer space to visits to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. One product called THE

BIO SCI VIDEODISC contains more than 6,000

still images, 2 motion sequences, maps, charts, and

diagrams that can expand the typical information

presented in biology textbooks. With documentation on biochemistry, cell biology, plant taxonomy,

and zoology, the disc comes indexed by subject in

hierarchical order and by numeric frame reference.23

More comprehensive efforts to develop courses on

videodisc are underway. For example, the Texas

Learning Technology Group24 is developing a 160-

hour, two semester, complete physical science curriculum that can be taught in grades 8, 9, or 10.

The curriculum, using interactive videodisc technology, is in field test at participating district sites.25

Computer/Video Convergence

Compact disc video (CD-V), digital video interactive (DVI), and compact disc interactive (CD-I)

are prototypes that combine computer technology

and laser optical storage technology. The difference

between them is the way data are encoded, accessed,

~lTALMIS reports approximately 6 percent of schools with videodisc; Quality Education Data, Inc., estimates 28 percent of the largest

school districts with videodisc.

~zMinnesota Educational Computing Corp., Videodiscs for Educarion: A Directory (St. Paul, MN: 1988).

~]Ekctronic Learning, “Videodisc Includes Visual Biology Library,”

vol. 7, No. 2, October 1987, p. 81.

‘Whe Texas Learning Technology Group is a consortium of 12

Texas school districts, the National Science Center Foundation, Inc.,

and the Texas Association of School Boards.

~5Paula Hardy, director, Texas Learning Technology Group, personal communication, January 1988.

and displayed. CD-V uses discs with 5 minutes of

video and 20 minutes of music for viewing and listening on a home television set. (There are as yet no

instructional applications of CD-V.) CD-I has no

full motion video, but contains thousands of still

pictures, plus graphics, sound, and data. It is also

intended for the home market. Both CD-V and CD1 will eventually come in stand-alone units, much

like VCRs, which can be connected and played on

standard television sets.

DVI, on the other hand, is used with an IBMAT personal computer or equivalent. It is a fully

digital compact disc, but with capabilities similar to

the analog laser videodisc described above. Most important, DVI ". . . fully realizes the notion of video

becoming computer-compatible. ”26 It can play up

to 70 minutes of limited-resolution full motion color

video on a computer screen, or it can play back picture, sound, and data (but with less video). With

this new technology, video can be digitally stored

and played back in real time. The fact that DVI

stores images in digital form means that they can

also be combined or edited.
199

ADVANCES IN SOFTWARE27

The computers found in most schools have small

memory capacity and slow processing times. At least

75 percent of the software titles listed in the Educational Productions Information Exchange were designed for the Apple-II line of computers, which still

account for about 60 percent of the installed base

in schools. The fact that these machines are sturdy,

coupled with the constraints schools face in trading in and upgrading their inventories, means that

software developers have been reticent to invest in

sophisticated learning tools that require greater

hardware capacities.

Hypermedia

Good examples of the kind of advanced software

that could eventually make a difference in classroom

teaching are hypertext and hypermedia. These systems represent an important breakthrough in making computers more compatible with human cognitive processes, because their storage of information

is nonlinear, Just as human long-term memory consists of a complex web of associational links,

hypermedia provides access to text, graphics, images, and in some cases, sound, without requiring

users to specify in advance the order of access. 28

The INTERMEDIA project at Brown University is

an illustration of hypermedia applied to education. 29

Users access an integrated set of text, graphics, editing, and scanning tools. Several different courses

at Brown use these materials, which are linked via

local area network. Hypermedia systems are substantially more complex than typical software programs,

and require significantly greater computer memory

capacity. Thus, while they represent a potential milestone in both the preparation of instructional materials and their application in classrooms, hardware

requirements exceed the current capacity of most

computers found in public schools. HyperCard, for

example, Apple’s recent entry into hypermedia soft-

‘;See also ch. 6.

‘~Christopher Dede, “Empowering Environments, Hypermedia, and

Microworlds,” The Computing Teacher, vol. 15, No. 3, November 1987.

‘~icole Yankelovich et al., “Issues in Designing a Hypermedia Document System: The INTERMEDIA Case Study, ” Multimedia in Educarion: Learning Tomorrow’ (Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc.,

spring 1987); and NTicole Yankelcn’ich et al., “Intermedia: The Concept and the Construction of a Seamless Information Environment, ”

Computer, \ol. 21, No. 1, January 1988, pp. 81-96.

ware, was originally designed for business and only

runs on Macintosh computers with at least one

megabyte of random access memory (RAM).

Integrated Learning Systems

Another trend is toward greater machine control

of lesson sequencing and monitoring of individual

student progress. Some integrated learning systems

(ILSs) include simulations and tutorials that go considerably further than electronic equivalents of drill

and practice, and many cover complete curricula.

At Juan Linn School in Victoria, Texas, an ILS developed by Education Systems Corp., serves 500 students a week. The software contains about 1,500

lessons in language, mathematics, and problem solving. The system manages instruction to each individual student in the school and records the progress

of each student from day to day. Every child finds

his or her name on the screen of a computer when

entering the classroom. Although the individual

computers are capable of working independently,

they are usually linked in a local area network.

Videodisc Software, Compatibility,

and Video Programming

Some examples of videodisc software suggest the

potential for applications in education. For instance,

the National Air and Space Museum Archival

Videodisc 2 contains 100,000 photographs of major air and space personalities, aircraft, balloons, airships, commercial airlines, air meets, trophies, military aviation aeronautical communications and

equipment, museums, philatelic covers, and models.

College USA shows more than 80 colleges and

universities and describes their programs and facilities. The Image Disc archives 54,000 slides from a

variety of sources, including 200 slides from the

American Association of Physics Teachers repository. Not only are these databanks of images valuable for use in education and learning, they can also

serve as raw materials for interactive programming.

For many reasons, especially the complexities of

instructional design, creating an effective computer

software package can be very expensive, costing from

tens of thousands of dollars for individual programs
200

to more than a million dollars for full courses of computerized instruction. Another factor contributing

to high development costs of educational software

is the incompatibility of computers found in schools.

Software developed for the Apple 11 family will not

run on Commodore, Tandy, or IBM computers. But

in this regard too, there is a tendency toward convergence: some higher level operating systems allow

programming in a “machine-independent” environment, so that programs can be sent from one hardware type to another with little or no change. These

systems are generally too large to run on the computers commonly found in schools today; but there

is reason to believe that continued research will yield

an affordable solution to this problem of system integration. 30

Creating effective video programming, especially

interactive video production, is very expensive. It

requires complex instructional design and software

programming, and multiple forms of video production.31 For this reason, the major markets for interactive videodisc are in industrial and military training and medical simulations.

‘]It has been estimated that the average cost of producing a single

interactive video program for industrial or business applications is

$150,000. James A. Lippke, “Interactive Video Discs: Entering the Mainstream of Business,” Educational and industrial Television, vol. 19, No.

8, 1987, p. 12. The Texas Learning Technology Group estimates that

their physical science curriculum on interactive videodiscs will cost about

$4 million to develop. Hardy, op. cit., footnote 25.

‘%ee also ch. 6 for a brief description of the research program on

system compatibility underway at the Institute for Defense Analyses.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Interactive technologies for processing, storing,

and communicating information have made their

place in American business, science, and the military, and stand now at the doorway of the American public school.

More advanced computer logic and memory systems could allow students’ computers to run several programs at once, to move information from

one application to another, to communicate ideas

to classmates and pen pals around the world, and

to integrate the content of one lesson into another.

Improved graphics, animation, and sound, as well

as real-time video, could make subjects of study come

alive. On-line multimedia libraries could provide information for class research projects. Increased access to other children, not only within the United

States but all over the world, could broaden students’ appreciation of different cultures. Experts

from many disciplines, master teachers, and even

community leaders and politicians could become

available to inquiring classrooms. Telecommunications could allow students forced to remain home

due to illness or weather conditions to connect with

the teacher or with school programs to make up for

lost time. Distance learning programs could support

isolated populations of students who are underserved in certain subjects.

These technologies could also serve many other

purposes and could become the center of new services to schools, teachers, and adults across the Nation. Software could be delivered on television signals. Instruction in many specialized areas of the

curriculum could be broadcast to teachers and students, with exercises, testing, and help available

through the telephone by voice or modem. Inexpensive video technology—small portable cameras

that contain video recording devices—could be used

by students to create audio/visual essays, or to

gather images for use with computers. Students

might combine pictures shot in their backyard with

images received from databanks over the telephone,

and written essays composed with word processors

could incorporate graphs compiled using spreadsheet

programs and computerized measurement devices.

In the words of a leading computer scientist, “The

way computing has permeated the fabric of purposeful intellectual and economic activity has no parallel.”]’

Information technologies have transformed

the worlds of business, science, entertainment, the

military, government, law, banking, travel, medicine, and agriculture. The question is whether they

will make as deep a mark on classroom learning—

and how.

‘~Abraham Peled, “The Next Computer Revolution,” Scientific

American, vol. 257, No. 4, October 1987, p. 57.
201

EPILOG

Most historians of technology would agree with

Nobel Laureate Simon that the computer is no ordinary innovation. Indeed, the most profound question facing American society today is whether its

institutions can adapt to a world that has changed

more dramatically in the last 30 years than in the

preceding 30 decades. Our schools are assigned the

monumental task of arming young people to compete in this changing world: they are society’s potters entrusted with the clay of children’s minds. But

there is abundant evidence that the potters’ tools

are rusted, and almost unanimous consensus that

things must change.

Most educators believe that the new tools of the

information age can be pivotal in shaping the American classroom to fit its ever-changing environment.

For others—educators, technologists, and historians

alike—there is a gnawing sense of deja-vu, a fear that

relying on new technology to upgrade classroom learning signifies the triumph of hope over experience.

How will future historians judge the choices made

today? Will their data consist mainly of teachers and

students using new tools to push the frontiers of

learning? Or will effective schools, in which computers and other technologies realize their full potential, always be the exception? To illustrate the

critical crossroad at which we now stand, OTA has

received permission to reprint the following excerpt

from a recent paper by Shirley Malcom, a prominent authority on schooling and technology in

America:

A Tale of Two Futures33

Raul Gomez walked in the door of his inner city

middle school classroom rather down in the dumps.

“Here we go again,” he thinks. If it were not for

the compulsory education laws and the possibility

that his mother could be arrested if he were truant, he wouldn’t bother to come at all. He spends

a lot of his day sitting in front of the computer doing endless drill and practice.

“Shirley M. Malcom, “Technology in 2020: Educating a Diverse

Population,” paper prepared for the Conference on Technology in Education In 2020: Thinking About the Not-Distant Future, Harvard

Llniterslty, Educational Technology Center, Oct. 15-17, 1986, This

conference was supported In part by OTA. This paper and others presented at the conference will bc published in Nickerson and Zodhlates,

op. cit., footnote 3.

To increase educational efficiency and to help

Raul’s teacher cope with 35 students, the district

put computers in their classroom. Some of the children work on the computers while the teacher

works directly with the others. For 14 students,

English is not their native language. Among them,

there are 7 different languages spoken. If he had

to go through another set of practice problems and

subject/verb agreements, he’d go crazy. Occasionally, just for a change of pace he’d deliberately answer a question incorrectly so he could see the

funny little graphics built into “motivate the user.”

If he didn’t get it right after a couple of times, “the

solution” was explained to him. He had figured out

other ways to solve the problems, but for some reason the computer never explained it his way. They

both got the same answer, but he knew there must

be something wrong with his way because the computer never did it like that.

Raul had thought computers were going to be

a lot more fun. He first saw one at the Saltman’s

house, the family for whom his mother worked.

He had gone with her during the summer to help

with the yard work and had seen the games and

the simulated science experiments. There was an

electronic mail feature that had been set up to help

team members keep in contact as they prepared for

the international mathematics competition. But

somehow, at his school it just wasn’t the same. He

asked Ms. Russell about those neat things he had

seen at the Saltman’s, but she had said that the

students weren’t ready for that yet. Besides, doing

those things required more time on the computer

and there were not quite enough machines to go

around.

If only his family had the money to buy its own

computer! But there was barely enough money to

buy food and clothes and pay the rent for the four

of them—Raul, his younger sisters, and his Mom.

There was so much that he wanted to know about

how the world worked, but in his class they never

seemed to get to any of the exciting stuff-they always seemed to be getting ready for the next competency test, always having to cover more pages

in the textbook. As soon as he could, he was going to quit school and go to work and hel p h is

mother with the girls. Maybe he’d get back to

school one day. If there were more here for him

he wouldn’t leave, but it’s just a waste of time.

What good does it do his family if he knows the

names of all the dead presidents?

8’7-002 O - 88 - 7 : ~L 3
202

He had seen a TV program once about Mayan

mathematics and about the sun dagger in the

Southwest that native people developed to tell the

arrival of the different seasons of the year. He asked

his teacher about these things, but she said that

they had to stay on schedule or they wouldn’t

cover the material in time for the science test.

Sonia entered her inner city middle school classroom elated. She had just “published” her first

book, complete with illustrations. As soon as it had

been bound, it would be put in the media center.

Imagine that, Sonia Ramirez, AUTHOR. And to

think, just 3 years before when she and her older

brother and sister had come from Puerto Rico, she

couldn’t speak, read, or write English, and now she

had a book in English and Spanish. The speech

synthesis and translation features on the computer

had really helped her develop proficiency in both

languages. There were enough computers to go

around and enough textbooks so that everyone

could use them. Her book was about rain shadows.

It was fun when you could do science, geography,

English, Spanish, and art at the same time. She

had to do a lot of work on her book at home, but

that was all right. Sonia had been taking home a

loaned computer since she had first entered school

here. Computers are a big part of Sonia’s life and

the lives of her classmates. Her friend Hilda has

a computer that speaks for her (and in a girl’s

voice!): Hilda is nonvocal because of cerebral palsy.

Hilda has to use her computer for writing, too.

Sonia is learning to play the synthesizer in the

school orchestra. The wide variety of software that

she can borrow from the library (or that comes with

the books) lets her look at all kinds of things that

interest her. She and her classmates have developed software, too, which is included in the middle

school computer network in their school system.

Sonia and Hilda are interested in birds. Their

Peterson’s Field Guide has a videodisc that goes

with it so that they can study the birds in flight,

listen to the songs and learn more about their life

histories. It really helps to be able to go back and

forth between similar species and to have the differences between them highlighted.

Raul and Sonia live in two very different futures.

Raul’s future was created by extrapolating from the

present: the present trends in education, the present educational goals for poor, disadvantaged, and

minority students, the present way the technology

is used in educating these students. For Raul, overall trends in the technology matter very little when

he has so few appropriate tools for his education,

and when no concerted effort has been made to

address his educational needs. Differences in the

educational use of technology further separate the

worlds of the Gomez and the Saltman families. On

the other hand, Sonia Ramirez has been empowered

by education, and the technology has made that

education more meaningful and more accessible.

At present, Raul’s future is more probable though

not very desirable. Achieving Sonia’s future will

not be easy.

Photo credit: Neldine Nichols, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

What kind of future will we choose for our children?
Appendixes
Appendix A

State Activities in Educational Technology

Introduction

Historically, States have shared responsibility for the

education of America’s children with local communities.

During the past 20 years, the State role in education has

expanded. Many now establish broad curriculum objectives, set standards for teacher and student proficiencies,

provide funding to schools and districts, support special

projects, and monitor local performance. More recently,

States have become key players in educational reform,

initiating a range of policies and programs. Along with

an expanded role in education overall, States have become more involved in educational technology.

In the early 1980s, only a handful of States were actively involved in educational technology. Today nearly

every State is. State activities vary, reflecting the diversity of educational traditions, priorities, resources, and

needs. Some States have passed specific mandates or have

imposed detailed controls on teachers, schools, and districts, while others have enacted a mixture of initiatives

designed to build local capacity and encourage local decisionmaking. 1 In general, State technology policies and

activities are concerned with four areas:

2 1) hardware

acquisition; 2) software acquisition, evaluation, and distribution; 3) staff training and development; and 4) integrating technology with ongoing instruction.

In October 1987, OTA sent a questionnaire to the

agenc y or individual responsible for educational technolo gy in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.3 B y

February 1988 all States responded. OTA staff also contacted State technology directors by phone where clarification or elaboration was needed. In addition, OTA examined State’s written responses to Electronic Learning’s

1987 Survey of the States and the 1986 State Technology Profile Survey conducted by the Council of Chief

State School Officers. Additional information about

State technology efforts, primarily in the area of software,

was obtained from data collected in 1987 by the National

Governors’ Association.

10TA State Educatlona[ Technology Survey, 1987. See aiso JanIce H. patterson, Center for POIICY Research In Education, Unlverslty of Wwonsln -

Madison, “Computers In Schools: State Pohcy Objecnves and Policy Instrumerits, ” unpublished manuscnpt, December 1987.

‘Patterson, op. cit., footnote 1.

‘To s[mpllfy reporting, the Dlstrlct of Columbla will be counted as a State

]n the followlng discussion.

Organizational Structure, Planning,

and Funding for Technology

Forty-one States have a technology division or staff

position for educational technology.

Twenty-four States have a long-range plan for educational technology and plans are under development

in 13 other States (see figure A-l).

Forty-four States allocate funds specifically for educational technology or make other State funds available

(see figure A-2),4

Forty-nine States use Federal funds for technology:

Chapter 2 predominates, followed by Chapter 1 and

Title II.

At the local level, funds for technology are provided

by the local district, State, and Chapter 2 (see figure

A-3).

The function, responsibility, and organization of State

technolog y divisions or staff positions vary across the

country. Most are part of the State Department of Education (SDE). In some States, a consultant provides workshops and technical assistance to teachers and districts.

In others, the technology division works with other SDE

units to offer curriculum consultation and software preview assistance to educators. And in some States, the

technology unit awards grants, provides technical assistance, and administers several separate programs.

Planning for technology is an important part of the

State role. Most long-range plans and those being developed are initiated by SDEs. Others are initiated by

the legislature, the State Board of Education, or in one

case, a Governor’s Commission. The plans reflect each

State’s approach to technology, educational policy and

governance, and the relationship with local school districts. Some plans suggest curriculum approaches while

others outline detailed strategies for implementation, or

establish graduation and teacher certification requirements.

While some States have made large investments in

educational technology, in most States, Federal funding,

particularl y Chapter 2, is an important source of support for educational technology at the State and local

level. State funding for educational technology usually

is mixed with finding from other sources including the

Federal Government, business and industry, software

publishers, hardware vendors, and private foundations.

‘Funding is pendin g in two States.

2 0 5
Figure A-1 .—State Long-Range Planning for Educational Technology

HI

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, State Educational Technology Survey, 1987.

Funding is by no means uniform or steady. Specific

allocations for technology ranged from $41 million to less

than $200,000.5 Several States provided one-time only

allocations, while others have experienced serious budget reductions. Two-thirds of the States reported that

insufficient funding hampered the implementation of

technology. Needs mentioned were training, hardware,

software, and long-term funding to allow time to implement technology and address equity concerns.

Although many States encourage wider use of new

learning tools, few have sufficient resources to deal with

changing technology, and even less to support a significant increase in access. States are beginning to support

development and demonstration projects, but the scope

of these efforts is limited. With a few exceptions, the ma-

 survey results reflect Information provided by respondents. In some

States, particularly larger ones, accurate funding data was not available and responses were 

jor focus of State pilot and demonstration projects is on

finding better ways to fit technology into the existing curriculum. 6

Faced with competing priorities and financial limitations, States are taking a pragmatic approach to influence and encourage the use of technology in the schools.

Most States focus resources in one or a few areas—

training teachers, distributing hardware, supporting

administrative uses of technology, evaluating software,

and distance learning.

 National Governors’ made a similar conclusion about State

educational technology efforts: National Governors’ 

Report to Time for Results: The Governors’ Report of Education 

 DC: 1987), p. 25. “Current state area of technology seem

to be continuing earher . . . the process IS characterized by adaptation

and gradual growth rather than dramatic or Innovation. In effect, we

do not have that states now rely on technology efforts to restructure

their schools. ”
207

Figure A-2.—Sources of Funding for Educational Technology at the State Level

HI

 State aid is the source of State funding for technology in Idaho, lowa, Kansas, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. It is one of the

sources of funding New Jersey and West Virginia.

 technology funding is pending in Connecticut and West 

c25 using Chapter I funds for technology; 34 report the use of Chapter 2 funds; and 23 report the of Title funds.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, State Educational Technology Survey, 1987.

New Institutional Arrangements In Arkansas, for example, business and education and Policies leaders support the technology initiative. Indiana proInnovative policies and new institutional arrangements vides low interest loans to districts for hardware. And

in Maine, Federal Chapter 2 funds were used to create can support the use of education] technology. Because a statewide computer consortium supported by member the size of the investment needed to implement and sup- districts.7

port educational technology programs is large, there is

a need to build State, regional, and local partnerships

and to enlist the involvement of colleges, universities, efforts are business and industry. the report are In State 
208

Figure A-3.—State Estimates of Major Sources of

Funding for Technology Used by School Districtsa

50

40

30

20

10

0

State fundsb Federal fundsc

Source of funding

No State or

Federal funds

astate technology Coorrjinatorg were asked to SeleCt the top three sources of

funding used ~y dlstrlcts.

bstate funds used for technology by districts include: 1) funds for technology

allocated to all districts; 2) grants for technology; and 3) grants that may be

used for technology.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, State Educational Technology Survey, 1987.

Many of these innovative policies and partnerships suggest alternative approaches to support the use of technology in education. Through dissemination and collaboration, these creative efforts and ideas could serve as

models for other States.

State Hardware and Software

Activities

Thirty-three States have developed procedures that allow school districts to purchase hardware at reduced

prices.8

Twenty-four States negotiate agreements with software

publishers to purchase administrative or applications

software at reduced prices. 9

~N~tiO~~l GOvernorS’ Association, “Technology’s Role in Educational Reform, ” Cap/ra/ Meas, July 1, 1987. Results of an National Governors’ Association survey conducted in 1986-87.

‘Ibid.

Over 60 percent of the States support software evaluation activities. 10

Twenty States either fund or offer technical assistance

for the operation or development of systems to distribute software electronically.11

Thirty States are involved in curriculum development

projects using commercial software.12

Seventeen States fund or offer technical assistance for

development of educational software.”

Expanding access to technology through acquisition,

evaluation, and distribution of hardware and software

is a State concern. In addition, some States are playing

a key role in aggregating purchases of hardware and software, either by negotiating directly with hardware vendors and software publishers, or by supporting or facilitating regional and district efforts.

States also help to provide information about software

by supporting software preview, evaluation, and dissemination at the State and regional level. Some States also

influence (either formally or informally) the types of software schools use through the development of curriculum guidelines or support for certain instructional approaches. With a few exceptions, the extent of State

involvement in software development is limited to small

scale projects.

Duplication of Effort: Need for

Collaboration and Information

With each State deciding individually how to use technology, effort is being duplicated across the country. This

may be especially true in regard to software evaluation

and arrangements with hardware vendors and software

publishers. The States share a need for more information about hardware, software, and about ways technology can be used to enhance learning in schools and

classrooms.

The Software Evaluation Exchange Dissemination

Project (SEED) is a multistate collaborative project coordinated by the Southeastern Education Improvement

Laboratory, one of the national education research laboratories. 14 SEED facilitates software evaluation for six

‘OElecrronic Learning, “Educational Technology 1987, A Report on EL’s Seventh Annual Survey of the States,” vol. 7, No. 2, October 1987.

lloffice of Tmhno]ow &.5e5$ment, based on Electronic Learning, 1987 State

Technology Survey.

121bld.

“Ibid.

Iqprojwt SEED, jnltlated in 1984, has passed through three phases of development, identified by changes in the project’s name. The first phase, Software

Evaluation Exchange and Design, involved conceptualization and acceptance

of the evaluation process. The second phase, Sothvare Evaluation Exchange Development, was a period of training and refining procedures. The third and current phase, Software Eva[uatlon Exchange Dissemination, involves expanding

to other States, increasing the number of evaluations performed, and disseminating results. A 1987 evaluation concluded that the human element is key to

a successful collaborative effort like SEED and that sufficient ume and resources

must be allocated to develop a successful process.
209

Southeastern States (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina). Over several years, SEED has trained educators and has helped

participating States evaluate software and share information. Each State then distributes evaluations independently to local school districts. Several other States are

interested in joining SEED and it is expected that a membership fee will be charged for States outside the southeast region.

Another effort to bring States together was initiated

by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)

in 1983, CCSSO’s National Technology Leadership

Project, funded under a 2-year grant from the National

Institute for Education (NIE), provided States on-line information about educational technology products, collected information about State activities and needs, conducted two national conferences, and began to establish

links among States, Federal agencies, and other organizations involved in educational technology. Perhaps most

importantly, the projects created a forum for State collaboration and discussion of major policy issues. The

project ended in 1986 when the NIE grant ended.

Equity and Access

One of the main justifications for State involvement

in education is to foster equal access to educational resources for all students. In some States, efforts to provide equal access to technology resulted in spreading

technology thinly. For instance, one southern State’s goal

is to put enough computers in the schools to provide 1

computer for every 50 students. Other States address equity concerns by allocating funding for technology to all

school districts on a formula basis, or setting up computer laboratories in each school that students can use

for a limited amount of time each day, month, or year.

States report that these approaches do not necessarily

result in equal access to technology; wealthier districts

continue to have more resources to use for hardware,

software, and teacher training.

Several States are taking a somewhat different approach, concentrating resources and targeting specific

needs of selected groups of students. Many of these States

support using technology to teach basic skills to lowachieving students, or to provide instruction to disadvantaged and underserved students through, for example,

distance learning. Other States implement instructional

packages or integrated learning systems for certain grade

levels or groups of students. Approaches such as these

represent an acceptance that technology can be used for

basic skills instruction with certain groups of students.

They raise questions, however, about providing equal

access not only to hardware, but to how technology is

used with different groups of students, particular

whether it is being used to enhance the higher order

thinking abilities and academic performance of the disadvantaged.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Teacher Preparation, Training, and

Professional Development

Eighteen States require and eight recommend that

teachers seeking certification take computer-related

courses or become familiar with using technology i n

instruction. ”

Three States require and 17 States recommend some

form of inservice professional development in the use

of technology.

Almost every State provides or supports inservice technology activities through a combination of ongoing

activities and periodic efforts. 16

Over three-quarters of the States sponsor technology

conferences and half support training through regional

education or technology centers.

Twenty-two States now use or plan to use electronic

networks, interactive television, videotape, or other

technologies to provide inservice training and assistance in the use of technology.

Thirty-four States allocate funds specifically for inservice technology training or make other funds available which may be used for technology training (see

figure A-4).17

Ten States use Federal funds for inservice technology

training, primarily Title 11 and Chapter 2, but also

Chapter 1, vocational education, and special education funds.

Most teachers receive technology training through

their district; however, the State is an important source

of training programs and assistance in many States. Regional centers, often partially funded by the State, are

playing a growing role in providing technology training

to educators along with other education services. Funds

for training, as for other educational technology efforts,

vary by State and come from a mix of sources: State funds

for technology training; professional development grants;

funding that flows through regional centers or districts;

general State aid used at local discretion; and Federal

dollars (e.g., Title II, Chapter 2). Of the 20 States” that

allocate funds specifically for technology training, annual

funding ranges from $15 million to less than $20,000.

17n ~lx states, these requirements applv only to teachers m ~ertaln area’ ~uc

as huslnes,, computer, or media education.

‘hSome States pro~lde tralnlng, in(ormarlon, ~onsultanr ser~vces, or fac-ll]ratc

tralrung at the regional or local Ie\el, hut Jo not allocate funding for tec hnologv

tralnlng,

I TState fundLng for technology, tra]nlng In Utah IS pending study and re~~mmendat[ons.

‘‘Nlnc of these States make other State or Federal funds atailable as well.
210

Figure A-4.—State Estimates of Sources of Funding

for Inservice Technology Traininga

I

-1

—

astate technology coordinators were asked to select the top three Sources of

funding for tec~-nology at the local level.

bstate funds include: I) funds for technology training; 2) Professional development funds or grants; 3) funds that flow through regional centers or districts;

and 4) general State aid used at local discretion.

cFederal funding includes Title 11, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and SPecial Education

funds.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, State Educational Technology Survey, 1987.

State Research, Development, and

Demonstration Activities

Sixteen States fund or provide technical assistance to

an educational technology project with a research or

evaluation component. 19 In addition, some States report

supporting demonstrations and pilot projects in the context of curriculum development or software activities.

Overall, however, research and development supported

by the States is limited. Most States do not have the

means to fund scientific research on learning and educational technology or to develop advanced software.

Yet, State research projects are important because, for

the most part, they focus on questions about implementing technology in schools and investigate the use of technology to serve defined educational needs. Some States

‘qStates reporting research and development act]vmes: Alaska, Arkansas, Cahforma, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Nflnnesota, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, New, York, Texas, Utah, Virglnla, and West Vlrgmia. Addmonal

research pro]ects are pending In two States, Washington, DC and Florlda.

support projects on a limited scale before a larger investment is considered, or work with vendors and the private sector to establish pilot projects. Others award grants

to schools, districts, or teachers for innovative projects

or school improvement which may involve technology.

Some of these projects have an evaluation or research

component while others do not, but in all projects technology is being used by teachers or students in a variety

of “real world” settings.

Some Examples

In Minnesota, evaluations of teacher training efforts

found that the most successful programs are those in

which teachers work with technology-using peers. Large,

one-time group training sessions conducted by vendors

were found to be the least successful. Alaska sponsored

two classroom-based research projects to study the use

of technology in instruction. One project focused on

using technology to teach writing and the other on increasing inquiry learning in science. Participating teachers

were trained in classroom-based research techniques and

kept journals describing their teaching experiences and

observations in the classroom. JO

Kentucky initiated Project Vision, a pilot project to

develop a videodisc program to teach remedial mathematics skills in grades K-2, based on the Kentucky Essential Skills Test. The project was supported to a large

extent by private donations and in-kind support from

vendors.

Recently, research has begun in five model school sites

in California. The goal is to study long-term effects of

using technology in instruction. Annual finding for the

projects is contingent on the total funds approved by the

Governor for the State’s educational technology activities.

Technology, Curriculum, and

Educational Reform

Many States establish curriculum requirements or develop optional guidelines for districts. The current focus

is “integrating technology into the curriculum;” however,

interpretation of this concept varies. California, for example, supports the use of technology as an educational

tool. It initiated the $2 million Technology in the Curriculum Project to help educators locate high-quality software and video programs and integrate them into the

‘OA pubhcatlon, Hand ]n Hand: The Writing Process and rhe Mlcroccrmputer

was pubhshed by the Alaska Department of Educat]on in 1985 as a result of

the classroom-based, Computer/Writing Skills Project. Currently, there are no

State funds to pubhsh a similar document about the tnquuy Science Project,

which was funded by the State during 1986-87. The State is looking Into using

Federal or other funding sources. The Alaska Department of Education also hopes

to use Federal funds to undertake slmllar classroom-based research In mathematics.
211

curriculum, In Delaware, on the other hand, a 1984 State

plan mentions integrating technology into instruction,

but is more specific about computer science and computer-assisted instruction, and the State has provided

funding for these areas.” In other States, integrating

technology into instruction has been interpreted to mean

matching software with basic skills competencies outlined

by the State, or using technology to supplement the existing curriculum.

In some States, activities and new initiatives involving technology are tied to educational reform. In Wisconsin, where there is a tradition of strong local control

of education, legislation resulted in new standards and

a series of curriculum guides requiring changes in both

the content and delivery of instruction. SDE sees technology as an important component of overall school improvement and local districts are encouraged to integrate

technology into the curriculum. At the same time, no

State funds have been allocated specifically for technology; instead, the State funds regional educational service centers, and districts receive about 50 percent of their

funding from the State. Beginning in fall 1988, the State

will try to influence districts that do not comply with

the State standards, including those regarding educational technology.

Texas’ approach to technology also reflects the State’s

approach to educational reform: the creation of specific

requirements and regulations. Teachers seeking certification in Texas are required to take a course on educational computing and technology or demonstrate proficiency. All districts must teach computer competencies

in elementary schools. Curriculum guidelines under development are expected to include keyboarding, information processing, and using computers to develop problem solving skills. In addition, every student in Texas

must complete at least one semester in computer literacy in seventh or eighth grade. This course specifies applications, awareness, and introductor y programming.

There is also a separate advanced high school diploma

that includes courses in computing. 22 Texas has not

funded local implementation efforts but has funded several pilot projects with State and Federal dollars (primarily Chapter 2). State requirements for elementary computing and local planning have been proposed and are

likely to be developed in 1 to 2 years.

Technology is changing rapidly and States have many

choices about how best to take advantage of the potential of technology in education. Curriculum requirements, instructional priorities, and institutional arrangements influence how technology resources are used.

‘

] Delaware’. Slate Plan fbr dre Use of Compurers In K-l Z fifucarmn currentlv

IS being revised and the new version ma y glt,e greater attention to the use of

computer applications In regular classrooms.

~~There are no educauonal technology requirements for a regular high schm,l

diploma.

States may find it difficult to change policies or encourage

different instructional approaches after investing money,

people, and effort. Rigid, narrow, or outdated educational

policies may make innovative and effective uses of technology difficult to implement in the future. More collaboration between States, educators, researchers, and

developers could help States articulate needs, identif y

newer technologies and instructional approaches, encourage flexibility, and influence further development.

State Profiles

Alabama

State position/unit: Yes (1983)

State plan: Being developed

Key actors: State Advisory Committee

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; 23 State education; 24

Federal

Source of funding in most districts: State grants that

may be used for technology

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: State 25

Most important State action: $8 million in 1984 for

hardware/software

Major changes in past year: Task Force to develop

State plan

Barriers: Cost; State plan

The 1984 State educational improvement plan encouraged districts to include the use of technology in

grades K-12. A $12 million appropriation allocated 70

percent of these funds for hardware and software purchase. Due to a revenue shortfall, only $5 million was

made available in 1985-86. Federal Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 funds were also used to purchase hardware and software in 1986-87 and 1987-88.

In 1986-87 $750,000 was allocated for a statewide

telecommunications system to connect local districts and

SDE. The network now connects the State and all 130

school districts. A $250,000 allocation in 1987-88 continues training and provides maintenance. Future plans

include statewide implementation of a student management system to standardize scheduling and recordkeeping.

Alabama participates in SEED, a multistate model for

software evaluation and evaluation exchange.26 

: 3Srate technology funds can tnclude State funds earmarked for te~hnologk”

that go to all d]strlcts or State technology grants awarJed to speclftc Pro]ccts,

districts, or schools.

:+stare ~duc-ar,on finds can ]nclude State grants for educational lmro~’ement

or reform, general State aid, staff development funds, or State funds that flow,

through regional centers or other entitles.

~’A State may pro~lde tra[n{ng, lnformat,on, consultant ser,lces, or facilitate

re~lonal act]vltles hut mav not allocate fundin g for technolog y training.

‘&See discussion of SEED aho\,e,
2 1 2

Alaska

State position/unit: Yes (1980)

State plan: Being developed

Key actors: Legislators; professional teacher associations

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; Federal

Source offending inmost districts: District/general

State aid

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Establishing computer

and instructional television projects (1980)

Next steps: Explore distance learning

Major changes in past year: Most funding and staff

reduced

Barriers: Funding; staff; political support

In 1986, the State’s satellite-based network for instructional television (ITV) (the Learn Alaska Network) was

cut and staff for educational technology significantly reduced. The State now maintains an ITV support system

and is planning for the use of distance delivery. An

Alaska studies course is being developed for distance delivery. One pilot project uses audioconferencing and electronic mail in addition to video. The State also produces

a phone call-in television series, “Talk Back,” using Title II funds. The State supports a project investigating

the impact of computers in science education. In previous years, several classroom-based research projects

trained teachers to assess the impact of technology in

their classrooms.

Arizona

State position/unit: Yes (1981)

State plan: No

Key actors: State Advisory Committee; teacher organizations; parents; district computer coordinators

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: School

Most important State action: 1983 bill establishing

State technology role and clearinghouse

Major changes in past year: None

Barriers: Lack of legislative awareness about technology

Legislation passed in 1983 defined the State role in

educational technology and created a clearinghouse for

software and information, but as yet, no State funds have

been allocated for technology through SDE. Three staff

members assist schools with volume purchases for technology and provide training, support, and software evaluation services. General education funds are used to purchase software for evaluation and preview.

The Arizona School Services Through Educational

Technology Project (ASSET), operated out of the State’s

public broadcasting stations, provides ITV programming

and support services to schools. Several instructional

packages that include software are available through

ASSET. Funding for ASSET comes equally from member districts and the State. Federal Title II funds are also

used by both districts and the State. As schools install

satellite dishes the State expects to become more involved

in distance learning.

The State Computer Services Unit provides ongoing

training to educators through a magnet school in Phoenix and in districts upon request. In 1987-88, $17,500

(Title II) will be used to train 200 mathematics and science educators from rural districts in the use of technology.

Arkansas

State position/unit: Yes (1983)

State plan: Yes (1984; revised 1986-87)

Key actors: Business community; Governor; Chief State

School Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; State education

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: Preservice (required for media

teachers); inservice (recommended)

State funding for technology training: Yes

Most important State action: IMPAC; distance learning; vocational education guidelines; high school computer science requirements; defining levels of inservice

Major changes in past year: Increased leadership by

Governor and State Education Director

Barriers: None

In 1983, the Instructional Microcomputer Project for

Arkansas Classrooms (IMPAC) was created through legislation. Supported by the State and the business community, IMPAC has developed software and implemented several models of computer-managed and

computer-assisted instruction combined with classroom

instruction to teach basic skills. Software and lessons are

linked to the State’s basic skills list and costs are closely

monitored. IMPAC projects have been implemented in

136 schools. Research on effectiveness identified successful models. The State’s goal is to establish IMPAC programs in every school and provide training and support.

During 1986-87, nine experimental satellite education

programs in secondary schools were funded and distance

learning policies were developed. Nineteen districts currently offer courses by satellite with funding assistance

from IMPAC.
213

California

State position/unit: Yes (1982)

State plan: Yes (1986)

Key actors: Business community; legislators; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer; SDE Staff

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology

Source of funding in most districts: Unknown

State training policies: Preservice (required)

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: Unknown

Most important State action: State level initiatives in

software development, summer training institutes, and

model schools

Major changes in past year: Large funding cuts by

Governor

Barriers: Political consensus on definition of equity;

State’s ability to fund categorical programs; lack of software which “compels” use of technology

Legislation passed in 1982 and 1983 defined the State’s

role in educational technology and authorized several

large grant programs. Educators and schools were encouraged to integrate technology in the curriculum.

Funding was provided for matching grants to schools and

districts,” statewide software acquisition and development, and for the Technology in the Curriculum Projects, an initiative to match software and ITV programs

with curriculum objectives. There were also funds for

Summer Institutes and videocassette recorder (VCR) distribution. Teacher Education and Computer (TEC)

Centers, first established in 1982, offered information and

training to educators. Fifteen million dollars was allocated

for California’s technology efforts in 1984-85, $25.6 million in 1985-86, and about $25 million in 1986-87. The

Governor cut the educational technology budget in half

in 1987-88. Budget cuts eliminated the TEC Centers and

the Summer Training Institutes.

Over $1 million supported the development of six

educational software programs in mathematics, science,

and history/social studies in 1986-87. Under the terms

of the agreement, publishers are responsible for marketing costs and will retain copyright. California will receive

royalties and discounts for the software. Although less

money is available for technology, there is continued interest in supporting software development in partnership

with other States or educational organizations.

State educational technology finding supports a model

schools program in five sites. The goal is to study the

use of technology by students over a 3 to 5 year period.

Sites draw on a combination of State, Federal, and industr y support and universities provide assistance with

research and evaluation. Annual State funding for the

2-Contingent on the de~elopment of a local plan

program is contingent on the total funds for technology

approved by the Governor.

Beginning July 1988, all teachers who apply for certification must meet new State requirements in computerrelated coursework.

Colorado

State position/unit: Yes (1982)

State plan: Being developed

Key actors: Legislators; local Boards of Education

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: Federal

Source of funding in most districts: Mixed

State training policies: None (beginning to consider)

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Creating staff positions

in SDE; formation of telecommunications consortium

Next steps: Legislative action

Major changes in past year: None; funding remains a

prime concern

Barriers: Funding; statewide direction (local control

makes it difficult)

In Colorado, where there is a tradition of strong local

control of education, State-level consultants provide

guidelines and assistance to schools and districts. State

technology activities are supported with Chapter 2 funds.

Recently, a telecommunications consortium made up of

educators, State staff, representatives from business, industry, and higher education was formed to address problems faced by small, isolated school districts.

Connecticut

State position/unit: Yes (1980)28

State plan: Being developed

Key actors: Business community; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer; teacher organizations; parents; SDE consultants

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology (pending for 1987-88);

State education

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: Preservice/inservice (recommended) /

State funding for technology training: None 29

Way most teachers receive training: Regional center

Most important State actions: Grants; training; establishing regional service centers with software preview

centers; statewide electronic network; telecommunications projects

‘“Consultant posltmn was vacant from 1984 co 1987.

%3ther State funds for professional development are aiallable In Connecticut.
214

Major changes in past year: Advisory council formed

to develop State plan and funding proposals

Barriers: No instructional standards for use of computers; no training requirements; incompatible systems

in schools; strong local autonomy; no funds for hardware; inequities between districts

Following the recommendations of a Joint Committee on Educational Technology, 1985 legislation created

the Telecommunications Incentives Grants Program for

distance learning, staff development, and on-line databases. Although $500,000 was requested for 1986-87, only

$85,000 was appropriated. The State planned to request

the same amount for 1987-88. Other grants are available

to schools to enhance instruction and staff development

involving technology, but no funds for hardware are

available from the State. A State technology consultant

advises schools and districts about technology and encourages the inclusion of technology in grant proposals.

Technology training is available through regional Institutes for Teaching and Learning, a $2.5 million staff development effort. Connecticut has established a statewide

electronic network that disseminates information about

technology.

Delaware

State position/unit: Yes (1983)

State plan: Yes (1983; being revised)

Key actors: Legislators; State Advisory Committee;

State Department of Public Instruction

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: None30

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Creation of unit in SDE;

statewide computer network; establishing statewide

technology council; training

Major changes in past year: None

Barriers: Funding for hardware/software; lack of quality software that relates to existing curricula; proof that

there is a need for and value to using computers in the

schools

Delaware has provided funding to school districts for

computer education for 15 years. An electronic network,

maintained by the State links school districts. The State

has appropriated funds to all school districts on a per

student basis since 1984 and districts must submit plans

in order to receive State funds. A 1984 State plan emphasized computer literacy, computer science, administrative, and training needs, and gave some attention to

‘“A certification program for compurer science teachers is pend]ng approval.

Teachers are currently tak]ng courses for certification.

other instructional applications of computers and other

technology. A new plan is being reviewed.

Three centrally-located training laboratories, established in 1983, provided training on computer literacy;

training has shifted to integration of technology into the

curriculum. Districts can use State funds for training.

Delaware also offers scholarships for training/retraining

in computer science.

A study of the use of CAI systems for basic skills was

conducted in 1987-88.

District of Columbia

State position/unit: Yes (1983)

State plan: Yes (1983)

Key actors: State Advisory Committee; Chief State

School Officer; school board; city council

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: Mixed

State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice

(recommended)

State funding for technology training: Yes”

Way most teachers receive training: State/District

Most important State action: Board policy authorizing first Five-Year Plan (1983)

Next steps: Development of second Five-Year Plan

Barriers: Additional funding and training to improve

scope of use

A Five-Year Plan specified certification and training

requirements for educators, created a central training site,

and set forth curriculum mandates for grades K-12. Funding for all technology-related instructional and administrative activities is included in the District of Columbia

annual school budget. Yearly expenditures exceeded $3.3

million in 1986-87 and were about $3.5 million in 1987-

88. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 funds are used to provide

additional computer laboratories in elementary and junior high schools. A second Five-Year Plan for computer

education is in the final stages of development.

Florida

State position/unit: Yes (1981)

State plan: Yes (1987)

Key actors: Legislators; Chief State School Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education,32 Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: Preservice/inservice (recommended)

~iFunds for traltung In technology are Included In the overall budget for technology.

‘:The State pro~lded funding for educational technology In 1983-84, but no

funds have been allocated since.
215

State funding for technology training: Yes33

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Computer literacy requirement for all students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 11

Next steps: Certifying teachers in computer education

Major changes in past year: None

Barriers: Funding; legislative support; coordination between universities, community colleges, and school districts

Legislation in 1981 stated that technology should be

used to enhance the learning process and reduce administrative burdens on teachers. Attention to cost-effectiveness was emphasized. In 1983-84, a one-time $10 million appropriation was given to schools on a per student

basis for hardware and software for mathematics and

computer literacy. Several related programs in mathematics, science, and computer education for students and

teachers were established34 and $2 million in Federal

funds were allocated for computers for vocational education schools. These programs and several additional

projects have continued to receive funding, but for the

past 3 years no State funds have been allocated for educational technology. Federal Job Training Partnership Act

and Chapter 1 funds are used for technology. SDE proposed that the legislature provide $10 million in 1988-

89 to assist districts with implementation.

The State supports a statewide electronic network, the

Florida Information Resources Network. The Florida

Center for Instructional Computing at the University

of South Florida places software evaluations on the network. Florida also participates in SEED.

A 1987 plan calls for technology to support basic skills

in grades K-8 and for computer-supported educational

and career planning systems for secondary students. A

new plan is being developed to direct funds toward a

model schools project, statewide acquisition of hardware,

and a comprehensive mathematics, science, and computer education program.

Georgia

State position/unit: Yes (1984)

State plan: Yes (1985)

Key actors: Business community; legislators; Governor;

State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer

1!3ummer [nsert’lce Insututes have made funds avatlable for content area, noncredit traimng actlwtles.

“1) Posr-Secondary Programs of Excellence in mathematics, science, and computer education for teacher training and cooperative actlwtles between unl~er.

stt]es, college~, businesses and school d[stncts. 2 ) Two Reglonat Ctmter\ of Excellence In mathematics, $clence, and computer technology to dei elol~

Instructlonai techniques, tra]n teachers, and evaluate ]nstructlonal mater lal~. 3)

Grants for summer camps for students and summer ]nser\lce programs for math.

emattcs and science teachers.

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology;35 Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: No36

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Formation of Georgia

Technology Council; creation of Technology Coordinator position in all schools; State grants program;

specification of technology standards and program

components

Barriers: Competition for limited State funds

Georgia’s Quality Basic Education Act became effective in 1985, establishing several grant programs and providing funds for instructional technology and the administrative networking of schools. In 1987, $500,000 was

appropriated for hardware/software purchases and

teacher training to use technology for recordkeeping and

instructional management. Local districts must develop

plans in order to receive grants. Other services (software

evaluation and dissemination, training, and technical

assistance) are provided by the State and regional education centers. Chapter 2 funds were used to pilot IBM’s

Writing to Read in five districts during 1987-88.

Member districts may purchase software cooperativel y

through the Georgia Software Consortium. The Consortium was initiated with State funding and is now supported by local districts. State staff select software and

negotiate with publishers. Georgia also participates in

SEED and distributes evaluations.

A pilot study is attempting to align Georgia’s core curriculum for K-8 mathematics with standardized tests,

State tests, software, video, and texts.

Hawaii

State position/unit: No

State plan: Yes (1980; revised 1987)

Key actors: Business community; legislators; Governor;

State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: State

State training policies: Preservice/inservice (recommended)

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Providing resources to

implement State plan

Next steps: Development and expansion of plan

Major changes in past year: None

~5Fund~ng for 1987-88. No funding was provided for educational technology

In 1986.87.

‘hStaff development funds may be used for technology tralnlng.
216

Barriers: Time and additional resources to catch up to

and maintain pace with new developments

Funds for technology are allocated on a per capita basis and distributed to all districts for computer literacy,

CAI, computer-managed instruction, and computerbased information retrieval. Over $1 million was allocated in 1986-87 and $1.8 million in 1987-88. All schools

can apply for Chapter 2 funds. In 1987, SDE developed

a framework for continued planning and State activity.

About $150,000 was allocated to seven districts for inservice training activities in 1987-88. General staff development funds also are available to all districts. Some

training via telecommunications is being initiated.

Software is evaluated through a Computer Review

Center and Clearinghouse.

Idaho

State position/unit: Yes (1984)

State plan: Yes (1985)

Key actors: State Advisory Committee; Chief State

School Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Slow approach has allowed users to develop necessary comfort level

Next steps: Continue current efforts

Major changes in past year: Increased legislative interest in distance learning

Barriers: High costs; rapid change of technology

State funding for technology is available indirectly

through general State aid. Districts may also use Chapter 2 funds. SDE and Boise State University support a

distance learning mathematics class for rural classrooms.

Teacher training in technology is provided through

university preservice and inservice activities and SDEsponsored workshops.

Illinois

State position/unit: No

State plan: Yes (1985)

Key actors: Legislators; Governor; business community;

Chief State School Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: State grants that

may be used for technology

State training policies: None37

~;lnstltutions of higher education recommend training/courses in technology.

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: Regional centers

Most important State action: Creating computer consortia and incorporation into Educational Service

Centers

Major changes in past year: None

Barriers: No particular barrier; remaining questions are

not what can be done with technology, but what

should be done

In 1985, the Illinois legislature incorporated 20 existing State-funded computer consortiums into 18 Educational Service Centers (ESCs). As part of an effort to aggregate services, ESCs are required to offer technology

support to districts, developing budget requests based on

local needs and priorities. In 1986-87, $8.5 million was

appropriated for 18 ESCs and $8.16 million in 1987-88.

A Math/Science Equipment and Materials Loan Program was initiated by the State in 1987 with a one-time

$20 million appropriation.

Illinois does not provide direct support for distance

learning but local districts may, and do, use State aid.

An electronic network between SDE and regional centers

is in place; some centers also have a network with local

districts.

Training in technology is offered through ESCs. Staff

development funds also are available. A software evaluation database is available to each ESC.

Indiana

State position/unit: Yes (1980)

State plan: Yes (1983)

Key actors: Legislators; Governor; Chief State School

Officer; Consortium for Computer and High Technology Education

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: Capital Improvement Fund38

State training policies: Preservice (recommended)

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: State

Most important State action: Funding training rather

than hardware/software; funding demonstration

projects; change in laws to allow purchase of hardware

via Capital Improvement Fund; creation of low-interest

loan program.

Major changes in past year: None

Barriers: Curriculum

In 1983 legislation created the Consortium for Computers and High Technology Education. The Consor-

~sA separate local tax levy funds buddmgs, replacements, and reno~atmn. The

second primary source of funding for technology at the dlstrlct level IS the School

Technology Advancement Account, a State Iow-interest loan program.
217

tium developed a plan addressing training, research, and

demonstration, but not curriculum. Over $5 million was

appropriated for training and demonstration projects for

1985-87 and again for 1987-89. Funds for districts are also

available through a Low Interest Loan Program, the State

Capital Improvement Fund, and Federal Chapter 1,

Chapter 2, and Title II programs.

The first round of State funding focused on teacher

training. Initial efforts provided introductory level training (with substitutes) through nine training centers and

more advanced training through local funding and colleges/universities. The centers were closed and training

is now conducted at school sites by regional consultants.

Indiana now funds some local programs and teacher fellowships.

With State funds, nine demonstration projects with a

2:1 ratio of students to computers were implemented in

self-contained classrooms in 1985. Eight of the projects

received sustaining levels of funding for a second year

and competition was opened for additional sites. The

next steps include replication,

Iowa

State position/unit: No39

State plan: No

Key actors: Intermediate service agencies

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: State grants that

may be used for technology

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: Regional centers

Most important State action: Start-u p mone y for Instructional Software Clearinghouse

Major changes in past year: State program was eliminated and funding cut; responsibility now at local and

regional level

Barriers: Completion of statewide electronic network

Legislation in 1987 contained a provision for checking wasteful proliferation of computers and mandated

that plans be approved by the State before any local

funds could be spent on technology. A State unit was

created in 1973 and, with State coordination, 13 regional

computer centers were established with local funds. These

centers have been phased out and regional education

units now provide consultant and support services to

schools and districts. In 1987, the State technology unit

was also eliminated. General State aid and Federal funds

are used at the discretion of local districts.

‘“An educational technology unit In the State Department of Education was

created in 1973 and abollshed In 1987.

In 1982,$100,000 from the legislature (to be paid back

later) provided seed money for a software clearinghouse.

Additional funds were appropriated in 1984 and 1985.

The start-up money for the clearinghouse, which bought

software at reduced rates and sold it to schools, was paid

back and the clearinghouse functions were turned over

to intermediate units,

With Iowa Public Television, SDE helped coordinate

five distance learning projects using local funding and

business support. Districts interest in a

tronic network that would use existing

ing systems is under investigation.

Kansas

State position/unit: Yes (1984)

State plan: No

statewide elecdistance learnKey actors: Chief State School Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice

(recommended)

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Creating position in SDE

Major changes in past year: None

Barriers: Funding; perceptions of need

General State aid is available to districts for technology and Title II funds are available for training. Planning and curriculum development assistance is available

as requested by the districts.

Kentucky

State position/unit: Yes (1984)

State plan: Being developed

Key actors: Business community; Governor; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer; Chair,

State Board of Education

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: Parent-Teacher

Association funds

State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice

(recommended)

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: State through

district

Most important State action: Created computer specialist position and similar positions in special education in SDE

Next steps: Additional staffing and creation of State unit

for instructional computing in SDE
218

Major changes in past year: Governor’s office worked

with private vendor to create more involvement in

educational technology; electronic network proposed

Barriers: Lack of funding to equalize districts; lack of

funding for ongoing inservice training

In 1986, the legislature passed two grant programs to

address educational priorities, particularly the Kentucky

Essential Skills curriculum. Some projects receiving

grants involve technology. Additional funding for educational technology is local or comes from Federal funds.

In 1986-87, a statewide electronic network for administrative uses, the Kentucky Educational Networking System was proposed. The project will place a terminal on

each teacher’s desk at no cost to the districts.

Kentucky requires teachers to have at least one course

in using technology for certification. Most inservice training is conducted by local colleges of education.

The Kentucky Network for Educational Telecommunications, a cooperative effort of the Kentucky Association of School Administrators, SDE, Kentucky Educational Television, and the Kentucky School Boards

Association provides networking and information to subscribing educators and administrators.

Project Vision, a videodisc project in basic mathematics

in grades K-2, was tested in eight sites and funded primarily through donations and private in-kind support.

The program was designed with input from teachers and

incorporates the Kentucky Essential Skills curriculum.

Through an agreement with the vendor, hardware and

software for the project are now available outside of

Kentucky.

A task force is investigating potential for ITV and inservice programs. The State will install a satellite dish

on every school building by 1988-89.

Louisiana

State position/unit: No

State plan: No

Key actors: Teacher organizations; district superintendents

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: None

Source of funding in most districts: Chapter

l/Chapter 2

State training policies: Preservice (required)

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: District

Major changes in past year: New Governor and superintendent in March 1988

Barriers: Funding

Federal Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 funds are the main

source of funding for technology in Louisiana at the local level. No State funds are provided for technology,

and State involvement is limited. SDE offers information and assistance to schools and conducts an annual

survey of computer use. A half-unit course in computer

literacy is required for high school graduation (a computer science or data processing course may be substituted). Certification requirements for computer literacy

and computer science teachers have been established.

Maine

State position/unit: Yes (1979)40

State plan: Being developed

Key actors: Legislators; Governor; Chief State School

Officer; Maine Computer Consortium; State computer

consultant

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: Chapter 2

State training policies: None (being reviewed)

State funding for technology training: None41

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: High school proficiency

requirement; creating half-time computer coordinator

position; use of Chapter 2 funds for Computer Consortium

Next steps: Survey districts; develop State plan

Major changes in past year: High school proficiency

requirement

Barriers: Lack of funds; proof of effectiveness; legislative support; local priorities

As part of a 1984 reform act, high school students in

Maine are required to demonstrate proficiency in the use

of computers. Local districts define proficiency and must

submit a plan for State approval. No State funds are earmarked for technology and no other technology-related

initiatives have been proposed at the State level. Maine’s

Innovative Grants program may award funds to programs

with a technology component. Professional development

funds are available for training in technology and the

SDE staff provide training and assistance to educators,

schools, and districts. Funding for the State’s educational

technology activities and for technology in most districts

comes from Chapter 2 money.

New institutional relationships have been developed

to facilitate the use of technology in Maine’s schools. The

Maine Computer Consortium was created in 1983 using

Chapter 2 funds. The Consortium, which provides training, software review and preview services, and technical

assistance to member districts has continued to receive

Chapter 2 funding from the State, but most support

comes from member districts. In 1986-87, with a $20,000

State Chapter 2 grant and in-kind gifts from Apple, the

4cHalf-time posltlon.

~lstaff development funds may be u<ed for technology training.
219

Consortium created ME-Link, an electronic network.

The network is available to any educator in the State

with a modem. The Consortium received $5,000 in

Chapter 2 funds in 1987-88 to publish descriptions of

exemplary programs involving technology in the State’s

classrooms.

Maryland

State position/unit: Yes (1986)

State plan: Yes (1987)

Key actors: Business community; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer; teacher organizations

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: Chapter 2

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Maryland Educational

Technology Network

Major changes in past year: Development of State plan;

alternative funding programs; partnerships with business and industry

Barriers: Determination of effectiveness; funding

The Maryland Education Technology Network (METN),

a project to provide hardware, software, information, and

staff support, is a joint effort of the State, districts, and

vendors. The goal of METN is to deliver educational materials equitably to schools statewide. During 1985-86,

IBM-networked computer laboratories were pilot tested

in five schools and the project was evaluated. SDE

assisted with training and coordination. METNs have

been implemented in 31 school sites using grants from

vendors, local funds, and State/local matching grants.

The Maryland Education Foundation (a private foundation) provided $100,000 for State/local matching

grants for hardware in 1986-87. There are plans to expand METN, but no State funding has been allocated.

Currently, METN is being upgraded to deliver software

electronically and to connect sites with SDE.

The State allocated $59,000 to 24 school districts in

1988-89 for training to help teachers integrate technology into the curriculum.

Massachusetts

State position/unit: Yes (1987)”

State plan: Yes (1987)

Key actors: Legislators; State Advisory Committee;

professional teacher organizations

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: Varies by district

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: Mixed

Most important State action: 1985 Act establishing the

Educational Technology Trust Fund, subject to appropriations

Major changes in past year: Advisory Council has presented a State plan and requested increased funding

Barriers: Technology given a lower priority than some

other issues

In 1985, State legislation created an Educational Technology Trust Fund to provide grants to local school districts for programs and model projects integrating technology into the classroom. An Educational Technology

Council was established. The State allocated $500,000

for the grants program in 1986-87 and $600,000 in 1987-

88. An Educational Technology Capital Improvements

Grants program provided $1 million in 1987-88 to help

districts purchase equipment. A State plan and a request

for increased funding were presented to the Board of Education but no action has been taken.

The Commonwealth Inservice Institute, operated by

the Massachusetts Department of Education, provides

grants to districts for training teachers and administrators in the use of technology. In 1988, the SDE plans

to assist schools in planning, acquiring, and training for

the use of technology. Regional centers and a number

of other consortia and organizations also provide assistance, support, and software preview services to schools

and educators.

Four distance learning pilot projects, each connecting

two sites, were funded in 1986-87 and 1987-88.

Michigan

State position/unit: Yes (1986)

State plan: Yes (1987)

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: State plan; establishing

regional technology centers; suggested curriculum

guidelines

Next steps: Broaden scope

Major changes in past year: State plan, 1987

Barriers: Identification of common goals among various groups; coordination of grants

A 1983 educational reform report recommended that

technology be integrated into instruction and educational
220

management. One-half year of “hands on” computer education was also recommended for high school graduation.

As a result, a number of discretionary grants were

awarded to schools and districts for technology projects.

A State plan for technology, developed over 3 years, was

approved in 1987. It calls for the State to provide technical and planning assistance to districts, assist in funding options for hardware and software, act as an information clearinghouse, conduct evaluations, and provide

training. Over $1 million for Special Projects Discretionary Grants was appropriated by the State in 1986-87 and

1987-88. Funds for two-way interactive television and

computer literacy/educational technology also were provided in 1987-88. Federal Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and Title II funds for technology are distributed on a joint basis.

Three regional centers provided software preview, information, and technology support services to districts.

These services are now offered through the regional education service centers. An additional center for technology training was funded in 1987-88.

Minnesota

State position/unit: Yes (1979)

State plan: Yes (1985)4

’

Key actors: Business community; legislators; Governor;

Chief State School Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: State grants that

m ay be used for technology and district funds

State training policies: Preservice (recommended)44

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: State/District

Most important State action: Training; planning; focus on learning rather than technology

Major changes in past year: Distance learning use by

rural districts

Barriers: Questions about cost-effectiveness relative to

other improvement strategies

State educational technology efforts began in the 1970s

with the creation of the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium (MECC) to provide computer services to schools through a time-sharing system, train

teachers, conduct evaluations, and develop software. The

1983 legislation extended State efforts through funding

to districts for technology planning, training, and software purchase. Technology demonstration sites were also

supported and State funds were appropriated to MECC

‘]M1~~~W~~~~ 1985 ~l~n, information Technology I-earner Outcomes> ‘Wuws

on enhancing learning using educational technology and lays out broad educational goals with suggested instructional approaches.

44MlnneWta requires ~~la teachers to demonstrate famdiarity using technology In instruction at the preservice level and recommends that all preservice

and inservice teachers take a computer-related course andlor show familiarity

using technology in instruction.

for software development. Over time, MECC has supported its activities by selling software outside of Minnesota and is now a separate nonprofit corporation.

At present, Minnesota’s strategy is to make the use of

technology “invisible”--less separate from other educational initiatives and objectives—by encouraging the use

of application software in subject areas. Minnesota has

also supported distance learning to teach elective courses.

Funding for model technology projects decreased from

$5.3 million in 1983-85 and 1985-87 to $2.8 million in

1987-89. Instead, innovative projects involving technology are supported under State funds for instructional design. State funds for technology are available through

general State aid and Federal dollars are used at local

discretion. Sixty percent of all educational funding is provided by the State. Minnesota has continued to fund

technology training at about $865,000 per year. An $8

million professional development program provides opportunities for teachers to learn how to use technology

in instruction.

Mississippi

State position/unit: No

State plan: Being developed

Key actors: Chief State School Officer; local district administrators

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Pilot project assessing use

of distance delivery using TI-IN

Major changes in past year: A State plan will be developed

Barriers: Funding; training

State activities and funding for educational technology in Mississippi are limited and the SDE staff person

responsible for technology has left and has not been

replaced. The State evaluates administrative software and

participates in SEED. Title II funds are being used for

a distance learning pilot project in a rural school. The

State superintendent has appointed a chairman and committee to begin work on a State plan for technology in

the schools.

Missouri

State position/unit: No

State plan: No

Key actors: Business community; teacher organizations

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education; Federal
221

Source of funding in most districts: Chapter 2

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Onetime allocation of

$3 million in 1985-86

Next steps: Dissemination of information unsuccessful

projects followed by incentives to adopt

Major changes in past year: None

Barriers: Diversity; funding; lack of training/commitment by school staffs

During 1985 -86,$2.5 million was provided by the Missouri legislature for hardware, software, and staff training. Most went to school districts on a formula basis and

the rest was used for training provided by temporary

State consultants.

No State funds have been appropriated specifically for

technology since; however, $4 million for innovative and

exemplary programs was provided in 1986-87. These

funds may be used for training. In addition, State textbook funds may be used for software. Federal Chapter

1, Chapter 2, and Title II funds may be used by districts

for technology at local discretion.

In 1987, the Missouri School Boards Association established the Educational Satellite Network (ESN) to provide interactive instructional programming, inservice

education, and other programs. ESN owns and maintains all satellite receiving systems and schools pay for

installation, local maintenance, and program guides. The

State will approve curriculum and programs on the system and the President of the State Board of Education

will serve on the ESN Board of Directors.

Montana

State position/unit: Yes (1981)

State plan: No

Key actors: Chief State School Officer; teacher organizations; parents

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: Federal

Source of funding in most districts: Chapter 2

State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice

(recommended)

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Active support of SDE

in assisting schools and educators

Major changes in past year: All State funding is frozen and local levies cannot pick up slack due to voted

initiative

Barriers: Funding; training; resistance to change

There are no legislative mandates or State funds for

technology in Montana. The Board of Public Education

recommends that all students become computer literate

and SDE provides training and assistance to schools and

districts. Curriculum decisions are made locally and districts decide how to spend State general aid and Federal

funds. Teachers are required to have familiarit y using

technology in instruction at the preservice level. The

Board of Education has begun to study accreditation

standards for schools, and technology is a major concern

for all subject areas.

A National Science Foundation and Title 11 funded

program, Project IMPACT (Integrating Mathematics Programs and Computer Technology) is operated through

the Montana Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the

University of Montana, Montana State University, and

the Montana Office of Public Instruction. Mathematics

teachers in grades 7 to 12 will receive training to integrate technology into instruction during 1988-89.

Nebraska

State position/unit: Yes (1985)

State plan: Yes (1986)

Key actors: Chief State School Officer; Educational

Telecommunications Commission

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: None

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: Mixed

Most important State action: None

Next steps: Do a realistic long-term plan

Major changes in past year: None

Barriers: Funding; politics; vision/understanding

Legislation in 1984 created the Educational Technology Consortium which developed a set of recommendations for instructional technology in Nebraska. No funding was appropriated for implementation, however, and

activity varies depending on local priorities. The State

provides technical assistance and training on a limited

basis.

Nevada

State position/unit: Yes (1985)

State plan: Yes (elementary 1986; secondary 1988)

Key actors: District computer coordinators

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: Preservice/inservice (recommended)

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: For-credit course

paid for by teacher
2 2 2

Most important State action: State funding for technology appropriated in 1985

Major changes in past year: None

Barriers: Continued State funding

In 1985, the legislature appropriated $10 million on a

one-time basis for educational technology; $7 million was

used for K-1 2 program improvement and $3 million was

earmarked for vocational/occupational education. Additional discretionary funds were provided in 1985-86 and

1986-87 for overall program improvement but were not

designated for technology. These State funds and Federal Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 funds are used at local discretion. Some Chapter 2 grants awarded by the State

include a technology component. An elementary course

of study was adopted which includes computer literacy

and use. A secondary course of study with a computer

component is being developed.

The State funded a distance learning pilot project

within one district for 2 years. The project is now funded

locally. There is concern that distance learning efforts

are duplicated and a new task force will develop recommendations regarding educational telecommunications

for the 1989 legislative session.

The State technology consultant provides assistance

and training by request. Training grants are provided

with Title II funds,

New Hampshire

State position/unit: No

State plan: Yes (1986)

Key actors: Business community; legislators; Governor;

State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: State grants for

technology

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Providing 1,950 teachers

with computers for 3 years; interactive videodisc pilot

project

Major changes in past year: Continued and increased

funding for initiatives in place

Barriers: Changes in economy that may restrict

spending

Under a 1985 Governor’s Initiative Program, $5 million was awarded for education of the gifted and talented,

computers for teachers, and technology in the classroom.

An additional $2.5 million was appropriated for educational technology in 1987. With these funds, 1,950

teachers were provided with a computer for 3 years and

offered training and networking assistance. In addition,

grants were awarded to six teachers to develop model

instructional lessons using videodisc. Empirical data was

collected, but it is too early to assess effects on student

outcomes. Other State grants are available for videodisc

hardware, training, model projects, and distance learning. All grants require a training component. Federal

Chapter 2 and Title 11 funds maybe used for technologyrelated activities at local discretion.

New Jersey

State position/unit: Yes (1983)

State plan: Yes (1986)

Key actors: Governor; State Advisory Committee;

Chief State School Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: State

Most important State action: Creation of State technology unit; funding training centers; school improvement project for urban districts; implementing State

plan; developing educational technology network

Next steps: Product development; training on integration of technology into classrooms

Major changes in past year: On a plateau now with

no significant changes in sight

Barriers: Training; quantity of hardware still low in

many districts

A State plan for educational technology was issued by

SDE in 1986. Three regional training centers were established and provide free, ongoing services to educators.

Each center consists of a training laboratory and a software/hardware library. A statewide telecommunications

system, the Educational Technology Network, was created and provides free access to districts that have the

right equipment. Technology is included as part of a comprehensive effort to improve educational services in three

urban districts, called Operation School Renewal (OSR).

Over $1 million supported these three programs in 1986-

87 and $278,000 was provided in 1987-88. Funds for technology are also available through general State aid, Federal special education funding, and a portion of Chapter 1 funds.

A pilot project to transmit software electronically was

implemented in Trenton in 1987 using OSR funds and

vendor contributions. Other districts are expected to

have similar capabilities soon. Three other pilot projects

are looking at any changes in mathematics and writing

skills of eighth grade students due to computer use and

evaluating teachers’ uses of computers. The technology

component of OSR also is being evaluated and reports
223

are pending. SDE has developed and used interactive

videodisc technology and ITV for teacher support and

training.

New Mexico

State position/unit: Yes (1980)45

State plan: No

Key actors: State Advisory Committee

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: State capital outlay funds

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: District; for-credit

course; teacher to teacher

Major changes in past year: State Board of Education

approved guide for computer literacy in grades 1-8

Barriers: Training; research on effects of technology in

instruction and how best to implement what exists in

schools

In 1986, legislation mandated the inclusion of computer

literacy and computer use in the instructional program

for grades four through six, a computer literacy elective

in grades seven through eight, and an elective course in

computer science at the high school level. During 1985-

86, over $1 million was appropriated to help schools purchase hardware and software. The funds were distributed

on a competitive basis. Approximately half of the districts received funds; most received only partial funding

for projects. The State has not provided additional funding for educational technology. Districts typically use

State capital outlay funds for hardware and Federal funding is used for technology at local discretion. School districts provide for their own training needs.

New York

State position/unit: Yes

State plan: Yes (1985)4

”

Key actors: Legislators;

teacher organizations

(1982)

Chief State School Officer;

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: State funds for

technology received by all districts

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: Yes

Most important State action: Creating technology unit

in SDE; plan approved by Regents

‘5A L’omputtvs In Eilucarlon C~mmlctee has been established In the State Department of Education but, Its Influence on State action has been m]ntmal.

+~~~ew. York’$ plan (or educat]onai technology IS strategic, not operatlona[.

Some legdatlon proposed In the plan has been passed.

Next steps: Remove regulatory and funding barriers;

study potential policy barriers

Major changes in past year: A reconsideration of policy issues

Barriers: Regulations and funding mechanisms that

make it difficult to use technology for instruction across

institutional boundaries

The 1983 “Regents Action Plan to Improve Elementary and Secondary Education” required curriculum revisions and the integration of technology into all content areas, and initiated a range of State efforts to support

the use of technology in education. The Center for

Learning Technologies developed a plan of action in 1985

that included research and development (R&D), professional development, instructional materials, telecommunications, and technological integration. State funds support hardware and software purchase, the Technology

Network Program (to link schools electronically), and 91

Teacher Resource and Computer Training Centers.

About $36 million funded technology initiatives in 1986-

87 and $41.2 million in 1987-88. In addition, the State

provides partial funding for cooperative projects, many

of which are technology related. Federal funds are used

by districts and within the guidelines of specific programs,

but specific figures are not available.

A Technology Planning Program for local districts was

developed by the Center for Learning Technologies;

replication is planned if the project is funded again.

Training for educators is available through the Teacher

Resource and Computer Centers.

Several projects targeted to specific populations, including the use of distance learning for rural schools, are also

supported by the State. A proposal to study New York’s

educational policies is under consideration.

North Carolina

State position/unit: Yes (1984)

State plan: Yes (1983) 47

Key actors: Legislators; State Advisory Committee;

Chief State School Officer; district computer coordinators

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: State technology

funds received by all districts

State training policies: Preservice/inservice (recommended)

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: State plan; guidelines;

funding for statewide computer education program

4; North Carollna’s State plan addresses the use of computers in schools
2 2 4

Next steps: Implementation of distance learning by satellite in all districts and 54 small schools

Major changes in past year: Computer legislation and

funding completed; slowdown in growth and training

expected; increased activity in telecommunications

Barriers: Time and funds for local school systems to implement State initiatives and directives

A State plan for computers in education was approved

in 1983 and $28.5 million was appropriated for hardware,

software, maintenance, and staff development over a 3-

Year period (1984-87). The goal of State action was to

provide at least 1 computer for every 50 students for at

least 30 minutes of hands-on use per week. Districts were

required to submit a plan for funds. In addition, Title

11 funds are used for innovative technology projects and

to support the use of technology by underserved students.

During 1986, SDE issued computer competencies for all

students in K-12 and made recommendations on media

center automation and computer facilities.

In 1986-87 a distance learning by satellite pilot project

was undertaken using a Federal Title 11 grant. Following

a positive evaluation, $3 million in State funds was allocated in 1987-88 to implement distance learning by satellite in 54 small, mostly rural high schools.

Three levels of technology competencies for educators

have been defined by the State. A new title and increase

in salary is awarded to teachers who reach an advanced

level of training in technology and wish to take on a supervisory role. During 1985-87,$2 million was allocated

to school districts on a per certified position basis for technology training. The State also appropriates $100 per

teacher for staff development each year.

North Carolina participates in SEED.

North Dakota

State position/unit: No

State plan: Being developed

Key actors: Legislators; Governor; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology (1987-88); Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: For-credit course

paid for by teacher

Most important State action: Appropriating funds for

1987-89

Next steps: Complete State plan; expand funding and

implement plan

Major changes in past year: Reduced enrollment and

financial resources and lack of upper level courses in

certain areas may encourage greater use of technology,

especially in rural schools

Barriers: Funding; attitude of administration; lack of

training

Two pieces of legislation in 1987 provided funds for

educational technology. No State funds were appropriated prior to this action. For 1987-89, a $500,000 appropriation enabled local school districts to purchase

equipment and programming. The State allocated

$100,000 to develop software on North Dakota history

and geography with Broderbund Software and $50,000

for a foreign language distance learning program. Districts may use Chapter 2 funds for hardware. The State

has provided funding to a public television station which

provides some training in the use of instructional technology, primarily ITV. A State plan for technology is

being developed.

Ohio

State position/unit: Yes (1984)

State plan: Being developed

Key actors: State Advisory Committee; Chief State

School Officer; teacher organizations; other professional organizations

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: Chapter 2

State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice

(recommended)

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: Regional centers

Most important State action: Educational Technology

Center; curriculum and planning publications; Classroom of the Future project; annual statewide computer

fair; ITV network which provides services through regional centers

Major changes in past year: Classroom of the Future

projects expected to have a positive effect on State

efforts

Barriers: Funding; unequal funding at local level; questions about extent of State role

The Educational Technology Center was established

in 1984 to disseminate information, provide hardware

and software preview, and offer technical assistance.

Since 1979, the State has also supported the Ohio Education Computer Network, an effort to link all school

districts for administrative purposes. SDE encourages the

use of technology to promote learning skills and has developed guidelines in the area of industrial arts/technology education at the junior high and high school level,

Approximately $4 million in Chapter 2 funds were used

for instructional technology at the local level in 1986-87

and it is expected that a similar amount will be used in

1987-88.

In 1987-88, $200,000 was allocated to one school district to begin development of a curriculum that includes
225

the use of technology. The district, which is working with

local community colleges and businesses, has focused on

training first and is seeking additional funds to continue.

Ohio also has provided some funding (mostly Federal discretionary funds) for the Classroom of the Future, an

effort to develop a model curriculum which includes technology and provides demonstration sites throughout the

State. Recommendations will be produced in the summer of 1988 and additional State funds probably will be

requested to implement demonstration projects,

Ohio requires preservice familiarity with the use of

computers in instruction for certification. Inservice training is primarily the responsibility of districts and the ITV

network. State funds for inservice training are available

through a professional development program and categorical funds from lottery proceeds may be used for technology training. Federal funds are available through Title II and Chapter 2. The State has allocated $150,000

for planning for a Teacher Technology Center.

Oklahoma

State position/unit: Yes

State plan: No

Key actors: Business community; legislators; Chief State

School Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: State grants for

technology to a limited number of schools or districts

State training policies: Preservice (required)48

State funding for technology training: None

Most important State action: Satellite instruction regulations; establishing certificate of endorsement in computer science; State grants for technology

Next steps: Develop State plan

Major changes in past year: Decreased funding for education due to crises in oil and agriculture industries

Barriers: Funding; awareness, understanding, and support of decisionmakers

Since 1983, Oklahoma has funded a competitive technology grant program for school districts for equipment,

software, and for administrative support for instructional

programs. The State appropriated $1,5 million in 1986-

87 and $1.9 million in 1987-88, Additionally, $50,000

was granted to Stillwater Public Schools for a PLATOWICAT Computer Program in 1986-87. Computer science is a recommended elective for students preparing

for admission to Oklahoma colleges and universities and

schools are encouraged to use technology in ways to help

meet the needs of students and faculty. A curriculum

‘hPreservlce courwwork In computer hteracy IS required ]n Oklahoma for earl}

ch]ldhood and elementary certlflcatlon. At the secondarv level, computer-related

courses are required for teachers of business, mathematics, computer science,

and for media/l[brarv specialist certlflcatlon,

guide and recommendations for keyboarding have been

developed.

The State supports a variety of distance learning and

rural education activities: $330,000 for competitive Rural Technology Education Grants for Satellite Instruction in 1986-87 and again in 1987-88; $185,000 for

Telecommunications in Education Grants; and a

$212,000 grant to Oklahoma State University for satellite instruction course development in 1987-88, including a German-by-Satellite course. In 1987, the State

Board of Education adopted regulations governing satellite instruction.

Computer-related courses at the preservice level are required for some teachers. The State provides no funding for training but offers workshops on site and through

the SDE Computer Laboratory. SDE also maintains a

software preview library and provides information and

technical assistance to educators.

Oregon

State position/unit: Yes (1960s)

State plan: No

Key actors: Business community; Chief State School

Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology (1986-87); State education;

Federal

Source of funding in most districts: Chapter 2

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: Yes49

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Providing curriculum materials for video (for over 20 years) and for computers

(over 5 years)

Major changes in past year: Large decrease in State support for technology instructional materials

Barriers: State technology funding has been reduced

each year since 1978

Oregon has supported instructional video since the

1960s. In the early 1980s, State and Federal funds helped

to establish the Oregon Educational Computer Consortium (OECC). With dues from districts, OECC hired

a staff person within SDE. In 1985-86, $25,000 in State

funds was provided to support the Consortium. In 1986-

87, $23,500 was provided to assist in a contract for software. No State funds were provided in 1987-88. General State aid and Federal funding may be used for technology at local discretion. A State plan was drafted but

was not implemented.

Training, software preview, and technical assistance are

provided to districts through OECC. The State also supWoregon Prot,ldes finding for technology training Indirectly through SuPPort

for Oregon Publlc Broadcasting and the Oregon Educational Computer Consortium. Both prowde teacher development activities.
226

ports Oregon Public Broadcasting which provides some

staff development to teachers. Training is coordinated

at the district level.

Pennsylvania

State position/unit: No

State plan: No50

Key actors: Legislators; Governor; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: Chapter 2

State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice

(recommended informally)

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Focusing Chapter 2 funds

on technology; providing funding for training through

regional centers and grants to schools; creating an electronic network; establishing a program to provide for

joint purchase of computers by schools

Next steps: Establishing computer science certification

Major changes in past year: State funding requested

for the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance

Agency, a public corporation, and for the Science

Teacher Education Program

Barriers: Diversity of districts; keeping up with changing technology

State Chapter 2 allocations have been used for competitive grants for technology and for inservice training,

including PENN* LINK, an electronic network that is

planned to link all schools and LIN-TEL, a statewide electronic network for libraries. Districts also use Chapter

2 funds for technology: in 1986-87, 29 percent of local

Chapter 2 funds were used for computer hardware. Federal vocational education, special education, and Title

11 funds are also used for educational technology by the

State and districts. In response to unequal distribution

of computers, the State targeted Chapter 2 funds to rural districts in 1987-88.

Technology training and support services are provided

by 15 Regional Computer Resource Centers (RCRC).

The RCRCs are located at colleges, universities, and intermediate units and are administered by the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA),

a public corporation which receives State funding.

PHEAA also administers technology grants to schools

and districts, in addition to the grants awarded at the

State level. Over $5 million was provided by the State

in 1986-87 and again in 1987-88 for the educational tech5oTh~r~ is ~0 sr~t~ ~l~n for educational technology In Pennsylvania, A ‘ode’

technology utilization plan is being developed for special education and the State

has a 3-year plan to link all schools m the State electronically.

nology programs administered by PHEAA and for other

State initiatives, including a program which provides for

joint purchasing of computers by schools. In 1986, the

legislature approved a line item in the State budget for

a videodisc database of school library holdings. In addition, $27 million in State funds were distributed to districts for 1984-87 to update vocational/technical programs in the State.

The use of computers to support the learning process

is encouraged through the State’s “Goals of Quality Education,” New regulations require that computer science

be offered to all secondary students. Teacher certification in computer science is being considered.

Rhode Island

State position/unit: No

State plan: No

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education

Source of funding in most districts: District; Chapter

1; Title 11

State training policies: None

State funding for technology training: None 51

Way most teachers receive training: Unknown

Major changes in past year: Planning initiative and

considering creating technology centers

Barriers: No State level staff person

A half-unit computer literacy requirement for high

school students was established in 1983. Over a 3-year

period (1983-86), $4 million was appropriated for educational technology: $1 million was allocated for vocational

facilities and $3 million for elementary and secondary

schools. Districts are required to repay 40 percent of the

funds over a 5-year period. The State completed a

$300,000 inservice education program in 1986 which provided training for 5,000-6,000 of the State’s 8,000

teachers. Teachers now may receive inservice training

in technology under the Rhode Island School Staff Institute. A State initiative in educational technology is

in the planning stages,

South Carolina

State position/unit: Yes (1983)5’

State plan: No

Key actors: Legislators; Chief State School Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology

Source of funding in most districts: State grants for

technology

51 Professional development funds may be used for technology tralmng.

5Z1n 19g3 an exl~tlng Offlce of Instructional Telewslon was renamed the Office of Instructional Technology. South Carolina IS revolved m a number of activities relatlng to instructional television.
227

State training policies: Preservice (required for business

education)

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: For-credit course

paid for by teacher

Most important State action: Pathways Project to reduce teacher paperwork; creation of State instructional

technology unit; participation in curriculum mapping

project through SEED53

Major changes in past year: None

Barriers: Need for more hardware and software; insufficient opportunity to preview software; training; questions about relating technology to the curriculum and

teaching

Legislation enacted in 1984 established the Pathways

Project, an effort to reduce teacher paperwork and create an electronic network for administrative uses. The

project received $5.4 million in 1986-87. Approximatel y

$300,000 was provided to districts for computer education courses over the past 3 years. Funds are allocated

to provide at least one course per district and training

is primarily a district responsibility. Inservice computer

courses can be applied to renewal of certification in all

fields.

The State publishes a recommended list of software for

basic skills instruction in language arts, mathematics, and

science, and operates six basic skills software regional laboratories. Staff development programs are broadcast over

the South Carolina Educational Television Network.

South Carolina participates in SEED.

South Dakota

State position/unit: Yes (1982)54

State plan: No

Key actors: State Advisory Committee; Chief State

School Officer; local districts

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District; Chapter 2

State training policies: Preservice/inservice (informally

recommended)

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: Mixed

Most important State action: Creating technology position in SDE; creating statewide consortium

Next steps: Establish a permanent funding base for the

technology consortium

Major changes in past year: None; hope that distance

learning projects will generate more interest

‘+The SEED curriculum mapping project IS in the planning stages. For more

Information, contact the Southeastern Educational Improvement Laboratory,.

‘+A State-le\el educational technology posltlon was created In 1982 in South

Dakota. In 1985, responslblllty for implementation and support was transferred

to a statewtde educational technology consortium (TIE). An asslsrant State superintendent malntalns administrative res~nslbllity for educational technology

Barriers: Funding; local leadership; training

A State position for educational technology was created in 1982 and a 5-year plan (1982-86) was developed.

In 1985, a statewide educational technology consortium

(TIE) was established with State support. TIE is funded

by districts, which may use general State aid and Federal funds for membership or other technology-related

activities.

South Dakota requires a half credit of computer

studies, a hands-on course, for high school graduation.

The development of computer-related skills (keyboarding, CAI, integrated tool software, and programming)

is encouraged at all grade levels.

Three schools were selected by the State for distance

learning pilot sites using the TI-IN Network in 1986.

Tennessee

State position/unit: Yes (1984)

State plan: Yes (1984)

Key actors: Legislators; Governor; State Advisory Committee

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: Federal

Source of finding in most districts: Chapter 2

State training policies: Preservice (required)

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: State

Most important State action: Implementation of Comprehensive Education Reform Act

Major changes in past year: None

Barriers: Availability of additional funding

A mandate requiring computer literacy instruction for

all seventh and eighth grade students was approved in

1983 and one-time funding of $9 million was provided

to districts for hardware. Under the mandate, all students

receive 15 computer literacy lessons in the seventh and

eighth grade. Each instructor received an initial 5 days

of training. Suggested curriculum guides have been developed to encourage the use of technology throughout

the K-6 curriculum and to encourage computer science

at the secondary level.

No State funds currently are available for educational

technology. The State set aside $25,000 in Chapter 2

funds for a technology conference (1986-88) and $10,000

in Title 11 funds for technology in education. Tennessee

continues to train teachers for the required computer

literacy instruction and provides inservice training and

technical assistance to other educators.

Texas

State position/unit: Yes (1983)

State plan: Being developed
228

Key actors: Legislators; State Advisory Committee;

Chief State School Officer; professional associations

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; Federal

Source of funding inmost districts: District

State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice

(recommended)

State funding for technology training: None55

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Computer literacy requirement for seventh or eighth grade and computer

course requirement for advanced high school diploma;

distance learning courses; electronic network

Next steps: Elementary computing guidelines; State

plan; further implementation of distance learning and

electronic network; further research and demonstration

Major changes in past year: State plan being developed

Barriers: No State plan; training; funding (for R&D,

training, and equipment)

Legislation in 1981 requires that all students in Texas

take at least one semester in computer literacy in seventh or eighth grade (beginning in 1985-86). The required

course specifies applications, awareness, and programming. All districts are required to teach computer competencies, including keyboarding, in the elementary

schools beginning in 1987. Guidelines are being developed. Texas also awards an advanced high school diploma

which includes courses in computing.

The State has not funded local implementation efforts,

but has funded several pilot projects with State and Federal dollars. In 1986-87 the State provided on-line expenses to 14 school districts to study their use of electronic communications. Minimal on-line expenses and

money for software were provided to two model districts

to study the potential of a statewide electronic network.

In addition, Chapter 2 discretionary funds were used for

10 pilot districts to study the use of technology for basic

skills instruction in 1986-87 and for 8 more projects in

1987-88.

Preservice teachers are required to take a computer

course or demonstrate proficiency using computers in instruction. The State’s long-term strategy for both preservice and inservice involves moving training for technology into universities and regional centers. Currently, the

State technology unit initiates training efforts, provides

technical and curriculum assistance, and is involved in

long-range planning.

Utah

State position/unit: Yes (1985)

State plan: Being developed

“The State prowdes additional funds to school districts to use In placing

teachers on a career ladder. Technology workshops and courses may be applied

toward credit for the career ladder.

Key actors: Business; legislators; Governor; State Advisory Committee; Chief State School Officer; parents;

State staff

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: State grants that

may be used for technology

State training policies: Preservice/inservice (required)

State funding for technology training: None (pending study)

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State Action: Educational Technology Study conducted in conjunction with IBM

Major changes in past year: Positive–completion and

implementation of study

Barriers: Funding

Core curriculum standards for information technology

are in place in Utah for grades K-12. These standards

may be taught either by “infusing” them into other areas

of the curriculum or in a specific course. An “Application Transfer Study,” conducted in conjunction with

IBM, was completed in 1987. The study assessed the current status of educational technology in Utah and made

recommendations for future directions. No State funding is provided specifically for educational technology,

but a recommendation is pending for the 1988 legislative session. State productivity grants have been used for

technology by local districts. Federal funds are used to

support the Information Technology Demonstration

Center which serves as a clearinghouse for State efforts.

The center also works with regional education service

centers.

Teachers at the preservice and inservice level are required to take technology courses or demonstrate

familiarity using technology in instruction. No State

funds are provided for technology training, but a recommendation is under consideration.

In 1985, the development of a distance learning accelerated pilot project to teach Spanish was funded by the

State with support from IBM and Bonneville International Corp., a private satellite company. The course is

now available to schools in other States.

Vermont

State position/unit: Yes (1987)

State plan: Being developed

Key actors: Legislators; Chief State School Officer;

teachers; parents; superintendents

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: None%

56A pending State plan will recommend that all teachers demonstrate competency In using technology in InstructIon by 1990.
229

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: For-credit course

paid for by teacher

Most important State action: Flexibility at local level

Major changes in past year: Creation opposition in

SDE

Barriers: Funding

Vermont provides no funding for educational technology and only limited technical assistance and support.

Federal funds are used for technology if proposals from

districts include technology. Suggested curriculum guidelines have been developed and the State uses the term

“technology capable” to encourage teachers and students

to use technology as tools.

A technology staff position was established in 1987 and

a State plan is being developed by SDE. The plan will

encourage the implementation of a range of technologies

in the early grades.

Virginia

State position/unit: Yes (1987)57

State plan: Being developed

Key actors: Business community; legislators; Governor;

State Board of Education

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: Unknown

State training policies: Inservice (recommended)

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Governor’s Commission

issued Plan for Action

Next steps: Get legislative support; develop 5-year plan;

implement plan

Major changes in past year: Potential legislation; development of plan; interest of Governor and some legislators

Barriers: Cost and rapid obsolescence of equipment;

awareness of value among top educators; mobilize

teachers to use technology over the long-term; stable

funding commitment

All Virginia high school graduates must demonstrate

computer competency. The State provides a training laboratory, information, and technical assistance to educators. An “electronic classroom, ” offering advanced

courses and Latin instruction to some schools through

the public broadcasting network in Virginia, was established in 1985 to address educational disparities across

the State. A second electronic classroom was implemented in 1987 and half of Virginia schools have been

5;A Department of Media and Technology has offered seri’ices to \’[rglnla

schools for sei’eral years under different departments w]thln the State Department of Education. In August 1987, an Assistant Super] ntencfent for Instruc -

tlonal Technology was hired, mowng the department to dlwslon status.

involved. State costs for the electronic classrooms were

$275,000 in 1986-87 and $600,000 in 1987-88. The State

hopes to implement additional sites and plans to transmit courses using a combination of public television and

satellite technology. No additional State funds are currently provided for educational technology. Federal funds

may be awarded through grants for technology-related

projects. Over $65,000 in Federal funds was approved

for technology-based projects in 1987-88.

The Governor’s Commission on Excellence in Education has issued a plan that includes a section about the

use of technology. An Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Technology was created in 1987 and a State

plan for educational technology is being developed. Over

$20 million has been requested in the legislature for electronic classrooms, an electronic network, and computer

purchases to address disparities in distribution of technology across the State. Training is included in the request. This is the first time a budget of this type has been

proposed in Virginia.

A 2-year demonstration project, funded by t h e

Potomac Edison Co., in cooperation with SDE in 1987,

has 10 networked classrooms for mathematics and science. Proposals for evaluation are being developed. 58

Washington

State position/unit: Yes (1983)

State plan: Being developed

Key actors: Business community; legislators; Chief State

School Officer; teacher organizations

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: Preservice (required)

State funding for technology training: Yes

Way most teachers receive training: Regional centers

Most important State action: Established Educational

Technology Center Program and provided continued

funding

Next steps: Collaboration between education, business,

and industry

Major changes in past year: Telecommunications legislation passed in 1987; anticipated to have major

impact

Barriers: Funding; release time for training; lack of coordination of resources between districts; lack of highquality software; difficulty matching software with student learning objectives

A network of Educational Technology Centers was

established through legislation in 1983. The centers provide inservice classes and workshops, technical assistance,

software/hardware preview, and curriculum development

5flPotomac Edmm IS also suppormng pro)ects In West Vlrglrwa and hlarvlancl.
230

assistance. The program is administered through the Superintendent of Public Instruction and currently has an

operating budget of $2.3 million per year. Staff development grants are also available on a competitive basis t o

school districts. No other State or Federal funds are currently earmarked for technology. State grants for school

improvement and research were used for some

technology-related projects from 1985-87, but this program was not refunded. Federal Chapter 1 and Chapter

2 may be used for technology by local districts.

Preservice teachers are required to have familiarity with

technology use in instruction, and high schools are required to offer computer-related courses. The State does

not evaluate software, but has developed suggested curriculum guidelines to help educators match software to

defined student outcomes.

An act passed in 1987 required SDE and the Higher

Education Coordinating Board to develop a plan for a

statewide telecommunications network. The plan will be

submitted by the 1989 session. A separate proposal was

submitted to the legislature which requested over $2 million for a number of initiatives, including technology

project development, more staff for the Educational

Technology Centers, grants for demonstration sites, and

dissemination of information. The proposal was initiated

through a cooperative effort between educators; business

and industry, and the State superintendent.

West Virginia

State position/unit: Yes (1984)

State plan: No

Key actors: Business community; legislators; State Advisory Committee; SDE

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State technology;59 State education;

Federal

Source of funding in most districts: State grants that

may be used for technology

State training policies: Preservice (required for certain

areas); inservice (recommended)

State funding for technology training: None 60

Way most teachers receive training: State

Most important State action: Providing some direction

and funding

Next steps: Implement more laboratories and evaluate

the use and place of technology within the curriculum;

support development and use of instructional management software

Major changes in past year: Two studies being conducted by commissions on finance and education

which may lead to more funding

“)State funchng for technology IS pending for 1987-88.

“Professional development funds may be used for technology tralmng.

Barriers: Funding; training; time to implement

Following a plan formulated in 1982-83, a statewide

electronic network was installed in local school districts

in 1984. The project was supported by the State with

assistance from the Appalachian Regional Commission

and the Federal Job Training Partnership Act. Computer

laboratories were first implemented in high schools and

are now being put into junior high schools. Training is

provided at schools, through summer institutes, and occasionally via the electronic network. Originally intended for administrative and teacher use, the laboratories are now also used for instruction. In 1986-87,

$200,000 was provided for laboratories and to cover the

operational costs for toll-free access to the network by

schools. Funding for 1987-88 is uncertain due to State

budget cuts. School districts ma y also use grants for

professional development, general State aid, and Federal

funds for technology-related activities.

The State is evaluating distance learning projects to

assess costs and educational outcomes.

Statewide learning outcomes for specific curriculum

areas have been developed. Proficiency using technology

to solve problems and enhance job skills is included in

the learning outcomes for vocational education (word

processing, spreadsheets, database management, and

telecommunications). A 6-week pilot project supported

jointly by the State, the U.S. Department of Labor, and

IBM used computers and hands-on activities to provide

practice in basic skills, career exploration, and improve

students’ attitudes toward school.

Wisconsin

State position/unit: Yes (1983)

State plan: Yes (1987)

Key actors: Legislators; State Advisory Committee;

Chief State School Officer

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District

State Training Policies: Preservice (required); inservice

(recommended)

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: Regional centers

Most important State action: Establishing State educational standards; publishing series of curriculum guides

Next steps: Assist districts in planning and implementation; continued staff development

Major changes in past year: New standards have increased interest in using technology for instruction

Barriers: Reluctance to change and “fear” of technology; funding; local priorities and understanding

Reform legislation passed in 1986 resulted in State

standards for curriculum and professional development.
231

A series of curriculum guides were published requiring

changes in both the content and delivery of instruction.

Technology is seen as an important component of school

improvement and the State encourages local districts to

integrate technology into the new curriculum. Local

school boards are required to develop curriculum plans

that specify objectives, course content, resources, and

assessment. No State funds are provided specifically for

technology or technology training. However, Wisconsin

provides half of the funding for education statewide

which may be used for technology at local discretion.

Twelve regional agencies, forming the Wisconsin Instructional Computing Consortium, provide educational

technology services to members (such as training and

technical assistance). State staff provide leadership and

consultation to the regional units and districts. The State

recognizes a need for additional training to integrate technology more fully into the curriculum. Beginning in 1988,

the State will work with districts that are not complying

with State standards, including those that are not using

technology.

Wyoming

State position/unit: Yes (1985)

State plan: No

Key actors: District curriculum committees

Funds available through the State for technology

activities: State education; Federal

Source of funding in most districts: District

State training policies: Preservice (required); inservice

(recommended)

State funding for technology training: None

Way most teachers receive training: District

Most important State action: Technology position in

SDE; center to provide software preview/evaluation

Major changes in past year: Oil prices have negatively

affected school funds

Barriers: Isolation/small size of most schools in State;

questions about how to encourage teachers to incorporate technology in instruction, especially in high

schools

Almost all State funding for education in Wyoming

goes directly to districts. Chapter 2 is used heavily by

districts for technology, but districts are discouraged from

using Chapter 1 funds for technology because it is difficult to monitor use. Districts are encouraged to develop

their own plans for educational technology and a State

consultant is available to offer assistance. The State maintains the Center for Educational Technology, where software is available for preview. The center also publishes

software reviews. Preservice teachers are required to demonstrate familiarity using technology in instruction. A

State policy on distance learning was recently adopted

and a project is expected to be implemented in one district in 1988-89.
Appendix B

Characteristics Considered

in Evaluating Educational Software1

Instructional Quality

General

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Program is useful in a school-based, instructional setting (i.e., in a classroom, computer laboratory, media center, or school library).

Program avoids potentially controversial, nonstandard teaching methodologies.

Program allows completion of a lesson in one class

period (approximately 30 minutes).

Instruction is integrated with previous student experience.

Program is likely to save time for the student when

compared to other means of presenting this topic.

Program is likely to save time for the teacher when

compared to other means of presenting this topic.

An on-disk tutorial concerning the program’s command structure is provided when appropriate (e.g.,

for a word processing program).

Content

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Content is appropriate for intended student population.

Content is accurate.

Content is current.

Content breadth is reasonable (does not focus on

too few or too many different concepts or content

topics within one session).

The processes and information learned are useful in

domains other than the subject area of the program.

Content is free of grammar, spelling, punctuation,

and usage errors.

Content is free of any bias or stereotyping.

Content supports the school curriculum.

Content is relevant to the subject field.

Definitions are provided when necessary.

There is continuity between the information presented and prerequisite skills required.

!Bawd on ,tem$ “~ed by ~~ ~ubllc ~r,vate, and g~vernmen[al software eValUatmn agencies, and addltmnal ~tems ccmxdered Important by selected teachers,

software publishers, unii’erslty professors, and private consultants. Many of the

educational software experts consulted In the compdlng of this list felt that sub]ectspeclflc and population-speclflc characteristics would have to be considered for

a thorough evaluation. See Ellen Blalo and Jay Swm, “An Analysls of the Scope

and Quallty of the Current Supply of Educational Software and of the Available Sources of [nformatlon on EduLatmna[ Software, ” ~TA contract report,

Sept. 30, 1987.

232

● Content avoids taking a side on potentially controversial moral or social issues.

• There is a need for better than the standard treatment of this topic in the curriculum.

Appropriateness

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Application is well suited to computer use.

The pedagogic approach used is superior to what is

available elsewhere.

Readability level is appropriate for the intended student population.

Tone of address is appropriate for the intended student population.

The means of response (e.g., single keystroke, manipulating graphics) is appropriate to the intended

student population.

Prerequisite skills required are appropriate for the

intended student population.

Time required for use by a typical student does not

exceed the attention span of that student.

Multiple levels of instruction are available.

Difficulty levels are based on discernible logic (e.g.,

reading ability, complexity of problems).

Sufficient exposure and practice are provided to master skills.

Sufficient information is presented for intended

learning to occur.

Questioning Techniques

● Questions are appropriate to the content and effectivel y measure student mastery of the content.

● Questions incorrectly answered can be repeated later

in the lesson/exercise.

• The number of trials are reasonable and appropriate (e.g., student receives the correct answer after

no more than three or four trials, and after at least

two trials).

Ž Calculation can be accomplished easily on-screen

when appropriate.

Approach/Motivation

Approach is appropriate for the intended student

population.

Format is varied.
233

● Overall tenor of interaction is helpful. Feedback

● Student is an active participant in the learning

process.

Evaluator’s Field Test Results

●

●

●

●

●

●

Student understands the on-screen presentation, and

can proceed without confusion or frustration.

Student enjoys using the program.

Student retains a positive attitude about using the

program.

Student retains the desire to use the program again,

or to pursue the topic in other ways.

Program involves students in competition in a positive way.

Program fosters cooperation among students.

Creativity

Program challenges and stimulates creativity.

Pedagogy is innovative.

Program allows the student as many decisions as

possible.

Program provides opportunities to answer openended questions and provides evaluative criteria to

assess responses.

Program demonstrates a creative way of using

knowledge.

Program challenges the student to alter an underlying model, or design an alternative model.

Learner Control

● Learner can alter program sequence and pace.

● Learner can review instructions and previous frames.

● Learner can end activity any time and return to

main menu.

● Learner can enter program at different points.

● Learner can stop in the midst of an activity, and at

a later session begin at that stopping point with the

previous record of progress intact.

● Help is available at likely points of need.

Learning Objectives, Goals, and

Outcomes

●

●

●

Learner objectives are stated and purpose is well

defined.

Steps are taken to make learning generalizable to

other situations.

For programs requiring use over several days, learning outcomes are worth the time invested.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Feedback is positive.

Feedback is appropriate to the intended student population and does not threaten or inadvertently reward incorrect responses.

Feedback is relevant to student responses.

Feedback is timely.

Feedback is informative.

Feedback is corrective when appropriate.

Feedback remediates and/or explains when appropriate.

Feedback employs a variety of responses to student

input, and avoids being boring or unnecessaril y

detailed.

Feedback remains on the screen for an appropriate

amount of time.

Branching is used effectively to remediate.

Program uses branching to automatically adjust difficulty levels or sequence according to student performance.

Simulations

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Simulation model is valid and neither too complex

nor too simple for intended student population.

Variables used in the simulation are the most

relevant.

Variables in the simulation interact and produce results approximately as they would in real life.

Assumptions are adequately identified.

Program simulates activities that can be too difficult,

dangerous, or expensive to demonstrate in reality.

The time needed to complete both a step and the

entire simulation is reasonable and effective.

Encourages decisionmaking or calculation rather

than guessing.

Teacher Modifiability

● Teacher can easily change or add content.

● Teacher can easily regulate parameters (e. g., number of problems, rate of presentation, percentage correct needed for mastery) for each class using the

program,

● Teacher can easily regulate parameters (e. g., number of problems, rate of presentation, percentage correct needed for mastery) for each student.

• Parameter set-ups can be bypassed (e. g., default settings are available).
234

Evaluation and Recordkeeping

Program provides an adequate means of evaluating

student mastery of the content.

If tests are included, criteria for success are appropriate for the ability/skills of the intended student

population.

[f tests are included, content accurately reflects the

material presented.

Scorekeeping and performance reports are provided

for the student when appropriate (e.g., summary of

problems correct/number attempted, running point

totals).

Useful information about student performance is

stored for future retrieval.

Useful diagnostic pre-test or placement test is provided, where appropriate.

Useful diagnostic or prescriptive analysis of student

performance is available to the teacher, when appropriate.

Student performance information is easily accessible to the teacher.

Management system includes adequate security.

Program allows printout and screen display of student records.

Program can hold multiple performance records of

a single class (e.g., 35 to 50 students).

Program can hold multiple performance records of

several classes (e.g., up to 5 classes) arranged by class.

Documentation and Support Materials

Quality of packaging is durable and appropriate for

student use (e.g., not too large to be used at a computer station).

Student, parent, or teacher guides and materials are

clearly identified as such.

Technical and operational explanations for implementation are clear and complete.

If appropriate, “quick start-up” section is included.

Useful reproducible student worksheets are provided.

Other valuable support materials are provided (e.g.,

wall charts).

Sample screen-by-screen printouts of the program

are provided.

Teacher support materials can be separated from student materials.

Useful suggestions are provided for introductory

classroom activities.

Useful suggestions are provided for classroom activities during the use of the program, where necessary

or helpful.

Useful suggestions are provided for followup activities.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Useful suggestions are given for classroom logistics

in a variety of hardware situations (e.g., single or

multiple machines) and student groupings.

Useful suggestions are provided on how to integrate

program with the regular curriculum.

If the program is open-ended, subject-specific suggestions are included.

Clear explanations of the differences between the

various difficulty levels are provided.

Prerequisite skills are clearly stated.

Accurate and clear description of instructional activities are provided.

Accurate and clear descriptions of content topics are

provided.

Where appropriate, a description of how material

correlates to standard textbook series is provided.

Necessary information can be found quickly and easily (e.g., contains index, table of contents).

Quick reference card for program use is included,

where appropriate.

Printed text is clear and readable.

Printed graphics are clear and readable.

Printed text is free of errors in spelling, grammar,

punctuation, and usage.

Technical Quality

General

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Audio can be adjusted (i.e., turned down or off).

Audio is clear and used effectively.

Character sets used in text display are clear, appropriate, and visually interesting.

Graphics are acceptable on a monochrome monitor.

Graphics are clear and can be easily interpreted.

Program is “crash-proof.”

Program runs consistently under all normal conditions and is “bug-free.”

Program runs without undue delays (e.g., graphics

fill in a timely manner, does not excessively access

disc drive).

The transitions between screen display are effective

(e.g., text changes).

Program guards against multiple key presses advancing the student past the next screen (e. g., leaning

on return key and thereby missing several screens

as they flash by).

Program avoids unnecessary or inappropriate moving back and forth between screens (e.g., from page

to feedback or data pages).

Special features (e.g., flash, inverse, scrolling, split

screen) are used appropriately and effectively.

Program requires a minimal amount of typing (except typing programs).
235

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Random generation or selection is used when appropriate (e.g., to allow repeated use by varying the

problems or data presented).

Program judges responses accurately and accounts

for minor variations in the format of the input (e.g.,

accepts either the correct word or letter choice in

a multiple choice item).

Program allows user to correct answer before being

accepted by the program.

Program accepts partial answers as correct whenever

appropriate.

Where students must input responses, inappropriate keys are disabled.

Control keys are used consistently.

Students require a minimum amount of teacher

supervision while using the program, when appropriate.

Computer (and peripherals) operation does not interfere with concentration on activity.

Program makes effective use of peripheral devices

(e.g., joysticks) for alternate input modes while still

allowing keyboard input.

Program considers a previously unexplored potential of the computer or greatly expands an existing

capabilit y (e.g., new animation techniques, digitized

speech).

Program uses other technologies (e.g., audio cassette,

videodisc, videotape) to enhance learning, when

appropriate.

Printing is easy and simple to accomplish with a variety of popular printers.

Clarity

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Procedural and instructional statements are clear.

On-screen prompts clearly indicate where user

should focus attention.

Frame formatting is clear, uncluttered, and consistent from screen to screen (e. g., screen input is restricted to a consistent location),

Presentation of each discrete content topic is logical.

Sequence of content topics and instruction is logical and in appropriate steps.

Sequence of menu items is logical.

Prompts and cues are clear and consistently and logically applied.

Hints are clear and not misleading (e.g., length of

spaces in fill-in blanks matches number of letters

needed).

Demonstrations and examples are clear and available when appropriate.

Interface is simple enough to be used with little or

no reading of the documentation.

●

●

●

Program makes clear where the user is in the program (e.g., question number, page headings).

User-computer communication is consistent and

logical.

Prompts to save work are given when appropriate.

Start-up and Implementation

●

●

●

●

●

Teacher:

Software code modifications or unusual manipulations of discs are not required to use program effectively.

Start-up time for teacher implementation is not excessive.

Teacher needs a minimum of computer competencies to operate program (e. g., does not require installing add-on boards).

Student:

Start-up time for student implementation is brief

enough to permit completion of a lesson.

Students need a minimum of computer competencies to operate program (e.g., does not require use

of control-key combinations).

Graphics and Audio

● Graphics and audio are used to motivate.

● Graphics and audio are appropriate for the intended

student population.

● Graphics, audio, and color enhance the instructional

process.

Ž Graphics help focus attention to appropriate content and are not distracting.

Probeware and Peripherals Included

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

in the Software Package

Probes or peripherals are durable.

Probes or peripherals are sensitive.

Audio and/or graphic quality are effective.

Probes or peripherals are easy to install.

Calibration is accurate and easy.

Data displays are flexible (e.g., can be scaled,

redrawn).

Data analysis is useful.

Hardware and Marketing Issues

Potential usefulness of the program justifies its price

in comparison to other similar products.

Peripherals (not included in the package) that are

difficult to acquire or inappropriately expensive are

not required.

Producer field test data are available.
236

● Field test data indicate that students learned more ● Telephone support is available.

or better, or had a better attitude toward the sub- . If allowable, multiple loading is possible.

ject matter, as a result of using the program. ● Site license is available.

• Preview copies are available. ● Network versions are available.

● Back-up copies are provided. ● Multiple copies discount available.

● Adequate warranty is provided.
Appendix C

U.S. Department of Education

Principal Programs Providing Funds

for Technology in Education

Funding for educational technology is available through various programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education. In a few cases, funds are appropriated specifically for educational technology. Other

funds are obligated for technology projects through existing program areas. And some funds are used for technolog y activities by recipients of grants and awards that are not designated specifically for educational technology (e.g., grants to States, districts, educational research laboratories and centers). Federal block grants and

other grants to States and school districts, such as those for compensatory education for the disadvantaged,

mathematics and science education, bilingual education, special education, vocational and adult education, and

teacher training, support use of technology at the discretion of States and school districts. Under some programs, grants are awarded and budget decisions are made based on priorities of the Secretary of Education

and department administrators.

The following table provides an estimate of levels of funding and support for educational technology within

programs administered by the Department of Education. 1 Because funding for educational technology is not

closely monitored and data on local use of Federal grants is limited, most figures are estimated. Where Federal

grants to States, districts, schools, or individuals are sources of funding for technology and may be used for

technology at local discretion, total appropriations are given (e.g., Chapter 2 block grants, magnet schools assistance), A question mark (?) indicates that OTA was not able to estimate the amount of funding for technology.

Since outlays for technology are often not known until several years after the original appropriation, most

figures are estimates of obligations or expenditures for educational technology for the designated fiscal year.

The figures for fiscal year 1989 are department appropriation requests or program estimates based on pending

legislation and awards.

1988 Technolog y

Appropriation Estimate

(in millions)

101.20 ? 13.10 ?

(mnonued’ on next page)

Ahbrevlatmns: OB = Obligation; EO = Esnrnated Obhgatlon

IThls table M based on re;lew of budget documents, Ilst; of grants and awards, publlshed research and documents, conversarlons with program staff at the U.S.

Department O( Education, and estimates provided bv various programs In the Department of Education.

~Flgures are appropriations or budget requests as lndlcated unless otherwuse noted.

‘OTA estimates based on a study flndlng 30 percent of all local Chapter 2 expenditures In the 1984-85 school year were used for technology-related actlt,ltles. SRI

international and Policy Studies Associates, “The Educational Block Grant at the Local Level: The Implementation of Chapter 2 of the Ecfucatlon Consolldatlon

and Improvement Act in Districts and Schools,” prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, January 1986, p. 45.

“Stxcn projects were funded In 1987 and several are In their final year. OTA estimates that awards for technology-related projects wdl decrease in 1989,

‘Educatmnal te~hnology could be a pr[orlty area but currently is not. Prlorioes for 1989 Include teacher cert]flcatlon and recruitment and early childhood education,

~Of the 628 grants awarded ro dlsrrlcts in 198?, 228 (or 36 percent) Included a te~ hnology component.

237
238

1987 Technology

Appropriation Estimate

(in millions)

Education for Economic Security Act:

Title 117–Mathematics and

Science Programs

State Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Secretary’s Discretionary Fund:

Technology Competition . . . . . . . . . .

Mathematics, Science and

Critical Foreign Language

Competitions s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Educational TV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Title VII–Magnet Schools Assistance . . .

Continuing Resolution–1987

Star Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Small Business Innovation

Research ll 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Higher Education Act:

Title V-C–Leadership in

Educational Administration . . . . . . .

Title V-D–Christa McAuliffe

Fellowships for Outstanding

Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fund for the Improvement of

Post-Secondary Education . . . . . . . . .

Education for the Handicapped Act:

State Grants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Special Purpose Programs:

Technology for Special

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Early Childhood Education . . . . . . .

Media and Captioning

Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Personnel Development . . . . . . . . . . .

Vocational Education Act (Perkins Act):

Title II–State Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vocational Education Research

Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

High Technology

Demonstrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Job Skills Education Program . . . . . . . .

72.80

0

3.70

3.25

75.00

0

1.70

7.20

2.00

12.20

1,568.00

4.67

24.50

13.80

67.70

802.90

6.00

0

0

?

o

0.53 (OB)

3.25 (OB)

?

o

1.70 (OB)

?

?

?

1 2

?

4.67

0

13.80

2.29 (OB)

?

0.19 (EO)

o

0

1988 Technology

Appropriation Estimate

(in millions)

108.90

1.00

6.60

2.25

71.80

19.10

1.70

8.20

1.90

11.60

1,699.80

4.79

23.40

13.20

66.40

791.80

6.00

9.60

0.13

?

1.00 (EO)

0.97 (EO)

2.25 9 (EO)

?

19.10

1.70 (EO)

?

?

?

?

4.79

0

13.20

1.81 (EO)

o

?

9.60 (EO)

0.13 (EO)

1989 Technology

Request Estimate

(in millions)

108.90

?

?

?

115.00

0

1.70

4.40

1,90

13.60

1747.70

4.79

23.40

13.20

66.40

835.20

6.00

9.60

?

?

?

??

o

1.70 (EO)

?

?

?

?

4.79

0.30 (EO)

13.20

1.2? (EO)

?

?

9.60 (EO)

~The Elementary and Secondarv School Improvement Amendments of 1988 (Public Law 100-297) revises Title 11, authorizes a new protzram for forewm lanstua~e

education, and ehminates the restriction on the use of Title 11 funds for computer education only after mathematics and science needs have been met. Now, in addition

.- - -

to using Title 11 funds for preservice training, mservice training, teacher retraining, and mlnorlty recruitment, Local Education Agencies (LEAs) may use Title 11 funds

for teacher training In technology as part of a mathematics and science program. LEAs may also use Tide 11 funds to purchase computers and other telecommunications

equipment and to provide grants to individual teachers for Innovative projects in mathematics and science. In addition, States may use their share of Title 11 funds

for demonstrations and exemplary programs for instructional materials and equipment in mathematics and science, as well as to provide technical assistance.

Grants for programs of national significance in mathematics, science, computer education, and critical foreign languages are also appropriated under Title IL The

new law gives the Secretary of Educanon discretion to award grants to support foreign language education separately and focuses the programs of national significance

on mathematics and science. Budget figures reflect Title 11 as originally enacted.

The Department of Education estimates that 18 to 20 percent of funds for field-initiated competition and 10 percent of funds for critical foreign language are used

for app[icat;ons of technology.

‘7ncludes $1 million for Square One TV, currently under review.

I(NO data on the percent of magnet Schm[ funds ~s,ed for technology is available, although a recent OTA estimate Suggests that 25 percent IS used for mathematics

and science magnet schools. Technology could be a component in these and other magnet school programs. See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Educat~ng %~enrists and Engineers: Grade .SChod to Grad School, OTA-SET-377 (Washington, DC: LJ.s. Government priming Office, June 1988).

I IFundlng is based on a percentage of the U.S. Department of Education’s external research budget.

I?some aw,ard5 Supwrt Currlcu[um development and teacher training activities that could be applied to elementary and secondary education. While educational

technology was one of the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education’s (FIPSE) priorines from 1981 to 1985, it is no longer a priority area. Of 176 new

and connnulng projects funded by FJ.PSE in 1987, 41 (23 percent) revolved technology.
239

1987 Technology

Appropriation Estimate

(in millions)

o

Adult Education Act:

Grants to States . . . . . . . . 106.00 ?

State Grants to Local

Education Agencies 13 

. . . . . . . . 2.86

State Discretionary Grants 13 

. . . . . . 1.51

Field Initiated Research . . . . . . . 0

Office of Educational Research and Improvement:

Field Initiated Research . . . . . . . . . 0.60 0.06 (OB)

National Research and

Development Center s

1 4

. . . . 17.50

All Centers excluding

Educational Technology

Center 15 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 (EO)

Educational Technology

Center . . . . . . . . . .

Regional Educational

Laboratories . 17.00 1.8

Technology Conference and

“What Works” . . 0

Educational Resources

Information Network

2.00

(EO)

o

(ERIC) 17 . . . . 5.70 0.29 (OB)

Center for Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.10 ?

1988 Technology

Appropriation Estimate

(in millions)

115.40

1.90

0.50

17.50

17.00

0

5.70

13.40

?

3.11

1.65

0.90-1.25 (EO)

1.00 (EO)

0.90 (EO)

1,23 (EO)

o

0.30

?

1989 Technology

Request Estimate

(in millions)

148.20 ?

3.99

2.11

2.00 .90-1 .25 (EO)

1.00 (EO)

17.5016

17.00

0.10

5.70

1.00

.00 (EO)

.15 (EO)

0.10

20.00 ?

1‘A minimum ,,f 10 percent of the grants aw arcled to States must be set awie for tralnlng, research, demonstration, and evaluation. The remaln]ng State ~rant

goe to LEAs, p(lw-secondarv Instltutlons, and commumtv organizations.

IJThe au,ard for the Educ atlonal Te ch n ol o g y}, Center IS Included In the total center ap~r~prlatlon of $17.5 mllllon.

I fE~tlmate, ~ ere pro~,)de, b}. [he research ~enter~ ~rld the cl ,S, Department of Education, Amounts do not reflect other research In ]earnlng that mav relate t{>

the use of tec hm]logy In the future.

]hTl~,(, ~eu ~ enter~ are ~)ropo~ed” in the secretar~.’~ 1999 budget, One center WII1 stud}, the needs of at-risk students. A second smaller center VIII ~tudv a range

of educ attonal I<\ues ]n~ludl ng the teac hlng and Icarnlng of CIVICS and cltuenshlp, exam] nation< and assessment of educ atron reform lnltlatl~es, research Into student

motli arlorr, and studies of costs and productliltv i n education.

] ‘~~nt. ,lf the ] ~ ERIC c[earlnghc)uw~ fcx u~e< (In ~~ucatlclna[ technc)[og},, It [s ba~ed at S},racuw ~lnl~,er~rt}. and Its budget IS reflectedInthe technologyestlmare ~olumn.
Appendix D

List of Acronyms

ACOT —Apple Classroom of Tomorrow

AI —artificial intelligence

ASCII –American Standard Code for Information

Interchange

ASSET –Arizona School Services Through Educational Technology Project

AT&T –American Telephone and Telegraph

C A D —computer-aided design

C AI —computer-assisted instruction

C-AIM —computer-assisted instructional management

C A M —computer-aided manufacture

ccc –Computer Curriculum Corp.

CCSSO –Council of Chief State School Officers

CD-I —compact disc interactive

CD-ROM–compact disc-read only memory

CD-V —compact disc video

C D C –Computer Data Corp.

C MI —computer-managed instruction

CTBS –Canadian Test of Basic Skills

DISE —Development in Science Education

DVI —digital video interactive

ECIA —Education Consolidation and Improvement

Act

EESA –Education for Economic Security Act

EPIE –Educational Products Information Exchange

ERIC –Educational Resources Information Center

ESAA –Emergency School Aid Act

ESC –Education Service Center

ESC –Education Systems Corp.

ESOL –English for Speakers of Other Languages

fax —facsimile transmission

HOTS —Higher Order Thinking Skills Program

ICAI —intelligent computer-assisted instruction

ILS —integrated learning system

IMPAC –Instructional Microcomputer Project for Arkansas Classrooms

ISDN –Integrated Services Digital Network

ITV —instructional television

JTPA –Job Training Partnership Act

K

LAN

LD

LRDC

MBLs

MECC

METN

NCTI

NIE

O C A

OECC

OERI

OSR

PHEAA

PROM

PTA

PTO

R & D

R AM

RCRC

RISE

R O M

SAGE

SBIR

SDE

SEE

SEED

SES

T EC

T EC

TERC.

TIC

V C R

W A N

–kilobyte

–local area network

–learning disabled

–Learning Research and Development Center

—microcomputer-based laboratories

–Minnesota Educational Computing Corp.

–Maryland Education Technology Network

–National Computer Training Institute

—National Institute of Education

—Office of Computing Activities

–Oregon Educational Computer Consortium

–Office of Educational Research and Improvement

–Operation School Renewal

–Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance

Agency

—programmable read only memory

—Parent-Teacher Association

—Parent-Teacher Organization

—research and development

—random access memory

—Regional Computer Resource Centers

–Research in Science Education

—read only memory

–Semi-Automatic Ground Environment for

Air Defense System

–Small Business Innovation Research

–State Department of Education

–Science and Engineering Education

—Software Evaluation Exchange Dissemination

Project

—socioeconomic status

—Technology Education Center

—Teacher Education and Computer Center

–Technical Education Research Centers

—Technology in the Curriculum Projects

—videocassette recorder

—wide area network

240
Appendix E

Contractor Reports

Copies of contractor reports done for this project are

available through the U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4650.

1. “An Analysis of the Scope and Quality of the Current Supply of Educational Software, and of the

Available Sources of Information on Educational

Software,” Ellen R. Bialo and Jay P. Sivin, Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc. (NTIS order

number PB 88-194 667/AS)

2. “Support for Educational Technology R&D: The

Federal Role,” Charles Blaschke, Beverly Hunter, and

Andrew Zucker, Educational Turnkey Systems, Inc.

(NTIS order number PB 88-194 626/AS)

3. “Influences on Development and Innovation in Educational Technology, ” Dean Brown, Ted M. Kahn,

and Marvin M. Zauderer, Picodyne Corp. (NTIS order number PB 88-194 642/AS)

4. “Computers and Learning: Do They Work? A Review of Research, ” Joanne Capper, Center for Research Into Practice (NTIS order number PB 88-194

683/AS)

5. “Computer Networks in Elementary and Secondary

Education,” Earl Dowdy, University of Illinois, Urbana

(NTIS order number PB 88-194 675/AS)

6. “A Review of the Status of Technology Training for

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Teachers,” Allen D. Glenn and Carol A. Carrier

(NTIS order number PB 88-194 766)

“Mechanisms for Facilitating a Vital and Dynamic

Education System: Fundamental Roles for Education

Science and Technology,” Roy D. Pea and Elliot

Soloway, Cognitive Systems, Inc. (NTIS order number PB 88-194 634/AS)

“Educational Technology: Information Networks,

Markets and Innovation,” W. Curtiss Priest, Center

for Information Technology and Society (NTIS order number PB 88-292 836/AS)

“Assessing Cost-Effectiveness of Computer-Based

Technology in Public Elementary and Secondary

Schools,” David Stern and Guy Cox, University o f

California, Berkeley (NTIS order number PB 88-194

659/AS)

“Alternative Approaches to Developing a Cadre of

“Teacher Technologists,” J.H. Strange, S.A. Tucker,

G.E. Uhlig, and P. Feldman, Acadia Educational Enterprises, Inc. (NTIS order number PB 88-194

774/AS)

“How Technology Affects Teaching,” Martha Stone

Wiske and Philip Zodhiates, Harvard University,

Educational Technology Center (NTIS order number PB 88-202 622/AS)

241
Appendix F

Workshop Participants and

Reviewers and Contributors

Cost-Effectiveness of Educational Technology Workshop, Dec. 9, 1986

Henry Becker

The Johns Hopkins University

Baltimore, MD

Edward Cavin

Center for Naval Analyses

Alexandria, VA

Richard Clark

University of Southern California

Los Angeles, CA

Sheila Cory

Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools

Chapel Hill, NC

James Kulik

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI

David Cohen, Workshop Chairman

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI

Henry Levin

Stanford University

Stanford, CA

Cecil McDermott

Instructional Microcomputer Project

in Arkansas Classrooms

Arkansas Department of Education

Little Rock, AR

Stanley Pogrow

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

W. Curtiss Priest

Center for information Technology

and Society

Lexington, MA

David Stern

University of California, Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

Herbert Walberg

University of Illinois

Chicago, IL

The Educational Software Market Workshop, Aug. 6, 1987

Marc Tucker, Workshop Chairman

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy

Washington, DC

Ellen Bialo Kathleen Hurley W. Curtiss Priest

interactive Educational Systems Mindscape, Inc. Center for Information Technology

Design, Inc. Northbrook, IL and Society

New York, NY Dwight Johnson

Lexington, MA

William Gattis The Home School Paul Reese

Radio Shack Education Division San Diego, C A Ralph Bunche Elementary School

Tandy Corp.

Walter Koetke

New York, NY

Wendy Harris Scholastic, Inc. Allan L. Rogers

Department of Education New York, NY San Diego County Office of

State of California

Howard Merriman

Education

Sacramento, CA

Columbus Public Schools

San Diego, CA

Brian Hawkins Columbus, OH Judy Salpeter

Brown University

Charles Philipp Classroom Computer Learning

Providence, RI

Montgomery County Public Schools

San Rafael, CA

Rockville, MD

242
243

Jay Sivin Julie Vargas Anne Wujcik

Interactive Educational System West Virginia University TALMIS, Inc.

Design, Inc. Morgantown, WV New York, NY

New York, NY Judy Wilson

Tom Snyder Microcomputer Information

Tom Snyder Productions Coordination Center

Cambridge, MA Kansas City, KS

Economics of Educational Software Workshop, Sept. 14, 1987

Richard Murnane, Workshop Chairman

Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

John Kasdan Ian Novos W. Curtiss Priest

Columbia University Universit y of Southern California Center for Information Technology

New York, NY Los Angeles, CA and Society

Lexington, MA

The Teacher and Technology Workshop, Sept. 29, 1987

Karen Sheingold, Workshop Chair

Bank Street College of Education, New York, NY

Barbara Bayha

Stevens Creek Elementary School

Cupertino, CA

Jennifer Better

Hewlett Packard

Palo Alto, CA

Gary Bitter

Arizona State University

Tempe, AZ

Rosemary Bradbury

Columbus School

Bridgeport, CT

Bill Davey

Closing the Gap

Henderson, MN

Allen Glenn

University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, MN

Herbert Kehrl

Patrick Henry Middle School

Woodhaven, MI

Robert Pearlman

Boston Latin High School

Cambridge, MA

Don Rawitsch

Minnesota Educational Computer

Corp.

St. Paul, MN

Nancy Roberts

Lesley College

Cambridge, MA

Kjell-Jon Rye

Bellevue High School

Bellevue, W-A

Stanley Silverman

New York Institute

Central Islip, NY

John H. Strange

Acadia Educational

Boston, MA

of Technology

Enterprises

Patricia Sturdivant

Houston Independent School

District

Houston, TX

Sue Talley

Apple Computer, Inc.

Cupertino, CA

Susan Tucker

George Mason University

Alexandria, VA

Martha Stone Wiske

Harvard University

Cambridge, MA

Philip Zodhiates

Education Development Center

Newton, MA
244

Research and Development in Educational Technology Workshop, Oct. 20, 1987

Thomas Anderson

Open Court Publishing Co.

Peru, IL

Dean Brown

Picodyne Corp.

Portola Valley, CA

John Seely Brown

Xerox Palo Alto Research Center

Palo Alto, CA

Allan Collins

Bolt, Beranek & Newman

Cambridge, MA

Dexter Fletcher

Institute for Defense Analyses

Alexandria, VA

Alan Lesgold, Workshop Chair

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA

Henry Hertzfeld

Bethesda, MD

Ted Kahn

Picodyne Corp.

Portola Valley, CA

Arthur S. Melmed

New York University

New York, NY

George Miller

Princeton University

Princeton, NJ

Raymond Nickerson

Bolt, Beranek & Newman

Cambridge, MA

Roy D. Pea

New York University

New York, NY

Karen Sheingold

Bank Street College of Education

New York, NY

Elliot Soloway

Yale University

New Haven, CT

Frederick Weingarten

Office of Technology Assessment

Washington, DC

Other Reviewers and Contributors

Marvin Aaron

Community School District 27

New York City

Gordon Ambach

Council of Chief State School

Officers

Gregg Benson

New York State Center for

Learning Technologies

Karen Billings

Logo Computer Systems, Inc.

Holly Brady

Classroom Computer Learning

Jeffrey Branzburg

New York City Public Schools

Ludwig Braun

New York University

Jim Brewington

Education Systems Corp.

Philip J. Brody

St. Louis Public Schools

Cornelia Brunner

Bank Street College of Education

Red Burns

New York University

Henry Cauthen

South Carolina Educational

Television

Sylvia Charp

T-H-E Journal

Susan Chipman

Office of Naval Research

David Cordray

U.S. General Accounting Office

Christopher Dede

University of Houston, Clear Lake

Stephen Diaz

California State University

San Bernardino

Pierre Duguet

Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development

David Dwyer

Apple Computer, Inc.

Susan Elting

Council for Exceptional Children

Richard Erdmann

Wasatch Education Systems

Beatrice Farr

Army Research Institute

LeRoy Finkel

San Mateo County Office of

Education

Leslie Flanders

Kentucky Educational Television

Raymond Fox

Society for Applied Learning

Technology

Walter Freas

New Jersey Public Broadcasting

Authority

Samuel Gibbon

Bank Street College of Education

Shirley Gillete

WNET/THIRTEEN

New York City

Kay Gilliland

EQUALS in Computer Technology

University of California, Berkeley
245

Albert Goldberg

Wayne County Intermediate School

District

Bobby Goodson

Sunnyvale, California

Henry Halff

Halff and Associates

Helen Hartle

New York State Teacher Resource

and Computer Training Centers

Jan Hawkins

Bank Street College of Education

Jeanne Hayes

Quality Education Data, Inc.

John Hood

Market Data Retrieval, Inc.

Kristina Hooper

Apple Computer, Inc.

Glenn Hoptman

Smithsonian Institution

Charles Houghey

National Governors’ Association

David Imig

American Association of Colleges of

Teacher Education

Holly Jobe

Montgomery County Pennsylvania

Intermediate Unit

Martha Jones

Juan Linn Elementary School,

Victoria, Texas

Brian Kahin

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Irwin Kaufman

New York City Public Schools

Alan Kay

Apple Computer, Inc.

Sally Kilgore

U.S. Department of Education

Will Kitchen

Tele-Systems Associates, Inc.

Anne Knight

International Council on Computers

in Education

Kenneth Komoski

EPIE Institute

Marge Kosel

Sunburst Communications

Ann Lathrop

San Mateo Count y

Education

Robert W. Lawler

Purdue University

Charlotte LeGates

Office of

Computer and Business Equipment

Manufacturers Association

Marsha Levine

American Federation of Teachers

Marcia Linn

University of California, Berkeley

Harvey Long

IBM Corp.

Beth Lewd

Lexington Massachusetts Public

Schools

Chalmers Marquis

National Association

Television Stations

Karen Mathiasen

Office of Technology

Ann McCormick

VPL

James Mecklenburger

of Public

Assessment

National School Boards Association

Andrew Molnar

National Science Foundation

Mort Mondale

National Education Association

David Moursund

International Council on

Computers in Education

Dennis Newman

Bank Street College of Education

Judith Orasanu

Army Research Institute

Seymour Papert

Massachusetts Institute of

Technolog y

Janice Patterson

Universit y of Wisconsin, Madison

Richard Pollack

Minnesota Educational Computing

Corp.

Doris Ray

Maine Computer Education

Consortium

Paul Resta

Albuquerque Public Schools

Donna Rhodes

NEA Foundation for the

Improvement of Education

Jack Roberts

Scholastic, Inc.

Sherman Rosenfeld

Weizmann Institute of Science

George Rush

Council of the Chief State School

Officers

Beverly Sangston

Montgomery County Public

Schools, Maryland

Dennis Sayers

University of Hartford

Jeff Schneider

National Education Association

Mark Schubin

New York City

Arthur Sheekey

U.S. Department of Education

Bruce Sherwood

Carnegie-Mellon Universit y

Glenn Snelbecker

Temple University

Software Publishers Association

Kendall Starkweather

International Technology Education

Association

Brian Stecher

Educational Testing Service

James Stedman

Congressional Research Service
246

Michael Sullivan

UNISYS Corp.

Robert Taylor

Teachers College

Columbia University

Robert Tinker

Technical Education Resource

Centers

George Tressel

Thomas Valenti

WVIZ-TV

Cleveland, Ohio

Wendy Weingarten

Office of Technology

Mary Alice White

Teachers College

Columbia University

Sharon Williamson

Frank Withrow

U.S. Department of Education

Fred Wood

Office of Technology Assessment

Assessment Tse-Sung Wu

Office of Technology Assessment

Karl L. Zinn

University of Michigan

Center for Research on Learning

National Science Foundation Quality Education Data, Inc. and Teaching

Harriet Tyson-Bernstein Kathleen Wilson

Washington, DC Bank Street College of Education

NOTE: Special thanks go to all the State Technology Coordinators for taking the time to complete the OTA Survey of State

Technology Activities.