Teachers and Technology: Making the

Connection

April 1995

OTA-EHR-616

GPO stock #052-003-01409-2
ii

Cover Photo Credit: Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT)sm, Stevens Creek

Elementary School, Cupertino, CA

Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Teachers and

Technology: Making the Connection, OTA-EHR-616 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1995).
iii

oreword

n the United States, the public school system is designed—ideally—to produce effective, thoughtful citizens who will become

valuable contributors to society. In the race to make sure our students are well prepared to handle the world they walk into when

they walk out of schools, the nation has tried to enlist as teaching resources the most relevant technological innovations of our time—

whether television or telecommunications, calculators or computers.

But in the process of equipping our students to learn with technology, a

valuable—perhaps the most valuable—part of the education equation

has been virtually overlooked: the teachers. 

Despite over a decade of investment in educational hardware and software, relatively few of the nation’s 2.8 million teachers use technology

in their teaching. What are some of the reasons teachers do not use

technology? What happens when they do use technology? What factors

influence technology integration in schools? What roles do schools, districts, states, the private sector, and the federal government play in helping teachers with new technologies? OTA’s in-depth examination of

these questions was initiated at the request of the Senate Committee on

Labor and Human Resources, and endorsed by the House Committee on

Education and Labor (now the House Committee on Economic and

Educational Opportunities) and a member of the Senate Appropriations

Committee. As this report will show, helping schools to make the connection between teachers and technology may be one of the most important steps to making the most of past, present, and future investments in

educational technology and in our children’s future.

Throughout this study, the advisory panel, workshop participants, and

many others played key roles in defining major issues, providing information, and contributing a broad range of perspectives that helped

shape this report. 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.

ROGER C. HERDMAN

Director
iv

dvisory Panel

Allen Glenn, Chairperson

Dean, College of Education

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

Milton Chen

Director, Center for Education

and Lifelong Learning

KQED

San Francisco, CA

Chris Cross

President, Council for

Basic Education

Washington, DC

Molly Drake

Director, Alternate Teacher

Preparation Program

University of South Florida

Tampa, FL

Lee Ehman

Professor of Education

Indiana University

Bloomington, IN

Geoffrey Fletcher

Interim Executive Deputy

Commissioner for Curriculum,

Assessment, and Professional

Development

Texas Education Agency

Austin, TX

Keith Huettig

Board of Directors

National School Boards

Association

Hazelton, ID

Yolanda Jenkins

Education Specialist

Compaq Computers, Inc.

San Mateo, CA

Stanley Johnson

Science Teacher

Jefferson Junior High School

Washington, DC

Leslie Lemon Hunt

Second Grade Teacher

Beauvior Elementary School

Biloxi, MS

Henry R. Marockie

Superintendent of Schools

West Virginia State Department

of Education

Charlestown, WV

Argelio B. Perez

Education Consultant

Lansing, MI

Dwight Prince

Principal, Robert E. Lee

Elementary School

Long Beach, CA

Tom Snyder

President, Tom Snyder

Productions

Cambridge, MA

Adam Urbanski

President, Rochester Teachers

Association

Rochester, NY

Valerie J. Wilford

Executive Director

Illinois Valley Library System

Pekin, IL

Art Wise

President, National Council for

Accreditation of Teacher

Education

Washington, DC

Kristina Woolsey

Distinguished Scientist

Advanced Technology Group

Apple Computer, Inc.

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.
v

roject Staff

Clyde Behney

Assistant Director

Denise Dougherty

Program Director1

Education and Human Resources

John Andelin

Assistant Director2

Nancy Carson

Program Director3

Education and Human Resources

PRINCIPAL STAFF

Kathleen Fulton

Project Director

Patricia Morison

Senior Analyst

Isabelle Bruder Smith

Analyst

Ethan T. Leonard

Research Analyst

OTHER CONTRIBUTING STAFF

Paula Bruening

Senior Analyst

Sam Seidel

Research Assistant

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Cecile Parker

Technical Editor

Linda Rayford

PC Specialist

Jene Lewis

Administrative Secretary

Marsha Fenn

Office Administrator4

Gay Jackson

PC Specialist4

Tamara Kowalski

Administrative Secretary5

________________

1 Since July 1994.

2 Through August 1993.

3 Through June 1994.

4 Through June 1994. Now in OTA’s Energy,

Transportation, and Infrastructure program.

5 Through July 1994.
vi

ontractors

Ronald E. Anderson

University of Minnesota

Henry Jay Becker

University of California at Irvine

James Bosco

Western Michigan University

Larry Cuban

Stanford University

Gulden Fox-Gurcay

National Film Institute

Madeline Gross

Washington, DC

Melinda Griffith

Alexandria, VA

Beverly Hunter and

Bruce Goldberg

Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.

Nancy Kober

Charlottesville, VA

Robert Kozma and Wayne Grant

Center for Technology

in Learning

SRI International

John R. Mergendoller

Beryl Buck Institute for Education

Saul Rockman, Rockman, et al.

Jerome Johnston, University of

Michigan

Jerry Willis, University of

Houston

Margaret Riel

InterLearn

TERC

Vanessa DiMauro

Alan H. Feldman

Shahaf Gal

Daniel Lieberman

Jack Lochhead

Richard R. Roupp

Barbara Sampson

William Spitzer

Robert Tinker

Jerry Willis

University of Houston

Dee Anna Willis

Linda Austin
vii

1 Summary and Policy Options 1

Summary of Key Findings 1

Introduction 3

Teaching and Technology: The Potential 8

Teachers and Technology: The Barriers 18

Promising Approaches to Technology

Implementation 28

Current Federal Support for Teacher Training and

Technology 29

Federal Policy Issues and Options 29

Conclusion 46

2 The Promise of Technology

 for Teachers 49

Summary of Key Findings 49

Introduction 50

Technology and the Job of the Teacher 54

Using Technology to Enhance Instruction 57

Assisting Teachers with the Daily Tasks of

Teaching 71

Fostering Teacher Professional Growth 79

Conclusion 88

3 Technology Access and Instructional Use

 in Schools Today 89

Summary of Key Findings 89

Introduction 90

What Technologies Do Schools Own and How Are

They Used? 91

State Policies on Access and Use 119

Conclusion: Issues with Policy and Research

Implications 121

ontents
viii

4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use

 Technology Resources 129

Summary of Key Findings 129

Introduction 130

Factors That Influence Technology Use by

Teachers 130

Approaches To Enhance Technology

Implementation 144

Lessons About Technology Implementation 155

5 Technology and the Preparation

 of New Teachers 165

Summary of Key Findings 165

Introduction 166

History and Current Challenges of Preparing

Teachers 167

Reform in Teacher Education 169

Technology in Teacher Education 181

Models of Change: Lessons for the Field 191

Conclusions 205

6 Technology and Teacher Development:

 The Federal Role 207

Summary of Key Findings 207

Introduction 208

Background on the Federal Role 209

Current Federal Support and Commitment 212

New Opportunities for Federal Leadership 220

Major Technology-Related Training Programs 224

Summary of Federal Emphasis in Technology-Related

Training Services and Activities 234

Historical Precedents for Technology-Related

Professional Development 239

Lessons from Past and Present Federal Efforts 246

Key Issues for Future Federal Policies for

Technology-Related Teacher Development 250

Conclusion 254
ix

APPENDICES

A Boxes, Figures, and Tables 255

B Sources of Survey Data for

This Report 258

C Glossary 264

D Workshop Participants, and Reviewers

and Contributors 272

E Contributing Sites 279

F Contractor Reports Prepared for

This Assessment 281

Index 283
Summary

 and

 Policy

 Options

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

 Projections suggest that by spring 1995, schools in the United

States will have 5.8 million computers for use in instruction—

about one for every nine students. Almost every school in the

country has at least one television and videocassette recorder,

and 41 percent of teachers have a TV in their classrooms. Only

one teacher in eight has a telephone in class and less than 1 percent have access to voice mail. Classroom access to newer

technologies like CD-ROM and networking capabilities are

also limited. While 75 percent of public schools have access

to some kind of computer network, and 35 percent of public

schools have access to the Internet, only 3 percent of instructional rooms (classrooms, labs, and media centers) are connected to the Internet.

 Despite technologies available in schools, a substantial number of teachers report little or no use of computers for instruction. Their use of other technologies also varies considerably.

 While technology is not a panacea for all educational ills,

today’s technologies are essential tools of the teaching trade.

To use these tools well, teachers need visions of the technologies’ potential, opportunities to apply them, training and

just-in-time support, and time to experiment. Only then can

teachers be informed and fearless in their use of new

technologies.

 Using technology can change the way teachers teach. Some

teachers use technology in traditional “teacher-centered”

ways, such as drill and practice for mastery of basic skills, or

to supplement teacher-controlled activities. On the other hand,

some teachers use technology to support more student-centered approaches to instruction, so that students can conduct | 1
2 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Helping teachers become “fearless"with technology could be

the best way to assure that they use these tools effectively in

their classrooms.

their own scientific inquiries and engage in collaborative activities while the teacher assumes

the role of facilitator or coach. Teachers who

fall into the latter group are among the most enthusiastic technology users, because technology is particularly suited to support this kind of

instruction.

■ Increased communications is one of the biggest

changes technology offers classroom teachers.

Telecommunications, from simple telephones

to advanced networks, can transcend the walls

of isolation that shape the teaching profession

and allow teachers to converse and share experiences with colleagues, school administrators,

parents, and experts in the field.

■ Helping teachers use technology effectively

may be the most important step to assuring that

current and future investments in technology

are realized.

■ Most teachers have not had adequate training to

prepare them to use technology effectively in

teaching. Currently, most funds for technology

are spent on hardware and software, but experienced technology-using sites advocate larger

allocations for training and support. On average, districts devote no more than 15 percent of

technology budgets to teacher training. Some

states have suggested this figure should be

more like 30 percent.

■ A majority of teachers report feeling inadequately trained to use technology resources,

particularly computer-based technologies. Although many teachers see the value of students

learning about computers and other technologies, some are not aware of the resources

technology can offer them as professionals in

carrying out the many aspects of their jobs.

Although schools have made significant progress in helping teachers to use basic technological tools such as word processing and

databases, they still struggle with integrating

technology into the curriculum. Curriculum integration is central if technology is to become

a truly effective educational resource, yet integration is a difficult, time-consuming, and resource-intensive endeavor.

Technology can be a valuable resource for improving teacher education overall. It can bring

models of the best teaching live from the classroom into the colleges of education, or provide

video case studies of teaching styles and approaches. It can forge stronger connections

among student teachers, mentor teachers in the

field, and university faculty.

Despite the importance of technology in teacher education, it is not central to the teacher

preparation experience in most colleges of

education in the United States today. Most new

teachers graduate from teacher preparation

institutions with limited knowledge of the

ways technology can be used in their professional practice.

The federal government has played a limited

role in technology-related teacher development

compared with states, universities, and school

districts. Even so, past federal programs have

piloted innovative educational applications of

technology for teachers by providing significant support for professional development,

specifically among mathematics, science, and

special education teachers, and by providing

funding for technology-related professional
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options | 3

Technology is a fact of life in today's society and students will need to be facile with these powerful tools. This young student

makes sure his thinking cap is on as he ponders a computer screen in the classroom.

■

■

development in school districts that could not

have supported it on their own.

The federal government has tended to focus

more on inservice than preservice education,

channeling more support to K-12 schools than

to colleges of education—an approach that may

address current needs but does not greatly influence teacher preparation or quality over the

long term.

The federal government has a unique opportunity to encourage greater links between technology and professional development, through

recent legislation such as Goals 2000 and the

Improving American’s Schools Act. The way

the laws are currently written, however, funding for technology and teacher training, and

support for effective use, may not be high priorities. National leadership for educational

technology can create enthusiasm and support

for state and local technology initiatives. Focusing attention, as well as funding, on how

technologies can support professional development, and on how teachers are essential to the

implementation of technologies, can send important signals to schools around the country.

INTRODUCTION

“A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell

where his influence stops. ”

Henry Adams, from The Education of

HenryAdams

Technology is a fact of American life. Computers,

video, television, telephones, radio, and telecommunications networks exert an incalculable influence on how we live, work, and play—an

influence likely to expand as hardware and software become more powerful, affordable, and per-
4 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

vasive.1 New technologies are already essential

tools for doing business and are quickly becoming

a primary means for people to acquire information. For example, in 1993 an estimated 12 million-plus Americans regularly used electronic

mail and related online information services.2 By

October 1994, the number of e-mail users was estimated to be more than 27 million.3

For students, the ability to use technology has

come to be recognized as an indispensable skill.

The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) stated this in the starkest

terms, “Those unable to use . . . [technology] face

a lifetime of menial work.”4

Recognizing their responsibility to prepare students to work and live in a technological society,

states and school districts have adopted standards

for teaching students with and about technology.5

For example, in a 1994 survey conducted for the

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), all but

seven states reported that they require or recommend integrating computers or information

technology into the curriculum, and 19 states require seniors to demonstrate computer competency before graduating.6 The question now is, how

can schools use technology more effectively?

Most policy discussions and technology initiatives have tended to focus on hardware and

software acquisition, and student access to technology. However, in the enthusiasm to get technology to students, and in the context of limited

resources, teacher issues have been shortchanged.

When teacher needs are discussed, the emphasis is

often on providing short-term training to familiarize teachers with a specific application or encourage general computer literacy. Seldom have

policy discussions or initiatives centered on the

relationship between technology and the teacher’s

role. Seldom have they articulated a vision of how

technology can empower teachers to carry out all

parts of their jobs.

In response to these concerns, noted as issues in

earlier OTA reports,7 OTA was asked to do this

study by congressional committees and members

of Congress with interests in the application of

emerging technologies to education (see box 1-1).

In addition to the usual OTA process of convening an advisory panel, conducting extensive staff

work, and obtaining broad peer review of drafts,

OTA used a variety of methods to conduct this assessment (see box 1-2). The technologies OTA focused on and their current availability in the

nation’s elementary and secondary schools are described in box 1-3.

OTA finds the lack of attention to teachers and

technologies ironic, for at the center of effective

use of instructional technologies are those who

oversee the daily activities of the classroom—the

teachers. To use new technologies well, teachers

1 See, e.g., U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Electronic Enterprises: Looking to the Future, OTA-TCT-600 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1994).

2 J. Eckhouse, “Internet: Millions of Users Plug in to Hug Computer Network,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 1, 1993, pp. C-1, C-7.

3 Matrix Information and Directory Services, Austin, TX, October 1994.

4 What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000, Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (Washington

DC: U.S. Department of Labor, June 1991), p. 15.

5 For this study, when the term technology is used, it refers to all forms of computers and their peripherals including hard disk drives, printers,

CD-ROM, projection devices, and networks offering telecommunications linkages. It also refers to a range of other new or more traditional

technologies: telephones, video cameras, televisions and VCRs, fax machines, videodiscs, cable and other one- or two-way links, small devices

like electronic calculators, personal digital assistants or other hand-held devices, or combinations of these and other new technologies.

6 Ronald E. Anderson, “State Technology Activities Related to Teachers,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, Nov. 15, 1994.

7 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988); and Linking for Learning: A New Course for Education, OTA-SET-430 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1989).
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options 5

In 1986, Congress asked the Office of Technology Assessment to study the use of computers in

schools, In 1988, OTA reported its findings in Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning, 1 which

described the promise of and barriers to using technology in K-12 education. At that time, there were

about two million personal computers in American schools, a ratio of roughly one computer for every 30

students. Most educational software was limited to drill-and-practice applications. A handful of small, special-purpose educational software publishers were scrambling to create a market for their products.

Schools were focusing attention on teaching students “computer literacy” skills. Teacher training consisted

of general computer awareness courses, and a few adventurous souls were learning to program in BASIC

or LOGO, so they could design their own software applications. At that time, most teachers did not use

computers as a significant part of their teaching-only half the K-12 teaching force reported using computers in instruction. Few teachers had computers of their own at school or at home. Not surprisingly, many

teachers were less than impressed with this new wave of educational euphoria.

Similarly, in 1989 when OTA released Linking for Learning: A New Course for Education,3 a followup

report assessing how schools were using distance-learning technologies to link students and teachers with

resources, activity was limited. At that time, states were beginning to invest in broadcast, microwave, satellite, cable, and computer-based systems, and the federal Star School Project had just funded its first round

of projects. In subsequent work assessing technologies for testing4 and adult literacy,5 OTA reported on

emerging opportunities presented by technology.

In each of these reports to Congress OTA noted the critical role of teachers. To learn more about how

schools and teachers use computers and other technologies and what this means for future policies, in the

summer of 1993 Congress requested OTA to revisit the issue of teachers and technology in K-12 schools in

depth.

Requesters, and their affiliations during the 103d Congress are as follows:

U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Labor and Human Resources Committee on Education and Labor7

Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman6 Williarn D. Ford, Chairman8

Committee on Appropriations William F. Goodling, Ranking Minority Member9

Thad Cochran, Member Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and

Vocational Education10

Dale E. Kildee, Chairman11

1 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988).

2 The main focus of that report was the personal computer, whether as a stand-alone unit, connected to a local area network or as

part of a more comprehensive integrated learning system.

3 Linking for Learning: A New Course for Education, OTA-SET-430 Washington, DC: U.S. Government printing Off Ice, November

1989).

4 Testing in American Schools Asking the Right Questions, OTA-SET-519 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1992),

5Adult Literature and New Technologies: Tools for A Lifetime, OTA-SET-550 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July

1 993),

6 Now Ranking Minority Member.

7 Now the House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.

8 Now retired,

9 Now Chairman, House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.

10 Now the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Farnilies.

11 Now Ranking Minority Member.

(continued)
6 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

The requesters asked OTA to look at several issues, Do teachers use technology in their teaching?

Why? What happens when they do? Why don’t more teachers use technology? How do teachers learn

about technology? Are prospective teachers being prepared to use technology before entering the classroom? Which factors influence implementation of technology across schools and districts? What roles do

schools, districts, states, and the federal government play in helping teachers adjust to the challenges and

opportunities presented by new technologies? This report describes the results of OTA’s research into all of

these questions.

The issue of teachers and technology is of continuing relevance to the 104th Congress. Two major

pieces of legislation passed in the 103d Congress have provided authorization for a number of initiatives

related to technology. The decisions made by the 104th Congress will shape the direction of these initiatives. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act encourages states to undertake ambitious school reform efforts and funds statewide plans for using technology to achieve these reforms. The Improving America’s

Schools Act, in a revised Title IIl of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), contains the

most comprehensive legislation for educational technology ever passed by Congress and places a greater

emphasis on teacher professional development in several other federal programs. These two laws have the

potential to bring more coherent and consistent leadership to the federal role in technology and teacher

development, but whether this occurs will depend on how the programs are funded and implemented. This

report contains discussion of issues and policy options relevant to implementation.

In addition to funding decisions about current education programs, the 104th Congress faces other issues affecting education technology, most notably legislation to update the Communications Act of 1934.

The availability and affordability of telecommunications technologies for schools are two of the most important issues affecting the future of educational technology.

not only need access to them, but they also need

opportunities to discover what the technologies can do, learn how to operate them, and experiment with ways to apply them. For teachers

to make informed choices and wise uses of

technology, they must be literate and comfortable

with a range of educational technologies.

However, the use of technology in teaching,

like any other change to the status quo, should be

considered in light of the unique characteristics of

the teaching profession. Indeed, teaching has been

called many things: an art, a science, a calling, a

way of life. Throughout history, teachers have taken up the tools at hand to help them teach—whether marking on clay with a stylus, or writing on a

blackboard with chalk. As new technologies have

emerged—photography, filmstrips, radio, television—teachers have used them to extend the range

of what they could teach, illustrate ideas in different ways, bring new materials to students, and motivate learners.

The process of adopting new technologies has

never been quick or effortless, however. Like all

professionals, teachers have instructional methods, teaching styles, and working procedures that

have served well in the past and that often reflect

how they themselves were prepared. And like

other large institutions, schools have organizational characteristics that make change difficult.

Moreover, the unique culture of schools and

changing public expectations for them create

conditions substantially different from those of

other workplaces.

Although teachers want to enlist all available

tools to help their students learn, as new technologies have become more sophisticated, the transition has become even harder, requiring more

training before teachers can use them effectively.

Teachers, like many in society, can find themselves bewildered by the changing landscape of

computer, video, and telecommunications technologies. Many are made skeptical by predictions
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options 7

Although considerable research has been conducted since 1988 on student uses of technology, far less

has been done on teacher uses, and consequently data on teacher issues are limited. As a starting point

for this study, OTA reviewed research on teachers and technology, including national surveys and studies,

evaluations of federal technology-related programs, and research on state, district, and school technology

efforts.

During the course of this study, OTA staff made site visits to schools of all grade levels across the country (see appendix E), and had hundreds of conversations with teachers, researchers, and administrators—

in classrooms, at meetings and conferences, and over the telephone and electronic mail. OTA also convened two focus groups of teachers and held a workshop about lessons from research projects on

technology in schools.

OTA also drew upon a range of other sources. Much of the background information for the study came

from research contracted by OTA (see appendix F), including a series of in-depth interviews with average

teachers regarding their experiences with technology,1 a survey of faculty and recent graduates of colleges of education regarding technology use in preservice teacher education,2 a research review of telecommunications networks,3 and a review of past and current federal programs and support for teacher

development and technology.4 A series of OTA-contracted case studies looked at exemplary approaches

to training teachers about technology use at the preservice and inservice level.5 OTA contracted for two

other research reviews: an analysis of trend data from several surveys about school acquisition and use of

new technologies,6 and a review of state policies related to technology in K-12 education.7

Some of these research strategies yielded statistical data. Others produced information that was mostly

descriptive or anecdotal on such issues as teachers’ perceptions of the role of technology in their teaching

and the factors that encourage or inhibit their technology use. By combining quantitative and qualitative

information, OTA has tried to present a multifaceted picture of teacher experiences with technology.

As with all OTA reports, the project was guided by an advisory panel made up of experts and stakeholders in the field: teachers, principals, and district, state, and school board personnel; college of education faculty; representatives of teacher unions and professional organizations; hardware, software, and

business representatives; and telecommunications and media experts. The advisory panel met twice, at

the beginning of and near the end of the research phase of the project, and helped define the research

questions and interpret the information. In addition, dozens of individuals reviewed drafts of and contributed to this study (see appendix D). Although every panel member and reviewer may not agree with all the

findings or policy options in this report, the panel’s and other reviewers’ guidance and direction were critical in shaping its final form.

1 Melinda Griffith, “Technology in Schools: Hearing from the Teachers, ” Office of Technology Assessment, contractor report, October 1993.

2 Jery Willis et al., “lnformation Technologies in Teacher Education Survey of the Current Status, ” Office of Technology Assessment, contractor report, March 1994.

3 TERC, “Review of Research on Teachers and Telecommunications, ” Office of Technology Assessment, contractor report, May

1994,

4 Nancy Kober, “Teachers and Technology: The Federal Role, ” Office of Technology Assessment, contractor report, May 25,1994.

5 John R. Mergendoller et al., “Case Studies of Exemplary Approaches to Training Teachers to use Technology, ” Office Of Technology Assessment, contractor report, May 1994.

6 Henry J. Becker, “Analysis and Trends of School Use of New Technologies,” Office of Technology Assessment, contractor report,

March 1994

7 Ronald E. Anderson, “State Technology Activities Related to Teachers, ” Office of Technology Assessment, contractor report,

Nov. 15, 1994.
8 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

promising that new technologies will reform

education and change schools as we know them.

Making the connection between technology

and teachers—helping the 2.8 million teachers

in public and private kindergarten-throughtwelfth-grade (K-12) schools effectively incorporate technology into the teaching and

learning process—is one of the most important

steps the nation can take to make the most of

past and continuing investments in educational technology. It is central to the ultimate goal fostered by these investments: not just helping

students become competent users of technology,

but helping them become more accomplished

learners overall.

This report seeks to underscore the connection

between teachers and effective implementation of

technology in schools.

TEACHING AND TECHNOLOGY: 

THE POTENTIAL

“You wouldn’t want a doctor to remove your

gall bladder without the latest technology and

the skill to use that technology, would you? It’s

the same with teaching. [Teachers need tools,

skills]. . .it’s a profession.”

Rusty Sweeny, algebra teacher, Piscataquis

Community High School, Guilford, ME

OTA has seen the promise of technology come

to light in school districts throughout the country,

where many teachers are using technology to

teach their students. Some have found it to be a

catalyst to support school reform, stimulate new

teaching methods, and even redefine the role of

teachers. But it is not only in the realm of direct

student contact that technology has benefited

these teachers. Many other aspects of a teacher’s

job—preparing materials, developing lessons, assessing student progress, enlisting parent participation, keeping up with advances in pedagogy and

content, and participating in the professional community—can be accomplished with technology,

often more easily and efficiently. When teachers

discover ways that technology can strengthen

their teaching, help them carry out administrative

tasks, and enrich their professional growth,

technology starts to make sense to them. It can be a

resource for improving the preparation of new

teachers as well. However, there are also many

teachers who have not seen this potential, teachers

whose use of technology is marginal, limited, and

unenthusiastic. The stories and experiences of

both these groups suggest lessons for policymakers. Table 1-1 summarizes the potential that

technology offers to schools and teachers.

❚ Improving Teaching with Technology

OTA has found many examples throughout the nation of how technology can help teachers with all

parts of their jobs. First and foremost, teachers

want to ensure that their students are learning. If

technology can be a resource to enhance student

achievement and interest in learning, teachers are

more likely to invest the time and energy to learn

to use it in their teaching. However, the relationship between technology and student learning is

too often framed as a seemingly simple question:

is teaching with computers and other technologies

better than teaching without them? Clearly, computers “cannot change leaden instruction into

gold,”8 and there remain numerous questions

about how, when, and how well alternative

technologies contribute to student learning and

achievement. Issues related to measuring the impact of various approaches to teaching, including

the use of new technologies on student learning

are complicated and beyond the scope of this

study (see box 1-4). This report’s analysis of the

potential of technologies for improving teaching

and learning focuses on two aspects of the teaching-learning continuum: teachers’ perceptions of

how new technologies help them improve their

instruction and how they see their classrooms

changing as a result. 

Many technology-using teachers find that

technology can help them improve student learn8 James Bosco, Western Michigan University, personal communication, August 1993.
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options 19

What are the technologies available in U.S. schools today and how are they used? Following is a brief

outline of some technologies found in schools and the potential impact of those technologies on teachers

and students.

Computers

A computer is a programmable, electronic machine that can store, retrieve, and process data. Desktop

computers are sometimes called microcomputers because they have a single integrated circuit known as a

microprocessor.

During the last three years, the total number of computers in schools has risen by about 18 percent

annually and, based on those projections, there will be an estimated 5.8 million computers in U.S. schools

by spring 1995. That translates to approximately one computer for every nine students. There is enormous

variability in student-computer ratios (computer density) from school to school and across states. The

greatest disparities are found between small schools (enrollments of 300 or less) and large schools (enrollments of 1,000 or more); schools with fewer students tend to have more computers per student.

Still, sheer numbers of computers do not indicate real access or use. For example, although 35 percent

of all U.S. public schools have access to the Internet, only 3 percent of instructional rooms (classrooms,

labs, and media centers) are connected. Many factors dictate technology use, but the age and power of

the technology seems to be a prevalent influence in K-12 schools. As of 1992, one-half of the computers

used for K-1 2 instruction in the United States were older, less-powerful Apple II models, yet most software

and applications currently being developed today cannot run on these machines.

Two-Way Communications

Two-way communications that allow teachers and students to share and receive ideas with others outside their immediate classroom are an important aspect of telecommunications networking. For basic twoway communications, telephones and modems are staple equipment. Currently, though, only one teacher

in eight has a telephone in the classroom that can be used for outside calls. In addition, less than 1 percent

of teachers with telephones have access to voice mail, which is a useful tool to leave or retrieve messages

when parents, administrators, or other teachers are hard to reach during the school day.

A modem is a device that allows computers to communicate electronically across telephone lines by converting digital computer signals into analog format for transmission. In recent years, schools have begun

installing more modems for teacher use: in 1989 one-fourth of U.S. schools had a modem that could be used

by teachers or students, and by 1992 the figure had grown to 38 percent of all schools, although more high

schools (60 percent) had modems than middle schools (35 percent) or elementary schools (33 percent).

Telecommunications Networking

Telecommunications networking includes the Internet and other means of accessing shared communications systems that support digital communications among connected computers.

Local area networks (LAN) link computers and peripherals (e.g. printers) within a limited area, often a

classroom or building. Wide area networks (WANS) connect computers over greater distances, such as

building to building, city to city, and so on. Overall, 75 percent of public schools have computers with

some networking capabilities-either LAN or WAN access—and of those schools, 40 percent report that

machines with these capabilities are located in classrooms;1 71 percent say they are located in administra1 Many schools responding to the survey reported access in more than one location. U.S. Department of Education, Advanced

Telecommunications in U.S. Public Schools, K-12 (Washington, DC, U S Department of Education, OERI, February 1995), NCES

95-731,

(continued)
10 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

tive offices; 62 percent, in library/media centers; and only 15 percent in teacher workrooms. Electronic

mail (e-mail) is the most common use of telecommunications reported by teachers who are accomplished telecommunications users.2

The Internet

The Internet is an international collection of interconnected electronic networks and a set of protocols for

communication between computers on these networks. The protocols also include a large and growing list

of services that can be provided or accessed over the Internet.

Of the schools reporting networking capabilities, 49 percent have WANS; 35 percent of those have access to the Internet, and 14 percent have access to other types of wide area networks, such as America

Online, CompuServe, or Prodigy. Of those with Internet access, on average, only 3 percent of schools have

access in instructional rooms (classrooms, library/media centers, computer labs). This means students

and teachers typically do not have access to Internet services.

Television/Video

Nearly every school in the country has at least one television set for instructional use. Video is the most

common technology used for instruction in schools, from sources such as direct broadcast and cable television and satellite (distance learning). As of 1991, the typical school had seven television sets and six

videocassette recorders, which teachers typically use to record and show students commercially broadcast educational programs. While the use of more interactive video resources, such as camcorders, videodiscs, and CD-ROM is growing, these are not used with as much frequency in schools.

Broadcast television (national networks, such as NBC, CBS, ABC) is received by 70 percent of all public schools (61 percent of schools receive PBS). Eighty-three percent of those schools report that broadcast access is available in classrooms, and 84 percent report access in the library/media center.

Cable television (subscription television, such as CNN, the Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel)

is available in 74 percent of all public schools, and 70 percent of those schools say access is available in

classrooms, while 85 percent report access in library/media centers.

Closed-circuit television (neither broadcast nor cable, but in-house transmission on noncommercial

lines) is only available in 25 percent of schools, but 94 percent of those schools say classrooms have access, and 89 percent report access to closed circuit TV in library/media centers.

2 Margaret Honey and Andres Henriquez, Telecommunications and K-12 Educators, Findings From A National Survey (New ’fork:

Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education, 1993).

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on Henry J. Becker, “Analysis and Trends in School Use of New Technologies, ” Office of Technology contractor report, March 1994; also, Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Schools, K-72, National

Center for Education Statistics NCES95-731 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, OERI, February 1995), see also chapter 3 of this report.

ing and motivation, address students with differ- n Students engaged in a group problem-solving

ent learning styles or special needs, expose project based on a software or video simulation

students to a wider world of information and ex- are learning to work as a team, develop experperts, and implement new teaching techniques. tise in specific areas, become more confident

There are many examples of how technology has learners, and weigh the merits of several posenhanced teaching: sible solutions.
■ Teachers involved in an international telecommunications project find their students acquiring a new interest in geography, and bonding

with students across the globe or in the different

world that exists even on the other side of town.

■ With graphing software, students appear to develop a deeper understanding of mathematical

concepts for which they had learned the formulas but had not applied consistently.

■ Special education students, mainstreamed into

regular classrooms, work on a more equal basis

with their classmates when a computer speaks

for them, gives them big print, or adjusts to

their difficulties.

■ Students who were on the verge of dropping out

take anew interest in school when, as part of a

class project, they interview other students

with camcorders and create daily news shows.

■ Using CD-ROM, students research a multimedia term paper, evaluating resources from print,

video, and audio media.

After the teacher downloads satellite pictures

of daily weather patterns, students use a network to compare their weather data with weather data reported by students around the country,

analyzing trends and predicting likely conditions.

A scientist working on cancer research can

come online and advise a student setting up a

science project on molecular biology.

These kinds of experiences, while far from the

norm in schools today, can and do occur in classrooms with access to technology and a teacher

who can skillfully guide its use. In most of the

above examples, teachers find that their students

are doing more than learning generic technology

skills or subject-specific technology applications.

Rather, they see them developing the kinds of

skills and competencies that numerous reform

Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options i 11

Teachers find that using technology can encourage students

to take more responsibility for their learning, to learn to work

cooperatively, and gain experience in acquiring, evaluating,

and using information in various forms.

panels have encouraged as essential for all high

school graduates-problem-solving skills; broader scientific literacy and mathematical understanding; strong communication skills; personal

responsibility, integrity, and initiative; and skills

and competencies for the workplace. These workplace competencies include working with resources, acquiring and evaluating information,

working with others in groups or teams, understanding complex relationships and systems, and

using a range of changing technologies.9 Although these skills can be developed without

technology, technological tools can help teachers

structure, organize, or enhance the activities that

facilitate the development of these skills.

Accomplished technology-using teachers indicate that using computers has changed their teach9 See, e.g. Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, op. cit. footnote 4; Anthony Patrick Carnevale, America and the New

Economy (Washington, DC: American Society for Training and Development, 1991); and William B. Johnston and Arnold H. Packer, Workforce 2000 (Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute, June 1987).
12 Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Changing teaching and learning

Assisting with daily tasks

Enhancing professional development ■

Preparing new teachers ■

I

Resources for teaching abstract concepts, complex systems, problem

solving—and basic skills

Resources for group work and collaborative inquiry

Adaptable to various student learning styles and special needs

Teachers report they:

—Expect more of students

—Are more comfortable with students working independently

—Present more complex materials

—Tailor instruction more to individual needs

—Adopt new roles, more ‘(guide on the side” than “sage on the stage”

—Spend less time lecturing, so classrooms are more student-centered

Preparing lesson plans

Online databases, CD-ROMs, videodiscs, and other electronic sources

help teachers create, customize, and update lessons.

Tracking student progress

Gradebook programs and databases to update student profiles and

maintain records.

Communicating

Telephone, voice mail, e-mail to contact parents, other teachers, or

administrators to pIan meetings, discuss student and administrative

concerns.

‘

[

Just-in-time” training and support

Satellite, video, cable, or computer access to new ideas, master teachers,

and other experts for training and followup.

Formal courses and advanced degrees

Distance learning technologies for courses not available locally.

Informal educational opportunities

Online contact with teacher colleagues and other experts.

Models of effective teaching

Video can take prospective teachers into classrooms to watch effective

teachers in action.

Computer and video simulations and case studies

Give prospective teachers practice solving teaching challenges in a nonthreatening environment.

Electronic networks

Minimize violation during field experiences, provide support and interaction with college faculty or mentors.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options | 13

ing.10 Among the changes teachers reported were

that they expected more of students, became more

comfortable with students working independently, presented more complex material, tailored

instruction more to individual needs, and spent

less time lecturing and more time overseeing

small groups or working one-on-one with students (see chapter 2, box 2-1). Some teachers suggest that using technology has meant they are

transforming the educational process—their curriculum and classroom organization. These teachers report that, ultimately, they see a change in

their roles as they become more like coaches, encouraging, guiding, and facilitating student learning, and students assume more initiative and

responsibility for their own learning. While not all

teachers want to make this transition from “sage

on the stage to guide on the side,” many find it exhilarating.

❚ Assisting with Daily Tasks of Teaching

Teachers perform a wide variety of duties in addition to being instructional leaders, including preparing lesson plans and instructional materials,

keeping and transmitting records of student progress, attending school meetings, meeting with parents, and staying abreast of the profession. Yet

schools rarely consider the role of technology in

assisting teachers with the many parts of the job

that go on when the students are not present. And

few schools have contemplated how teachers

could use their time differently or how teaching

personnel could be assigned more flexibly (e.g.,

teachers working with small groups of students

for some parts of the day, large groups at other

points) if teachers were freed from mundane tasks

that technology could handle.11

Technology can assist teachers with daily activities in many ways:

 With electronic gradebook software, teachers

can keep and more easily update running grading histories and profiles for every student and

counsel them about problems as soon as they

occur.

 Teachers can videotape student presentations to

evaluate and maintain records of student performance as a part of assessment activities.

 By accessing an electronic database, a teacher

can quickly locate a host of current materials

relevant to next week’s science lesson.

 A teacher can retrieve a voice mail message, at

a convenient time, about a change in the time

of a parent conference.

 Teachers can plan meetings with other teachers

online and save time in coordinating multiple

schedules.

OTA has observed that, as teachers develop expertise in these administrative applications, confidence grows, encouraging them to try additional

applications to meet instructional and professional development goals.

❚ Enhancing Professional Development

for Today’s Teachers

Teachers are learners too. They take courses,

workshops, and other forms of training to fulfill

recertification requirements, learn new instructional methods, or keep up with changes in their

specialties. However, the current approach—typically a short inservice course on a specific topic in

which a large group of teachers are gathered in one

place for an “injection” of training—is limited and

often disliked by teachers, administrators, and

parents alike. For example, a school district may

gather elementary school teachers from across the

district to spend a morning learning about a new

strategy for teaching reading. This “one-size-fitsall” model of training is rarely used in other pro10 Karen Sheingold and Martha Hadley, Accomplished Teachers: Integrating Computers into Classroom Practice (New York, NY: Center

for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education, September 1990).

11 See, e.g., Margaret Riel, “The Future of Teaching,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, Jan. 12, 1994.
14 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

When a technology is introduced in education, many people want to compare its effectiveness with that

of existing methods of instruction. In the 1960s and 1970s, a number of studies compared learning via

radio and television with learning via classroom lectures or textbooks. More recently, many studies have

been conducted comparing computer-assisted instruction with more traditional methods of instruction.

These studies have consistently demonstrated that computer-assisted instruction technologies are either

equivalent or superior to conventional instruction.1 Meta-analyses, which examine the results of many studies and aggregate their combined effects, show effects that range from .26 to .66 standard deviations,

which represent a sizable improvement on many achievement measures as well as positive attitudinal effects. 2 Small, but growing, numbers of studies have begun to examine effects of newer technologies such

as videodisc or telecommunications networks.

Several factors belie simplistic approaches to the important but complex question of effectiveness.

These issues include:

■ Conceptual factors—are researchers, parents, teachers, and policymakers asking the right

questions and interpreting available research correctly?

■ Methodological factors— is the research designed well enough to answer questions of effectiveness? and

■ Timeliness factors— with rapid advances in technology, including rapid obsolescence of yesterday’s “new” technologies, do the research results tell interested parties what they need to know

today to plan tomorrow’s classroom uses of technologies?

Conceptual Issues. In general, many available studies of the effectiveness of educational technologies

can be thought of as “horse race” studies because, when interpreted too simplistically, they are expected

to provide evidence that one technology can “beat” another by showing that students “learn more” when it

is used.3 This approach can be misleading.4 Whenever a new educational treatment is tried its effects are

not just attributable to the technology (e.g., computer, video, books) but also to the particular content (e.g.,

subject matter, targeted skills) and pedagogical approach (e.g., software, teaching materials, teachers, and

classroom environment). The type of learner (e.g., age, previous achievement, special needs) also influences the effects of these other variables on learning. In other words, it is not the effects of the technology by itself that are analyzed in these studies, but the aggregated effects of how the technology is being

used in the classroom context. Available and future research should be interpreted with an eye to these

factors, which can attenuate or enhance the effects of particular technologies.

1 See, e g., C. Kulik and J.A. Kulik, “Effectiveness of Computer-Based Instruction’ An Updated Analysis, ” Computers in Human

Behavior, vol. 7, pp. 75-94; John Pisapia and Stephen M. Perlman, “Learning Technologies in the Classroom A Study of Results”

(Richmond, VA: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium, Dec. 1992); Alice Ryan, “Meta-analysis of Achievement Effects of

Microcomputer Applications in Elementary Schools,” Educational Administration Quarterly, vol. 27, No. 2, May 1991, pp. 161 -184;

Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc., Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in Schools, 1990-1994 (Washington, DC:

Software Publishers Association, n.d.).

2 Mark W. Lipsey and David B. Wilson, “The Efficacy of Psychological, Educational, and Behavioral Treatment. Confirmation from

Meta-analysis,’’ American Psychologist, December 1993; Effect size (ES) is a measure of the difference between a control group that

did not use the technology and the treatment group that did. ES is expressed in standard deviation units. “An ES of 17 is quite small

and unimportant, whereas an ES of 33 is modest but important To interpret the numbers more easily, they can be converted to percentiles. For example, an effect size of .33 means that the treatment group would be at the 63rd percentile compared with the control

group at the 50th percentile.” (J. Johnston, Electronic Learning, 1987, p 50)

3 Barbara Means et al , Using Technology to Support Education Reform (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993), p. 73.

4 Means et al., op. cit., footnote 3, Ann D. Thompson, Michael R Simonson, and Constance P. Hargrave, Educational Technology: A

Review of the Research (Washington, DC. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1992).
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options 115

Methodological Issues. It is important to note that there are several basic factors frustrating researchers, teachers, and policy makers looking for simple yes or no answers about technology’s effectiveness.

One is the overall context of real world educational research. As one researcher noted, “Schools are messy

and noisy environments for research, far from the pristine, controlled setting available in the research laboratory, the model on which most quantitative evaluation studies are based. ”5 Comparable comparison

groups are scarce; interventions with technology are usually a part of broader interventions that also influence outcomes; and different treatments for experimental and control groups run counter to a teacher’s

impulse to treat all students equitably.

A second major flaw in the existing research is the lack of good outcome measures for assessing the

impact of technology-based innovations. Most of the research to date relies on existing measures of student achievement (e.g., standardized achievement tests). Although there are many promising efforts to

broaden the kinds of indicators that can be used to assess student achievement, these are not yet in widespread use.6 New achievement measures would assess areas that many believe can be particularly affected by using new technologies (e.g., higher-order thinking). Also key, however, is the need to include

outcomes that go beyond student achievement, because student achievement may be affected by students’ attitudes about themselves, school, and learning, and by the types of interactions that go on in

schools. For example, some research has documented the positive effects of computer-assisted instruction

on students attitudes about school and learning.7 Also promising is recent research that suggests that

technology-based innovations can affect student self-concept as well as interactions between students and

teachers in the classroom environment.8 Technological changes are likely to be nonlinear, and technological changes may show their impacts not only on student learning, but also on the curricula, the nature of

instruction, 9 the culture of schools, and the fundamental ways teachers do their jobs.

Timeliness. The rapid pace and the potentially high cost of some technological changes10 create a

dilemma for the typically slower pace of careful research. Policymakers—and taxpayers-faced with deciding whether to invest millions of dollars in an information infrastructure typically want to know whether

their investment will be worth the increased financial burden (assuming technology does not replace existing methods). For example, they will want to know whether what is on the ‘(information superhighway” will

really help their children achieve, whether putting a telephone on every teacher’s desk will really improve

parent-teacher communication, or whether investing in new personnel to provide “just-in-time” support for

technology-using teachers will enhance the instructional capabilities of existing technology investments.

Equally reasonable seem the frustrations of those who have experienced the promise of particular educational technologies in small experimental programs (e.g., downloading real-time information on weather

data from satellites for science lessons). By the time the external evidence has been compiled, “proving”

that technology integration works and districts are ready to commit to purchases of the appropriate hardware and software, the technology that has been researched may be obsolete and a golden opportunity to

use it for current students will have been lost.

5 Joan O. Herman, “Evaluating the Effects of Technology In School Reform, ” Technology and Education Reform The Reality Behind the Promise, Barbara Means (cd.) (San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994), p. 145

6 See Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions, OTA-SET-51 9 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Off Ice,

February 1992),

7 Thompson et al., op. cit., footnote 4.

8

J. Sivin-Kachala and Ellen R. Bialo, Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in Schools:1990-1994 (Washington, DC, Software

Publishers Association, n.d.).

9 Jerome Johnston, Electronic Learning: From Audiotape to Videodisc (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987).

10 The costs of educational technologies are not known with certainty. What is known is that they will vary considerably depending

on an array of factors. See section on “Costs” later in this chapter

(continued)
16 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Directions for the Future. Although there are some promising studies, more research on the broad

variety of educational effects of technology is needed. A more fruitful research approach than merely asking whether a particular technology works is to ask about the “value added” to instruction when technology

is present in schools; in other words, when, why, and how do technologies improve teaching, professional

development, and, ultimately, learning for children? Increasingly, researchers are concentrating their efforts

on this type of more contextualized research—studying how complex-technology-based innovations “work”

in real classroom settings over time. Such research can help to determine how technology environments

can best be designed to support student learning and what approaches to instruction work best in conjunction with various types of technologies for what kinds of subject matter. The role of the teacher in implementing and facilitating student learning in such environments is an important focus of such studies. ’ 11

Additional research models are needed to deepen understanding about which instructional uses of technology are most effective and under what circumstances, and how teacher interactions with technology play

into this effectiveness. By taking a more contextualized approach, research can help schools, parents,

teachers, and policymakers understand the necessary steps to diffusing and continuously refining educational technologies in the schools.

11 For examples of this kind of research see A.L. Brown, “Design Experiments Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in

Creating Complex Interventions m Classroom Settings, ” Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 141-178, Cognition and

Technology Group at Vanderbilt, “The Jasper Experiment An Exploration of Issues in Learning and Instructional Design, ’’Educational

Technology Research and Development, Vol. 40, pp. 65-80, 1992.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.

fessions, and, although it may be efficient for

school districts, many suggest it is not the most effective way to encourage teachers to learn new

skills or teaching approaches. It appears to be a

particularly ill-chosen method for encouraging

teachers to use technology, where hands-on training with the hardware and software, curriculumspecific applications, and followup support are all

necessary.

OTA has found examples of how technology

can provide teachers with “just-in-time training

and support” when and where they need assistance

in many curricular areas. It can transcend the walls

of isolation that separate teachers and extend formal and informal learning opportunities. The following are some examples:

■ Without leaving their school buildings, teachers from across the 90 school districts in

sprawling Los Angeles County can participate

in a satellite staff development course on topics

such as how to apply the California history and

social science framework in lessons in their

classrooms.

School counselors from across Wyoming meet

regularly over a compressed video network to

discuss student truancy and behavior problems.

A special education professor at the University

of Northern Iowa offers courses to teachers

throughout the state over the Iowa Communication Network. With this fiberoptic network, teachers at each site can see and hear each

other as they develop skills for adding the certification credits that will enable them to teach

students with moderate, severe, and profound

mental disabilities.

Mathematics teachers use a computer network

to discuss the mathematics teaching techniques

they have observed through video presentations in the Mathline project sponsored by the

Public Broadcasting System.
■

Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options i 17

Using cable television, teachers from remote

locations around the country can take courses

leading to a masters in educational technology

degree from George Washington University in

Washington, DC.

In examples like these, technology can be the

vehicle for providing teachers access to new ideas,

master teachers and other professionals beyond

their school setting, in both formal and informal

courses and enrichment activities. It can also provide the support teachers need after a course ends,

as they apply and refine in the classroom the lessons and techniques they have learned.

■ Preparing New Teachers with

Technology

In colleges of education where technology is an

integral part of the teacher education preservice

program, technology has been used not just to

train prospective teachers about technology, but

also as a resource to enhance the overall teacher

preparation experience. For example, live broadcasts, tapes, video networks, CD-ROMs or videodiscs can provide teacher education students with

case studies or models of effective teaching. Furthermore, technology-whether computer or video networks-can create closer connections

among student teachers, college of education faculty, and mentor teachers in K-12 classrooms,

whether in lab schools or professional development schools closely allied with colleges of

education, or in more traditional student placement activities. Electronic networks can provide a

safety net for communication, sharing knowledge, and experience for student teachers in the

field, as well as for new teachers launching their

careers. The loneliness and anxiety common to

teachers’ first teaching experiences can be mitigated through contact with professors and peers

via electronic networks. The following are examples of ways technologies have enriched preservice teacher education:

● Teacher education students at the University of

South Carolina appreciate what students with

language learning disabilities might experiThe use of technology in teacher preparation programs is

limited, but it can enhance the overall preservice experience.

■

■

ence when dealing with text by working with a

software simulation called “The Language

Mangler.” Another simulation serves as a surrogate field observation, enabling prospective

teachers to observe, critique, and discuss ways

teachers handle students with special needs in

a variety of settings.

At the Peabody College of Education at Vanderbilt University, teacher education students

review CD-ROM discs that contain video cases

of mathematics teachers working with students. Teacher education students can each

have copies of the inexpensive CD-ROM discs,

play them on computers supplied with CDROM drives in dorms and on campus, and review teaching techniques individually or in a

group. They add notes and observations on accompanying software that serves as an electronic notebook, which instructors then collect

electronically for grading and return.

All the schools in which the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education preservice

students spend their internships are linked to

Virginia’s Public Education Network, permitting the teaching intern, the supervising teach-
18 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

er, and the faculty at the Curry School to confer

via the electronic network throughout the

teaching internship.

 At the Price Lab School at the University of

Northern Iowa, a fiberoptic network linking the

college and the lab school enables teachers in

any of the 48 classrooms at the lab school to

ship video to teaching methods classes. Teacher education students see lessons related to topics they are discussing in their courses and,

with two-way video and audio, talk to the

teacher after they see the lesson and hear the

teacher’s on-the-spot analysis of what worked

and what was problematic in that lesson. Since

most lab school faculty use technology in their

classes, the teacher education students can see

effective modeling of technology use via

technology.

 University of Wyoming students conducting

student teaching meet via a compressed video

system with their supervising faculty member,

collaborating teacher, and clinical supervisor as

often as necessary to discuss problems and

questions arising out of student teaching experiences.

TEACHERS AND TECHNOLOGY:

THE BARRIERS

While promising, the above examples of what

technology can do are far from the reality in

many schools, in colleges of education, or in the

daily teaching experience or professional development of the typical teacher. There are a

number of common barriers to more widespread

use of technology by teachers (see table 1-2):

 First, there is the question of access to appropriate technologies. The question of access is also

tied to problems of costs.

 Although most teachers see the value of students learning about computers and other

technologies, many teachers lack a clear understanding about what resources technology can

offer them as they try to meet their instructional

goals.

 As do most users of emerging technologies,

many teachers encounter technical and logistical problems they cannot solve themselves and

often lack the training and support necessary to

resolve the problems.

 Many feel the need for more knowledge—not

just about how to run the machines—but about

what software to use, how to integrate it into the

curriculum, and how to organize classroom activities using technology.

 The current assessment system, if it relies

heavily on standardized achievement tests, can

also be a barrier to experimentation with new

technologies because teachers are not sure

whether the results they are seeking will be reflected in improved student test scores.

 In addition, issues created by technology itself

are also factors to be dealt with, including those

related to copyright and intellectual property

rights, privacy of student records, and control

of student access to objectionable materials.

❚ Access Issues

Equipment

One basic prerequisite for effective teacher use of

technology is access. Schools have made substantial investments in hardware and software over the

past several years, increasing their technology inventories (see box 1-3). OTA finds that, despite

past investments in technology, many schools still

lack the basic technology infrastructure to support

the most promising applications of educational

technology. About half the computers in U.S.

schools are older, 8-bit machines that cannot support CD-ROM-sized databases or network integrated systems or run complex software. This

aging inventory limits the ability of many teachers

to use some of the most exciting applications of

computers—information gathering from networked databases or CD-ROM encyclopedias,

desktop publishing, mathematics instruction using analytic graphing and calculating software,

and collaborating in joint projects over networks.

Some schools do not always make the most of

the equipment they already have, and some do not
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options 119

Teacher time Teachers need time to:

Access and

■ Experiment with new technologies.

10 ■ Share experiences with other teachers.

2

9 3

■ Plan and debug lessons using new methods that incor8 4

porate technologies.

■ Attend workshops or training sessions.

costs In addition to limited hardware and software, other factors

Vision or rationale for

technology use

Training and support

affect access:

●

■

■

■

■

■

■

m

■

Costs are high for purchasing, connecting, and training

to use technologies.

Technologies may not be located in or near the classroom.

Hardware in schools today is old (50 percent of computers in schools are 8-bit machines) and cannot handle many newer applications.

New or additional wiring or phone lines are necessary

for telecommunications networks.

Schools must have plans, and teachers a clear understanding of curricular uses of technology.

It is difficult to keep up with the rapid rate of technology

development and changing messages of best use.

Teachers lack models showing the value of technology

for their own professional use.

Overall, districts spend less than 15 percent of their

technology budgets on training, but they spend 55 percent of the budget on hardware and 30 percent on

software.

Technology training today focuses primarily on the mechanics of operating equipment, not on integrating

technology into the curriculum or selecting appropriate

software.

Only 6 percent of elementary and 3 percent of secondary schools have a full-time, school-level computer

coordinator for technical support.

Current assessment

practices

■

■

Existing standardized measurements of student

achievement may not reflect what has been learned

with technology.

Teachers are held immediately accountable for changes

that take time to show results.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.
20 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

SOURCE. Office of Technology Assessment, adapted from Jane L. David, “Realizing the Promise of Technology Policy Perspective” in Barbara Means (ed ), Technology and Education Reform (San Francisco.

Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc., 1994), pp. 169-189

always locate technology in the most accessible

places. Most computers are still in labs rather than

in classrooms, and modems may be located on a

central computer in the principal’s office, making

it hard for teachers to use them during the course

of a day. Thus, it is not surprising that computers

are not used very often (about two hours per student per week, according to coordinators; less, according to the students). They are not used

regularly in the teaching of academic subjects—

only 9 percent of secondary school students reported using computers for English class, 6 to 7

percent for a math class, and 3 percent for a social

studies class. The most common uses of computers are for basic skill practice at the elementary

level and word processing and other computerspecific skills in middle and high schools. Other

uses, such as desktop publishing, developing

math or science reasoning with computer simulations, gathering information from databases, or

communicating by electronic mail (e-mail) are

much rarer. And, despite the growing interest in

connecting schools with information resources

like the Internet, most school districts with local

area networks do not always configure them or use

them for the most up-to-date applications.

Furthermore, a majority of schools are ill-

-equipped to take advantage of the potential presented by telecommunications networks. Fewer

than one teacher in eight has a telephone in the

classroom that can be used for outside calls. Moreover, most schools lack the connectivity, administrative and organizational support, and technical

expertise needed to integrate networks into teaching and learning.

OTA finds that it is necessary to consider a

new definition of what constitutes “access” to

technology by teachers and students. Counts of

equipment, student-computer ratios, dollars spent

and requirements, while important, alone are not

sufficient to define meaningful access to technologies. It is appropriate rather to consider infrastructure in a broader sense: type of technology

(including older but overlooked resources such as

the telephone), age, capacity, connectivity, software, and services. Organizational arrangements

—the placement and flexibility of technology—

also affect the ease of use by teachers and students.

For example, a cart of laptop computers that can

be moved anywhere in a school may be used much

more often than a computer lab far from the classroom. An additional component of a new definition of access includes the kinds of support

teachers need to use the infrastructure effectively:

exposure to innovative uses, flexible “just-intime” training, and ongoing technical support and

expert advice.

If access to technology is an equity concern,

then the definition should be expanded to encompass access to necessary information. Telecommunications and networking technologies, in

particular, may create incomparable opportunities

for teachers and students to gain immediate access

to information. Combined with hardware like CDROM players, the excitement and power of video

can be combined with the information transmission power of the computer and communication
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options

capabilities of high speed networks. Connectivity

is likely to become the major technology issue of

the next several years. Major investments of time

and other resources will be required to prepare

‘schools to effectively access the information and

electronic communities telecommunications can

provide.

costs

As new technologies, new opportunities for increased levels of connectivity, and educational

applications emerge, those concerned with expanding the use of technology in schools and by

teachers have turned their attention to the issue of

cost. 12 The cost of any new initiative is always an

issue for elementary and secondary education,

which is funded almost exclusively by a combination of state and local taxpayers. Some have suggested, however, that there be greater roles for the

federal government, private businesses, or some

combination to ensure that schools obtain new

technologies. These suggestions have stimulated

the Congress to direct the U.S. Department of

Education (ED) to estimate costs on a national basis. 13 The ED estimate, to be developed by the

Rand Corporation under contract to ED, was not

available at the time this report was prepared. Previous attempts at rough estimates, at the state and

national levels, can be informative in illustrating

the range of costs-and the range of uncertainty—

involved.

States vary greatly in their installed base of

technology, their technology plans and goals, and

the numbers of students served (see chapter 3, figure 3-5). Consequently, states will require varying

levels of funding to meet these goals. For all

states, however, substantial commitments will be

required.

I 21

The costs of technology are a major hurdle for many schools.

Table 1-3 estimates installation and operating

costs of selected telecommunications technologies. The table is based on rough estimates by

OTA of the costs of installing telephone lines in all

U.S. classrooms, and by projections made by two

economists 14 based on various configurations for

connecting schools, school districts, and/or classrooms. Analysis of the estimates suggests that at

the national level and depending on a variety of

factors:

■

■

estimated one-time installation costs (including training) may range from $0.08 billion (for

one personal computer plus modem per school,

connected to the Internet through a school-district-based file server) to $145 billion (to have

one personal computer per student desktop,

with full, ubiquitous connection to the Internet

for a complete suite of text, audio, graphical

and video applications); plus

estimated annual operating costs for the configurations described above (including annual

12 See, e.g., Russell I. Rothstein, "Connecting K-12 Schools to the NII: A Preliminary Assessment of Technology Models and Their

Associated Costs," a working paper (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Aug. 4, 1994); Robert Cohen, "The Cost of NII Access to

K-12 Schools: preliminary Assessments,” paper provided by Robert Blau, director, Policy Analysis, Bell South, Washington, DC, 1994. 13 See, e.g., Public Law 103-382, Title III.

14 Rothstein and Cohen, op. cit., footnote 12.
Range of Range of

estimated estimated

one-time annual

Examples of technology, training, support, Source of installation and operating

and infrastructure configurations estimate training costs costs Limits on capability

Telephone in each public school classroom.

One personal computer (PC) plus modem per

school, connected to a school-district-based file

server, connected to the Internet, with minimal initial teacher training, and $2-$10K per year for

teacher support and $1-$5K per year for teacher

training.

An average of 60-100 PCs, modems, and a local

area network (LAN) using copper wire per school;

district-based file server to remote locations, IAN,

router to the Internet; initial teacher training of 5 to

20 staff per school, and annual teacher support

and training.

One PC per classroom with additional dialup lines.

Districts support file server to remote locations,

LAN, and router to the Internet; with initial teacher

training of 10-20 staff per school and annual teacher support and training of 1-2 support staff per

district, and $10-20K for training. Includes major

retrofitting costs.

OTAa

$123.00 mil.b

(low) -

$220.00 roil.

(high) c

Rothstein, 1994 $80.00 roil.

(low) -

$390.00 roil.

(high)

Rothstein, 1994 $2.59 bil. (low)-

$7.75 bil. (high)

$310.00 mil. Phone line could be used to connect to modem.

(Iow) d 

-

$333.00 mil.

(high)e

$160.00 mil. Limited access by teachers and students; allows

(low) - text-based applications only (e.g., e-mail, telnet,

$560.00 mil. gopher).

(high)

$1.37 bil. (low)- Supports only a few users at a time because it is o

$3.38 bil. (high) limited by the number of phone lines going out of

the school.

Rothstein, 1994; $5.38 bil. (low)- $1.30 bil. (low)- No real-time access to video or graphics.

Cohen, 1994 $13.26 bil. $3.84 bil. (high)

(high)
60 PCs per school plus LAN, file server with highspeed links, and router. District offices have IAN,

file server to remote locations, and router; with initial teacher training for 40-50 staff per school and

annual teacher support and training of 3 support

staff per district, plus annual training costs of

$15-$35K.

1 PC per desktop, plus school-based IAN, a larger file-server, and router to district office; each district has a file server to remote locations, LAN, a

high-speed line to school; and a larger dialup system than in previous model; with initial teacher

training for all teachers in all schools, and annual

teacher support and training consisting of 4-5 support staff per district; plus annual training costs of

$16.5-$38.5K. Includes significant retrofitting

costs.

4 schools per district have PCs, LAN, file server/

router; each district has a file server LAN, a data

line to wide area networks, and dialup lines; assumes initial training costs of $100K and annual

support and training costs of$133K total. Includes

costs of retrofitting school buildings.

Rothstein, 1994 $11.75 bil.

(low) -

$27.53 bil.

(high)

Rothstein, 1994 $65.80 bil.

(low) -

$145.62 bil.

(high)

Cohen, 1994 $35.76 bil.

$1.85 bil.

(low) -

$4.94 bil.

(high)

$4.46 bil. -

$11.28 bil.

Base needed for connecting each public school to

the Internet, allowing use of “limited” video, graphical and text-based network applications.

Full connection to the Internet, supports full suite

of text, audio, graphic and video applications.

Would not support full-motion video.

$5,49 bil. None: individual schools linked directly to a national information infrastructure; circuit can accommodate very wide array of services including full

motion video.

a Figures do not reflect the fact that one-eighth of classrooms now have phones; thus, these estimates may be too high

b Based on an estimate of 83,389 public schools (Software Publishers Association, 1994), with an average of 20 classrooms per school (Rothstein, 1994).

C Includes additional charges for labor and installation (optional) of $42 upfront charge, plus $16 for 15 minutes (per classroom), for an additional cost of $96,731,240,

d Calculated for regular (non-centrex) service as follows: $16.77 per line monthly charge + $1.45 per month message unit charge [@20 message units per month] = $18.22 X 10 months in school year X

1,668,000 classrooms = $303,909,600 Figures may not total exactly due to rounding.

e Calculated for centrex service as follows: $18.22 per Iine monthly charge + $1.45 per month message unit charge [@ 20 message units per month] = $1995 X 10 months in school year X 1,668,000

classrooms = $332,766,000= $291,170,250 Figures may not total due to rounding

SOURCE” Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on Russell I. Rothstein, “Connecting K-12 Schools to the NII: A Preliminary Assessment of Technology Models and Their Associated Costs, ” a

working paper (Washington, DC U S Department of Education, Aug. 4, 1994); Robert Cohen, “The Cost of Nll Access to K-12 Schools” Preliminary Assessments, ” paper provided by Robert Blau,

director, PoIicy Analysis, Bell South, Washington, DC, 1994
24 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Teachers working together can create a shared vision for

technology use.

training and support for teachers) may range

from $0.16 billion to $11.28 billion.

The range in the estimates in table 1-3 is striking, and the estimates could easily be far from the

mark. Furthermore, these estimates have not considered costs of using additional technological

configurations that offer potential, such as cellular

telephones and wireless modems.15

Key factors that appear to account for current

differences in available estimates include:

■ the configuration of technologies envisioned

for the estimate (from a simple telephone line,

to technologies that are on the cutting edge);

■

■

■

the number of desktops, classrooms, school

buildings, and school districts that are assumed

to obtain access to the system'

the amount of retrofitting required of school

buildings (e.g., to install new wiring for telephone and cable lines or to provide additional

electrical power, to deal with asbestos during

required construction); and

the amount of support and training required for

the human resources-the teachers-to make

best use of the new technologies.

Clearly, different assumptions about these factors-and development of new, perhaps less expensive, technologies in the future-c ould greatly

affect cost projections. In addition, at the local level, prices for individual technologies may vary

considerably, meaning that any one school, school

district, or state could experience a considerably

different level of costs than any other.16

■ A Vision of Goals and Rationale for

Technology Use

There is also a gap between having technology

and using it effectively. As described above,

equipment is often placed in locations where it is

inconvenient for regular classroom use. Furthermore, schools and teacher share received conflicting advice over the years about the best ways to

use their technology. As the technology has

evolved, so has the prevailing wisdom on how

teachers should use technologies in schoolsfrom teaching programming, to encouraging individualized drill and practice, to building computer

literacy, to participating in electronic communities. Conventional thinking also has shifted about

how to organize technology resources, from selfcontained labs, to one computer per classroom for

teacher demonstrations or single student tutorials,

to a few computers per classroom on which stu15 See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment study on wireless telecommunications, forthcoming.

16The policy issues and options section of this chapter provides examples of different state policies (e.g., with respect to group puchasing, with respect to subsidies for telecommunications charges) can affect the costs actually incurred at the local level.
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options | 25

dents can work in small groups, to one computer

per student and on the teacher’s desktop. It is

small wonder that teachers have become confused, and administrators frustrated, with many

educators unclear where they should be headed in

directing technology use.

❚ Support and Training

Other barriers in many schools hamper more effective use of technology by teachers. These include lack of time, inconvenient scheduling,

attitudinal barriers, and barriers of school organization, curriculum, testing, and other policies.

In general, teachers have little in the way of

technology support or training available at their

schools, although many teachers seek training on

their own. Currently schools spend much more on

hardware (55 percent) and software (30 percent)

than they do on training (15 percent). Less than

half of American schools report that an introductory computer course is available for teachers

through the district or a local college.

Furthermore, the kind of training, not just

availability, is important. Much of today’s educational technology training tends to focus on the

mechanics of operating new machinery, with little

about integrating technology into specific subjects, how to choose software, and how to organize classes, e.g., to use four computer

workstations or a single computer with a modem.

Regular, onsite support for technology use is an

even more daunting problem. Only 6 percent of

elementary and 3 percent of secondary schools

have full-time school-level computer coordinators; in nearly three-fifths of schools, no one had

any portion of their workweek officially allocated

to coordinating computer activities. Even in

schools where someone is designated to spend at

least half of his or her time as computer coordinator, very little of this time goes directly to training

or helping teachers use computers.

Probably the greatest barrier to technology

use, however, is simply lack of teacher time—

time to attend training or workshops, to experiment with machines and explore software, to talk

to others teachers about what works and what

doesn’t, and to plan lessons using new materials or

methods. The diverse jobs teachers are asked to do

and roles they are asked to play also affect their

ability to take on another challenge. Teachers are

given very little compensated staff development

time and there are multiple competing demands

for this time. Unless there are significant changes

to the rhythm of the school day or changed incentives for giving teachers more time to learn and experiment with new technologies, this barrier to

technology use will remain immense.

❚ Other Emerging Issues

As the possibilities for widespread information

networks—and their use by schools, teachers, and

students—emerge, other issues are coming to

light that may affect the ability of teachers to use

technologies for administrative, instructional, and

professional development purposes. These issues

include copyright and intellectual property issues,

privacy of student records, and censorship of objectionable materials versus protecting students’

access to potentially valuable information.

Copyright and Intellectual Property Issues

Currently, one of the most widespread and promising uses of telecommunications technology by

teachers is the retrieval of information from remote sources, including networked information,

collections of books, journals, music, images, databases, software, and multimedia works—socalled digital libraries.17 As students and teachers

develop multimedia materials or projects, share

them with colleagues, and store them in portfolios

for student and teacher evaluation, use of copyrighted works in the classroom could grow dra17 Margaret Honey and Andrés Henriquéz, Telecommunication and K-12 Educators: Findings from a National Survey (New York, NY:

Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education, 1993).
26 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

matically. Some examples of student use of such

materials might include:18

 creating a Quicktime clip from a segment of a

videodisc of a popular movie,

 digitizing a video clip from a “60 Minutes” segment,

 scanning a copyrighted photograph to use in a

Hyperstudio program,

 using music from a compact disc for background, and

 scanning a copyrighted picture of “Goofy” to

use in a project.

Teachers’ use of new media and curriculum development activities using copyright materials

might include such activities as:

 keeping student developed multimedia projects

using materials cited above as examples to

show others,

 showing multimedia projects at professional

conferences,

 sharing multimedia projects over the school

district’s cable channel,

 using an object from a copyrighted authoring

program in another courseware authoring program for teaching purposes, and

 sharing projects on a listserv on the Internet.

These applications all raise issues related to fair

use of copyright material and copyright protection.

The nature of digital works also changes how

people read or use the works,19 which presents

new challenges to educators for the proper use of

intellectual property. In earlier work,20 OTA has

found that the application of intellectual property

law to protect works maintained in digital libraries

continues to be uncertain; concepts such as “fair

use” are not clearly defined as they apply to these

works, and the means to monitor compliance with

copyright law and to distribute royalties are not

yet resolved. Resolution of these issues will provide teachers with clearer guidance for using digital information; meanwhile, school systems must

struggle to remain in compliance with the existing

law.

Privacy of Student Records

Use of computers by teachers may raise new issues of privacy for teachers and their students.

One area of particular concern is computerization

of student records. Increasingly, educators and policymakers will use data gathered and maintained

in computers to monitor progress toward educational achievement standards, determine how well

curricular content areas are covered, track performance of all students, and analyze information

about special groups, such as disadvantaged and

language-minority children.21 In some states,

lawsuits have challenged the right of state educational agencies to create computerized records by

18 Rosemary Taub, College of Education, Kansas State University, personal communication, August 1994.

19 Digital information differs from information maintained in more traditional forms (e.g., analog) in several ways: 1) digital works are

easily copied, with no loss of quality; 2) they can be transmitted easily to other users or be accessed by multiple users; 3) they can be manipulated

and modified easily and changed beyond recognition; 4) they render text, video, and music to an essentially equivalent series of bits and store

them in the same medium; 5) they are inaccessible to the user without hardware and software tools for retrieval, decoding, and navigation; and 6)

with appropriate software, they create opportunities to experience works in new ways, for example, interactive media.

20 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Finding A Balance: Computer Software, Intellectual Property, and the Challenge of

Technological Change, OTA-TCT-527 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1992).

21 National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, Student Questionnaire, prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, National Center

for Education Statistics.
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options | 27

collecting individually identifiable data. Typically the legality of such data collections is upheld,

but not always.22

The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act

of 1974 (FERPA), commonly called the “Buckley

Amendment” after former New York Senator

James Buckley, was enacted in part to safeguard

parents’ rights and to correct some improprieties

in the collection and maintenance of public records. The legislation establishes the right of parents to inspect school records, limits access to

school records (including test scores) to those who

have legitimate educational needs for the information, and requires written parental consent for the

release of identifiable data.

The growing use of computers to collect and

store potentially sensitive information also requires heightened awareness from computer users

about their responsibility to respect confidentiality when accessing data. It is already evident to users of electronic information technologies that

functions such as e-mail make the anonymity and

ease of manipulating data within electronic communities far more likely.

Censorship and Protecting Student

Access to Information

A particularly challenging issue for K-12 education is finding the appropriate balance between

encouraging students’ rights of access to information and protecting students from objectionable

materials and potentially harmful contacts over

wide area networks. Bringing the world into the

classroom is a laudable concept, but it can also

have a downside. Educators and parents are concerned that children will be able to gain access to

pornographic, dangerous, salacious, or otherwise

undesirable material over networks, material that

might never be allowed in textbooks, school libraries, or at home. The same information superhighway that makes it possible for students to talk

to the Archbishop of Canterbury or the state governor online could also link them to criminals, pedophiles, or psychopaths.23 As one news article

recently noted:

The cyberspace battles may prove especially

contentious, because the Internet contains a

great many works not found on the shelves of

most schools. “The School Stopper’s Textbook,” for instance, tells how to short-circuit

electrical wiring, set off explosives in school

plumbing and “break into your school at night

and burn it down.” . . .Schools can keep a pornographic book off the library shelf by not buying

it, but they can’t keep it from entering the building through cyberspace.24

Some educators fear that, without proper safeguards, concerns like this could block the educational potential of telecommunications in schools.

Schools are also worried about the potential for

litigation, since some states prohibit “exposing

minors to dangerous material or information.”25

Some schools have addressed this issue by educating teachers about the potential “risks” on the Internet; others have developed network use

policies that students and parents must sign. For

example, a school district in Colorado sends home

a notice warning parents that potentially “defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, racially offensive, or

illegal material” exists online. 26

22 Aaron M. Pallas, “Statewide Student Record Systems: Current Status and Future Trends,” National Education Goals Panel, Mar. 26, 1992.

Some teachers have also voiced concern that states will use the data for accountability purposes that teachers believe are inappropriate, thereby

jeopardizing local autonomy. While most states do not use their statewide student record systems for accountability purposes, local districts and

state education departments may disagree about the propriety of these purposes.

23 Paul Evan Peters, “In Your Face in Cyberspace,” Educom Review, September/October 1994, pp. 70-73.

24 Stephen Bates, “The Next Front in the Book Wars,” The New York Times, Educational Life Section, Nov. 6, 1994, p. 22.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.
28 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Other schools have given accounts and passwords to teachers only, not allowing students access to telecommunications. However, many

educators consider this educationally shortsighted, especially since the possibilities of exploration and freedom of inquiry are what many find

so promising about the Internet.27 Increasingly,

schools have put some of the responsibility on the

students, setting up rules for permissible “surfing”

(browsing through discussion groups or information sources) and taking away student passwords

or accounts if they engage in “hacking” (destroying files or other materials on a computer system)

or “flaming” (using abusive or offensive language

on e-mail). Still others seek technological solutions that block access to certain areas of the Internet: development is underway on “reverse

firewalls” that keep users from going beyond prescribed areas on the Internet. Until such prototypes are in place, schools and teachers face a

substantial challenge.

PROMISING APPROACHES TO

TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

The challenge of integrating technology into

schools and classrooms is much more human

than it is technological. What’s more, it is not

fundamentally about helping people to operate

machines. Rather, it is about helping people, primarily teachers, integrate these technologies

into their teaching as tools of a profession that is

being redefined through the . . . . process.28

Some schools and colleges of education are developing approaches to technology implementation from which others can benefit. The

approaches differ, depending upon the existing resources (human and technological) at a site, the visions the sites have developed for how

technologies are to be used and what problems

they can address, and the leadership and support

marshaled to meet those goals. These approaches

include the following:

 developing technology-rich classrooms,

schools, or districts, in which local expertise in

various applications of technology can be developed and shared;

 training master teachers, who then serve as resources for their colleagues;

 providing expert resource people from other

staff, such as librarians, computer coordinators,

or volunteers from business, parent, and student groups;

 giving every teacher a computer, training, and

time to develop personal confidence and expertise;

 training administrators so they can serve as

technology supporters and guide efforts within

their schools or jurisdiction; and

 establishing teacher or technology resource

centers, ideally with ease of teacher access

through online services.

Most schools combine several of these approaches, and there is no clear evidence that any

one model is more successful than others. OTA

found a number of promising practices, including

the following examples:

 At Webster Elementary School in St. Augustine, Florida, all staff received broad training in

technology use, but those interested were given

more time, more training, and the opportunity

to attend conferences. They became the “local

experts” that other teachers could draw on for

assistance or advice.

 To ease the burden of setting up alternative arrangements for substitutes, the Monterey

California Model Technology Schools developed the concept of “SuperSubs,” in which

teachers on early retirement, armed with

technology lessons and resources, substitute

27 “Lifelong Learning and the NII,” unpublished proceedings, Westfields Conference Center, Chantilly, VA., Nov. 18-20, 1994.

28 Barbara Means et al., Using Technology to Support Education Reform, OR-93-3231 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Research, September 1993), pp. 83-84.
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options | 29

for other teachers who are then free to observe

still other teachers’ technology lessons and approaches.

 In Indiana, four schools were given grants allowing every teacher to receive a computer and

printer for use at home or in school, to improve

their personal productivity and, ultimately,

instructional efforts. Training, involvement of

support staff and administrators as well as

teachers, and broad public commitment helped

to meet the goals of the program.

 In the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow Teacher

Development Center Project, principals are encouraged to attend training with teacher teams

and commit to providing extra time and resource for teachers to work together, reflect on

what they are learning and doing, and assist

their colleagues in technology activities.

 Texas supports 20 regional education service

centers, with extra funding to support technology initiatives, including such areas as technology preview centers, training first-year teachers

and preservice teachers in technology use, and

training personnel on the use of TENET, the

statewide computer network for teachers, with

connections to the Internet.

These examples suggest a number of important

lessons for implementation (see box 1-5).

CURRENT FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR

TEACHER TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY

As in the past (see box 1-6), multiple categorical

programs for different needs and niches continue

to comprise the world of federal teacher training

programs.29 Of the 58 programs OTA has identified that support preparation of teachers to use

educational technology of some sort, most are

small (under $10 million). What is striking

about most of these programs is the optional

nature of support for technology-related training. Not one program is devoted exclusively to

technology-related teacher training, although

federal agencies sometimes choose, in the case of

discretionary grant programs, to make technology-related teacher training an absolute priority for

one funding cycle.30 The programs that provide

the most consistent funding for technology-related professional development usually combine

technology with science and mathematics training

or include technology-related activities for both

teachers and students, as in the Star Schools program.

In myriad programs, it is up to state, local, or

university grantees to decide whether technologyrelated training is provided at all and in what form.

This is the case with large formula grant programs, such as the Title I Chapter 1 (usually referred to as) program for disadvantaged children

and the Vocational Education Basic Grant program, as well as smaller demonstration programs,

such as the National Science Foundation (NSF)

Teacher Enhancement program. Even programs

with a primary focus on teacher development seldom mandate or recommend that grantees consider technology as either a topic for training or a

mode for delivery. And with few exceptions, the

federal government does not collect data from

grantees in the format or detail necessary to discern which projects are actually providing

technology-related teacher development, or how

much they are spending for it, or what the impact

has been. 

FEDERAL POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS

The appropriate federal role in education has always been debated. The extent to which there

should be a federal role in assisting teachers to

make the connection with technology is and will

continue to be part of this debate.

There seems to be little question of whether

technologies should be used in the nation’s

schools for purposes of instruction, administra29 The General Accounting Office counted 86 programs supported by the federal government in support of teacher training of all kinds.

“Multiple Teacher Training Programs” (Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, February 1995).

30 An absolute priority means that only projects that address the priority will be funded in a given year. Priorities change from year to year.
30 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

A number of schools, districts, and states have made the adoption of technology a priority. Important

lessons from these sites include:

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Educational rationale should guide technology decisions. Developing a technology plan—

thinking through the goals for technology use at the local site and involving teachers in the planning process—is key to successful implementation.

Those wishing to invest in technology should plan to invest substantially in human resources. Training, maintenance, technical support and time to learn to use the technology have

proven to be constant and continuing, yet key expenditures. Recently, several states (e.g., Texas

and Florida) have recommended that at least 30 percent of technology funds be spent on training.

Teachers cannot use technology without systemic support. The roles of principals, other administrators, and the community are critical in fostering sustained use of technologies. Other

staff, such as media specialists, can provide technical and motivational support for teachers in

their building if time is allocated for them to do so.

When it comes to learning to use technology, “hands-on” training is more than a gimmick

or motivator. It is a necessity. Teachers must have the chance to make the computer (or camera

or whatever) work, and gain confidence in their own competence, before they try the same thing

with their own class.

Access to equipment is essential. It is extremely frustrating for teachers to learn to use technology in a workshop, then return to a classroom where the technology is not readily available.

Many programs are increasing teacher access to technology by letting them take the equipment

home (e.g., laptops, summer loaner programs, etc.) since most teachers put in many hours at

home grading, planning, and preparing. Putting technology in the hands of teachers—allowing

them to see and explore how technology can help them do their jobs—can be an effective way

of motivating teachers to learn about technology.

Although there are a number of models for training teachers and implementing technology,

there is no one best way of using technology or of training teachers to use technology.

Districts are most successful when they have multiple and complementary training and support

strategies.

Followup support and coaching is as essential to effective staff development as is the initial learning experience. Teachers don’t “learn it all” at a training session—even if it extends

over several weeks. When they return to the classroom the unexpected inevitably happens. At

this point, teachers need to be able to reach out for technical assistance and support.

Many technology-rich sites continue to struggle with how to integrate technology into the

curriculum. Curriculum integration is central if technology is to become a truly effective educational resource, yet true integration is a difficult, time-consuming, and resource-intensive endeavor.

When conditions are right—resources, time, and support are high-exciting things happen

in technology-rich environments. Today we are faced with the broader issues of how to move

these lessons to the second stage of dissemination. How can these lessons be translated when

resources aren’t as rich? When teachers aren’t as enthusiastic or energetic? Issues for policy

consideration include the need to consider the development of products based on research and

experience of experimental sites, seeding of more “real world” projects, and better dissemination

of lessons learned.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options | 31

tive efficiency, and teacher professional development, as appropriate. The policy options in this

report focus on the question of teachers’ roles in

accomplishing this goal, and on the advantages

and disadvantages of selected legislative actions

related to teachers and technology.

The array of technology for education is diverse, changing, and flexible, and these characteristics enable development of hardware, software,

and learning environments that can suit special

needs, allow new approaches to teaching and

learning, strengthen teaching, and create excitement in the classroom. The broad and expanding

range of educational technologies complements

the diversity of the American education system. In

the past, federal policy has often floundered on the

enormous scale and differences that characterize

American schools, compounded by the strong

tradition of state and local control. In thinking

about policy for technology, decisions can be

made to allow for variation, change, experimentation and differing outcomes, and so strength can

build upon strength.

Federal policy over the past decade has too

often focused solely on generating funds for capital investment in hardware. Other policy initiatives have been diffuse and, until recently, there

has been little focus on technology by the leadership of the U.S. Department of Education. Insufficient attention has been given to teacher

preparation, development and support of learning

tools and techniques, issues of connectivity, and

the constantly growing demands on teachers’

time. While costs of hardware will remain an issue, it is important to remember that technology

capacity continues to increase at an astounding

rate and that hardware costs often drop relevant to

the power one purchases. While direct funding or

other financial incentives are, of course, effective

ways to demonstrate leadership and commitment,

OTA concludes that, if the federal government

wants to support the expansion and appropriate

use of technologies in K-12 schools and colleges

of education, federal policy must go beyond funding. Leadership; a commitment to research, development, and dissemination; an increased focus on

teachers; and attention focused on issues related to

the challenge of school access to the emerging

electronic telecommunications infrastructure are

equally critical.

OTA has identified a number of necessary components for taking advantage of learning technology and optimizing use of technology by teachers.

These components are summarized in box 1-7 and

discussed below.

❚ Federal Leadership: Legitimizing,

Funding, and Targeting Technology

If it wants to promote the appropriate uses of

technology in elementary and secondary schools

and colleges of education, the federal government

can move to fully legitimize the role of technology to enhance instruction, increase teacher

productivity, create new teaching and learning

communities, and support educational change.

Federal signals that technology is not only welcomed but needed in schools will strongly influence state and local decisions over the next five

years. Until very recently, with little focus on the

use of technology within the Department of

Education, technology was an acceptable expenditure in many programs but was not held up as a

tool for improvement. An important exception to

this was the Star Schools Program, initiated by

Congress in 1988, which has addressed a number

of educational needs for students and, to a lesser

degree, teachers, through emerging applications

of technology.

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (P.L.

103-277) called for creation of an Office of Educational Technology within the Department of

Education. The need for high-level coordination

of technology issues had already been recognized

by the Secretary of Education in the appointment

of a Director of Educational Technology in 1993.

An office like this can provide the much needed

spotlight on technology, coordinate programs,

and lead in evaluating and disseminating research results. Continuing to support this office,

and seeing that adequate resources and authority

are provided, will be critical.

A valuable related step is to make the most of

the national long-range technology plan to be
32 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Although it is in the national interest to have a high-quality teaching force, the federal role in teacher

preparation and professional development has been limited. There are exceptions: spheres where the federal contribution has been larger and more influential, such as teacher training in mathematics and science, and personnel preparation for special education, In general, however, the federal government has

shown caution about becoming too deeply involved in an area traditionally considered a state responsibility, and until very recently has avoided even the suggestion of minimum federal standards for teacher

education, It is the states that have exercised primary authority for teacher preparation, Iicensing, and certification, and more recently, competency testing. Substantial responsibility for preservice education also

rested with universities and for inservice education, with local school districts.

In keeping with this limited role, federal contributions for teacher training have been modest

compared with overall federal spending for education.

Purposes of Federal Involvement in the Past

The federal government became involved in teacher training for a variety of reasons. Often the impetus

was a perceived crisis, such as threats to American competitiveness or widespread teacher shortages, In

other cases involvement was an outgrowth of other federal commitments. The enactment of federal programs to improve education for the handicapped, for example, created new demands for specially trained

teachers to staff these programs. Similarly, effective implementation of federal drug education programs

required new training for teachers. Other motives for federal action stem from dissatisfaction with the quality of teacher education or with other aspects of K-12 education.

This diversity of motives resulted in programs that had various purposes, took various forms, and

employed various strategies.

Impacts of Past Programs

Past federal programs had many positive effects on teacher preparation and professional development.

It might be said that the federal government helped give credence to the concept of inservice education

and professional renewal, through such programs as the National Science Foundation teacher institutes

and the National Defense Education Act institutes and Teacher Centers,

developed by the Secretary of Education in accordance with Goals 2000. This plan could provide along-overdue strategy for the federal role in

educational technology, not only in ED but across

the government. It is crucial that the Secretary

take maximum advantage of the directive in the

law to join forces with other agencies to produce

coherence and vision at the national level. Using

all national agencies and programs wisely to expand, evaluate, and build upon knowledge in

educational technology is a policy model that can

also apply to federal programs affecting teacher

preparation and the professional development of

the current teacher force.

The executive branch is involving professional

associations and citizen groups, as well as federal

agencies and researchers, to develop a plan with

foresight and credibility. An important caution,

however, is that the plan must respect and build

upon the extraordinary level of change occurring

in technology capacity and the multitude of developing applications. The plan should be a framework for an environment of experimentation and

learning, evaluation, and sharing of results. A plan

of this nature could call forth rich results, opportunities to learn from problems as well as successes,

and build respect for state and local expertise and

decisionmaking.

Goals 2000 contains other provisions that

could set the direction for educational reform for

the next several years and could be used to leverage improved technology policy. A key provision
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options 133

Although federal training programs never reached more than a small percentage of the total teaching

force, this should not obscure the fact that many millions of teachers benefited from federally supported

training. In some subject areas and specialties enough teachers were trained through federal programs to

have a significant effect on instructional quality or teacher supply. Mathematics and science is a case in

point. Even if the National Science Foundation institutes reached somewhat fewer teachers than the

agency’s estimate of half the math and science teachers in the nation, there were still enough trained to

constitute a potent force for improvement within their discipline.

The federal government was also a major force in the growth of certain teaching subspecialties, such as

special education, bilingual education, and instructional media. In a sense there was a chicken-and-egg

relationship between federal funding and the need for specially trained teachers. On one hand, it was the

power of federal mandates that created a demand for some subspecialties in the first place. On the other

hand, federal intervention filled a void because the special needs of some children were not being met

through traditional instruction or teacher preparation.

Federal aid also changed the composition of the teaching force. Scholarships, fellowships, and training

opportunities broadened access to the teaching profession for students from blue-collar or low-income

families and for minority individuals. Federal programs such as Teacher Corps attracted talented and energetic persons into teaching who might have pursued other careers.

Participation in federal training programs produced substantial improvements in the knowledge, attitudes, behavior, and career advancement of many teachers. At the school district level, federal funding

sometimes provided the external stimulus needed to promote change. Federally supported training familiarized many teachers with instructional approaches that were once considered innovative, such as individualized instruction, interdisciplinary approaches, team teaching, and multicultural education. And, most

significantly for this study, the integration of various technologies into the classroom—including audiovisual

materials, educational television, and computer technologies—was hastened and encouraged by federally

supported training.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on Nancy Kober, “Teachers and Technology. The Federal Role, ” Office of

Technology Assessment contractor report, May 25, 1994.

authorizes federal grants to states that develop “a and how seriously they are taken. The inclusion

systemic state-wide plan to increase the use of

state-of-the-art technologies that enhance elementary and secondary student learning and staff development.”31

In addition, states that submit an approved application will receive funds under Goals 2000 to

establish state content and performance standards

for student learning. Whether these standards will

instigate the massive reforms desired by advocates will depend on what the standards contain

of technology issues in these standards, however, could signal that technology is an appropriate tool for all core subjects, while the

omission of technology could prove a genuine

setback. Although the federal government does

not have the authority to dictate the substance of

these national and state standards, the law established a National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC) to review and

“certify” the standards. If NESIC or some variant

31 Public Law, 103-227, 20 USC 5897.
34 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

1. Federal and state Leadership that articulates the value of integrated, technology-based teaching and legitimizes technology as a path to achieve educational goals. This leadership will be meaningful to the extent that it is supported by commitments to fund and encourage technology use, and is

linked to continuing research, development, and dissemination. It can also focus attention on the potential

of technology for providing resources to improve the preparation of new teachers and as a valuable tool for

the “just-in-time training and support” for professional development,

2. Increased focus on teachers, both in training and in the field, including: time and money to

allow teachers to learn to use technology, support for their professional growth, respect for the complex nature of learning and the many demands facing teachers today, and research on how technology affects teaching and school change. Congress has taken some steps to promote increased technology use in schools, and greater support for teachers who use technologies. Technology planners in K-12

schools and in colleges of education can take advantage of such support to further their goals.

3. Provisions to ensure that access to data and information, through services such as the lnternet, are available to all teachers and students. The special needs of education are likely to be overlooked or neglected unless they are built into federal, state, local, and private sector decisions on telecommunications regulation and funding over the next few years, Access to high-quality information and

necessary resources may be today’s measure of equity in education.

4. Commitment to research, development, and dissemination that will advance technology use by

and for teachers. The development of powerful curriculum products, tools, and telecommunication resources is often beyond the capability of individual states, districts, or schools. The private sector may be

able to play a greater role in developing new educational technology products than they have in the past,

but some observers note that education may not be a promising enough market unless incentives are

found to aggregate it.1 Federal support may be needed to infuse the appropriate funding, expertise, and

attention to standardization, evaluation, and dissemination that can facilitate school use of promising

technologies and their applications. Furthermore, research is needed on teachers and technology use if

these applications are to be used most effectively.

1 The Software Publishers Association reports that the average elementary school spent $12,500 and the average high school

spent $10,400 on software in the 1993-94 school year Software Publishers Association, SPA K-72 Education Market Report (Washington, DC: July 1994), Overall, the annual expenditures made by K-12 schools has been estimated to be approximately $1 billion, and

software purchased by K-12 schools has been growing at the rate of about 20 percent per year Ronald E. Anderson, “The Technology

Infrastructure of U S Schools,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 36, No 5, May 1993, p 72,

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1995

is supported, its criteria for certifying standards available to support and encourage technolocould include a review of whether technology gy-related professional development in current

needs and methods have been considered.3 2 programs, and the Improving America’s

Another very critical step that the federal gov- Schools Act (P.L. 103-382), with its amendernment can take to provide both leadership and ments to the Elementary and Secondary

dollars is to make the most of the opportunities Education Act of 1965. The Office of Education32 Legislation has been introduced that would eliminate funding for NESIC (H.R. 977, H.R. 1045, S. 323, and S. 469, all in the 104th

Congress).
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options | 35

al Technology will be well suited to lead a review

of existing and proposed programs to ensure that

they give fair consideration to technology-related

expenditures and to determine whether there are

program regulations, guidelines, and accounting

procedures that either discourage expenditures for

technology and professional development or have

untapped potential to encourage them.

P.L. 103-382 also included a major new

Technology for Education Act that could be the

centerpiece of a stronger federal role in providing

technology-related teacher development, ensuring greater access and equity in the area of

technology, and demonstrating and disseminating

several promising educational applications.

The federal government could take several

steps to achieve better use of programs and

funding authorized under current laws. Federal regulatory actions could include establishing priorities or bonus points related to

technology in competitive grant programs,

issuing policy statements highlighting acceptable expenditures for technology and professional development where the law permits, and

eliminating unnecessary nonstatutory restrictions on the use of funds for technology or

training purposes. A message from federal leaders can send a strong signal of reassurance to state

and local educators that they can acquire and upgrade technology and, most important, train

teachers in its use with no regulatory constraints.

Particular attention should be focused on the

revised Eisenhower Professional Development

Program, given greater emphasis in P.L.

103-382, which calls for a larger federal teacher

professional development effort in several critical

subjects. The Secretary of Education could encourage states, universities, and school districts to

consider integrating technology into the various

professional development activities supported under this program.

Other federal programs that should be examined include the programs for students with

special needs that are a cornerstone of the federal

role in education, particularly Title I of ESEA for

disadvantaged children (referred to commonly

as Chapter 1), the Part B state grant program

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1400 et. seq.), and

the Bilingual Education Act (20 U.S.C. 7401 et.

seq.). Together these programs channel almost

$10 billion to states and school districts. Educational technology has become an important tool

for delivering instruction to the children served by

these and other special needs programs, yet teacher professional development has not kept pace.

In Chapter 1, for example, technology continues to be used primarily for drill and practice of

basic skills rather than for the more promising and

integrated kinds of teaching described in this report. Amendments to Chapter 1 in P.L. 103-382,

and discussions about future policy directions in

IDEA, are stressing improved program quality

and professional development in these programs.

For example, as justification for changes in Chapter 1, P.L. 103-382 states that, “Since 1988. . .[the

nation has learned that] insufficient attention and

resources are directed toward the effective use of

technology in schools and the role technology can

play in professional development and improved

teaching and learning.”33

Similarly, the 1994 Bilingual Education Act

authorized $215 million in grants for activities intended to educate limited-English-proficient children and youth so that they would be able to “meet

33 Public Law 103-382, Title I, 108, Stat. 3520, sec. 1001 (c)(6).
Legislation or Program Level Program Goal Fundinga

Improving America’s Schools Act

(P.L. 103-382) (amending and revising the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and

several other federal education

statutes)

ESEA Title I: Helping Disadvantaged Major activities supported grants to $7,2 billion

Children Meet High Standards states for funding local improvement

programs, family literacy, education

of migratory children, others

ESEA Title II: Dwight D. Eisenhower Supports professional development

Professional Development Program in core academic subjects

ESEA Title III: Technology for Educa- Expanding access to and use of

tion Act educational technologies, strengthening the technology infrastructure,

supporting technical assistance and

professional development

■ Star Schools

■ Challenge Grants

■ National Activities

■ Product Development

Improve instruction through grants to

telecommunications partnerships for

programming and facilities

Innovative projects, can include

teacher training

Regional technical assistance and

teacher training consortia and other

implementation activities

Develop, produce and distribute

technology enhanced instructional

resources and programming for

instruction or professional development

$359 million

$40 million

$30 million

$27 million

$13 million

unfunded

I
Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (20 U. SC. 1400)

❋ Eligible for reauthorization

in 104th Congress

Goals 2000: Educate America Act

(P.L. 103-227)

Revisions to Communications

Act of 1934

ESEA Title VI: Innovative Education In the past, districts have spent

Program Strategies funds on hardware and software

purchases and professional development

ESEA Title Vll: Bilingual Education, To educate limited-English-proficient

Language Enhancement, and Lan- children and youth to meet the same

guage Acquisition rigorous standards for academic

performance expected of all children

and youth

ESEA Title XII: Education lnfrastruc- Ensure the health and safety of stuture Act of 1994 dents through repair, renovation and

construction of schools

Part C Leadership in Educational

Technology, Office of Educational

Technology

Part B National Education Standards

and Improvement Council, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation

Grants

Revisions will be important to pricing

of telecommunications services

Educating children with disabilities

Encourage technology as a resource

for providing instruction and professional development, and teacher

training as part of technology investments

Grants to states for plans, part of

broader state improvement plans,

to increase use of educational

technologies for learning and staff

development

To be determined

$347 million

$350 million

$100 million

$3.3 billion

NA

$5 million

(fiscal year

1994)

NA

(continued)
Legislation or Program Level Program

Other Selected Areas and Activities

Department of Commerce Advanced Technologies Program -

education activities

Public Telecommunications Facilities

Program

National Science Foundation

Telecommunications and Information

Infrastructure Assistance Program

Teacher Enhancement Program

Teacher Preparation

National Education Infrastructure for

Networking

Applications of Advanced

Technologies

Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 Corporation for Public Broadcasting

(P.L. 90-1 29)

Goal Fundinga

Develop telecommunications facilities to serve local communities (distance-learning projects have been

supported in the past)

Planning activities and demonstration projects for telecommunications networks

Funds teacher training programs in

math, science and technology

Supports projects to improve undergraduate teacher preparation in

math and science and technology

$29 million

$64 million

$101 million

$18 million

Demonstrates innovative applica- $15 million

tions of networking for education

Funds research and demonstration $10 million

in revolutionary technologies for

education

Support for development and activi- $285 million

ties in support of education and pro- (estimated)

fessional development

a FY 1995 appropriation unless otherwise indicated

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options | 39

the same rigorous standards for academic performance expected of all children and youth.”34 Federal grants were authorized for projects using

educational technologies, “if appropriate,” among

a range of other permitted activities. Furthermore

a subpart of the Bilingual Education Act was devoted to professional development and, among

the evaluation components required of recipients

of bilingual education capacity and demonstration

grants was a demonstration of “appropriateness of

the program’s staff professional development.”

The recognition of technology and professional development in these legislative authorizations

represents an opportunity to encourage states and

school districts to use a portion of their program

funds for additional professional development in

forming the effective uses of technology for special needs children. However, without specific requirements in legislative language, it will be up to

grant applicants or the Department of Education

(in regulations or grantee requirements) to ensure

that professional development and/or technology

are foci.

Other programs, such as Star Schools, have as

their primary purpose the use of technology to

meet educational needs. These programs can continue to be leaders in experimentation, helping to

add to the store of knowledge on how technology

is effectively used.

OTA also finds that while great interest centers

on advanced educational technology such as integrated curricula products and multimedia tools,

“small” technology is also needed to bring

schools along the learning curve. Telephones,

voice mail, fax machines, calculators, television

sets and VCRs, camcorders and editing tools all

have a place in today’s classrooms, but are often

denied to teachers. In fact, providing a classroom

telephone that puts a teacher in direct contact with

a parent can facilitate the parent-teacher communication and parent involvement that many

believe is essential to improving student achievement. Yet tools as basic as telephones are denied

for a complex set of reasons, and cost is normally

one of the smaller issues. Traditional methods of

conducting school business, reluctance by principals to allow teachers more control over their professional lives, and general fear that teachers will

somehow “misuse” telephones are frequently

cited to researchers as reasons that telephones and

other technology should not enter classrooms.

Congress may not be able to change such attitudes, but it or the executive branch could set

the tone by taking steps to encourage the installation of telephones in classrooms. As discussed

earlier in this chapter, costs are likely to be a factor

inhibiting the installation of technologies, whether small or large.

Research, Development, and Dissemination

Support for educational research, development,

and the dissemination of research results has traditionally been viewed as an area of national concern, supported by federal funds. This is also true

of such activities as they are related to educational

technologies.

First, more and better information is needed on

the effectiveness of various technology tools, and

applications, including whether and how technologies work for teachers. Are some types of training or support more effective than others? Are

they more effective for some type of teachers (by

field) or by level (elementary versus secondary)?

Some literature suggests that educational technology “takes off” when there is a critical mass of

teachers committed to using it. Can this be substantiated? Experience has shown that teachers

must be given time to learn and prepare, adequate

technical and content support, and a supportive attitude from the principal’s office, but surely there

is more to be learned about teachers and effectiveness. Although some recent studies are beginning

to investigate how the teacher’s work life is

changed by technologies, there has been little research on teachers as members of work groups, or

34 Title VII of the Amendments in Title I of Public Law 103-382.
40 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Research to date has Iooked at student achievement,

comparing results of instruction with technology versus other

methods. However, there are other important factors that

make simple comparisons misleading.

on the breadth of activities teachers undertake. All

these are fertile areas for federal research.

Alternatively, the federal government, states,

school districts, and schools could leave the topic

of effectiveness research to private sector product

developers or form research partnerships with local university-based, research-oriented colleges

of education. One disadvantage of a private sector

approach is that product developers may use research as an opportunity for marketing. Publicly

funded research may be more likely to point out

both the positives and negatives of a new technology. Clearly, the education community needs

additional exploration of research strategies that

will lead to providing both accurate and timely results for use by adopters of new educational

technologies.

Development of advanced integrated curriculum materials, projects and tools could be appropriate investments for the federal government,

continuing along tradition of research and quality

applications. Because the upfront investments are

high, and state and local funds for development

are limited, federal support has been important in

the past. Many of the innovative technology applications reported on in this study have been supported by federal research funds, particularly the

National Science Foundation.35

The work of the Department of Education, the

Department of Energy, the National Technical Information Administration, the Department of Defense and its research agencies, and others has also

been invaluable in creating new methods, new

technologies, new materials, and new approaches

with educational technology. Projects of this type

can also enhance the link between teachers and the

research community. Comparatively small

amounts of money in the federal budget have had

substantial impacts on technology use in schools.

Much of the focus and experimentation to date

has been in the areas of math and science; work is

needed in other subject areas. If Congress wishes

to encourage the development of powerful, flexible learning tools and applications, federal support for continuing research and development will

be necessary. The development of the next generation of integrated curriculum projects can

work hand-in-hand with proposed educational

standards in all curricular areas, and could be

undertaken as a national research priority.

Congressional concern about timely development of new educational technology software was

reflected in the 1994 Technology for Education

Act’s provisions on product development. Grant

applications were encouraged that “promote the

acquisition of higher-order thinking skills. ..,

convert technology resources developed with support from the Department of Defense and other

35 For example, the National Science Foundation’s Applications of Advanced Technology program.
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options | 41

federal agencies for effective use in the classroom;

. . .[and] show promise of reducing the costs of

providing high-quality instruction.” No funds

were appropriated for this program in FY 1995.

The federal government’s seed money for

product development can be said to have resulted in a sequential form of public-private

partnership. A good example is the Kid Net project initially funded by NSF, further developed by

TERC (a not-for-profit organization), and eventually turned into a marketable product that schools

can purchase from National Geographic, which

sells Kid Net as part of their profit-making company.

Alternatively, Congress could leave development of new education technologies entirely to

the private sector. It is unclear, however, that

K-12 schools, with their persistent constraints on

resources, represent enough of a market for educational technology product developers. For example, the Software Publishers Association (SPA)

estimates that K-12 schools spent an average of

about $11,000 each on software in the 1993-94

school year.36 In half the school districts surveyed

by SPA, funds for software purchases came primarily from discretionary funds held by principals

and teachers, from donations or business partnerships, or from school fundraising efforts. Possible

tradeoffs between public and private sector approaches to new product development would be a

good subject for further analysis.

Federal action can improve dissemination of

research results. Experimentation with new

technologies is only the beginning; teachers need

to know what works and why. Dissemination of

research results has not been adequately emphasized in the past, but it too can be enhanced and extended through technological means.

Educating New Teachers, Professional

Development and Teacher Support

People preparing for teaching and teachers in the

field face a vast and constantly growing set of demands for their time and attention. Mastering

technology use may be only one goal placed before them. Yet using technology with facility is a

daunting challenge for most people; teachers are

no exception. One of the clearest findings of the

OTA case studies and other research is that even

very highly motivated teachers require substantial

amounts of time—often over a three to five year

period—before they feel fully versatile with a

complicated new technology and are able to expand technology tools to fit their particular teaching goals. And finding time in the teaching day

and year for training, collaboration, and “messing

around with” technology is a bane of the profession.

A goal for states and localities that want

their schools to function more effectively is to

find ways to give teachers time for lesson preparation and learning, and support for continuing work. Exposure to new materials and

resources, training in use of actual technologies,

and development of new classroom patterns take

time. They also require strong organizational support from principals, administrators, and colleagues. There is little point in acquiring hardware

but making no provision for teacher development

and support. Fortunately, technology itself offers

some inherent solutions, if teachers can have

equipment to use when they have time, and can be

rewarded for learning. The use of telecommunications linkages to provide resources and opportunities for training is one of the most promising

aspects of technology, but it cannot be a substitute

for adequate time. As mentioned earlier, states

with a strong commitment to effective technology

use are beginning to allot as much as 30 percent of

technology expenditures for teacher training and

support. This includes the cost of substitute teachers as well as training resources.

The demographics of the teacher pool and the

school population indicate a substantial increase

in the number of teachers required just after the

turn of the century. Teacher preparation has al36 Software Publishers Association, SPA K-12 Education Market Report (Washington, DC: Author, July 1994).
42 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

ways been the province of states, colleges and universities. The federal government has played a

limited role in the general area of teacher professional development, despite the fact that a large

number of federal programs have been aimed at

this issue and some have made an impact in specific subjects such as math and science (see box 1-6).

Prior federal efforts to improve teaching or increase the teacher pool reflect a scattershot approach. Preservice programs have included

fellowships, scholarships, loans, support for certification efforts, and some direct training programs

aimed at specific kinds of teachers or curricular

materials. Current teachers have been exposed to

summer and academic-year institutes, seminars,

workshops, and one-time training sessions. Federal funds have provided institutional support to

local school districts and schools of education to

build their capacity. Strategies to magnify the effect of federal dollars have included targeting key

teachers who are expected to train their peers or

promote school change, training teams of teachers

and administrators from one school, developing

model training programs and, to a more limited

degree, encouraging collaboration between

school districts and universities.

A review of many other federal programs (see

chapter 6) makes clear that in some instances,

technology has been introduced to schools, but

funding has been limited to the cost of hardware or

software only, with no allocation for the preparation and support of teachers and other personnel.

This strategy is a bad investment.

Congress could more definitively express its

wishes to see adequate budgets for teacher support

and training in future legislation or report language.

OTA concludes that an effective policy mechanism would be to require that all applications

for federal financial help that include technology show adequate budgets for high-quality

support and preparation of staff. This approach

would remind anyone preparing an application

how important planning is to assure technology

will be well used; it will help to assure that teachers will be given support over the long term, not

just when the technology is brought in the door.

States that are leading technology users have

already adopted this approach. The Texas Education Agency recently recommended that districts

allocate 30 percent of their technology funds for

hardware, 30 percent for software, 30 percent to

staff development, and 10 percent to maintenance.

For the 1993-94 school year, the Florida legislature allocated $55 million for technology and

$8.65 million for software, and required that

schools seeking these funds set aside at least 30

percent for teacher training.

The importance of teachers for the effective use

of technology, the need for expanding the population of teachers in the next decade, and the inclusion of teacher professional development in the

national education goals suggest that the time is

ripe to consider whether the nation wishes to

make a more direct and coordinated commitment of federal attention and resources for

teacher preparation and professional growth.

Goal 4 of the National Education Goals specifies

that by the year 2000, “the Nation’s teaching force

will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills

needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century.” Meeting this goal must

surely mean competence in working with technology. Policy decisions to meet this challenge

could be carried out through the revised Eisenhower program, through other innovation programs such as the Fund for the Improvement

of Post-Secondary Education, through broad

initiatives such as the National Teacher Corps,

or even through a national-level teacher certification. A first step toward making this policy decision would be a review and evaluation of

existing programs as recommended above, and

consultation with professional societies, educators, parents, and others to identify appropriate

federal actions. 

Colleges of education remain generally low on

the totem pole when value is assigned to undergraduate and graduate training. One force working to improve teacher preparation is a movement

to raise standards for accreditation of teacher colleges; state and federal policy decisions that em-
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options | 43

phasize accreditation (or other outcome

measures) are likely to encourage improvement.

Awards and honors bestowed by professional

education groups also contribute to higher status.

The federal government can play a role

through its grantmaking activities, by encouraging and supporting technology applications

when considering funding requests from

schools and colleges of education. In particular,

education research centers and major graduate

educational sites could be strongly encouraged to

adopt teaching with technology, so that new teachers learn by example. In teaching, as in most other

professions, the techniques modeled for new entrants by their own teachers are extremely powerful. If new teachers have not experienced the

power of learning through technology-based

tools, they will have less motivation to make the

effort to master these tools themselves.

In addition to relying on the public sector for

support, states, school districts, and schools that

accept offers of hardware or installation from private sector companies (e.g., computers, wiring

schools or providing other hookups to electronic

information sources) could request or require that

the companies also provide meaningful levels of

initial training and continuing support for teachers. Some companies have provided such support

on a short term basis (see chapter 4). Companies

might be persuaded to agree with requests for

more intensive support for technology-using

teachers because technology-friendly teachers are

likely to make more and better use of the technologies provided, and expand companies’ markets.

Schools may be reluctant to make such demands

in the belief that the companies will be less likely

to offer any assistance in the future, but the strategy might be worth trying and monitoring, as a

means of providing more effective private sector

support to schools.

While it is clear that diffuse, shifting federal

teacher training programs that reach only a tiny

fraction of teachers cannot change the profession,

it is also clear that if a decision were made to intensify the emphasis on use of technology as a

resource for preservice and inservice teacher development, efficiencies and improvements could

be made in the overall ways these activities are

conducted.

Access to the Emerging

Information Infrastructure

In the early days of “computer education,” great

attention was given to the distribution of machines per capita. It is becoming clear that actual

equity for technology today goes well beyond machine counts; in fact, machines are a necessary but

not sufficient component of teaching and learning.

Students in some classes may have access to machines, but nothing available from or through the

hardware of any real value. Likewise, teachers

need to be able to locate and retrieve information,

collaborate with others electronically, and develop and share materials at their own pace and for

their own needs. In the information age, access to

necessary information may be the true measure of

equity. Over the next decade, many individual, local, state, federal and business decisions will determine whether this resource is broadly available

or greatly restricted.

At the present time, computer networks, electronic communities, software for searches and retrieval, and myriad other elements of an emerging

information infrastructure are coming into use on

a highly idiosyncratic basis. This takes advantage

of technology capacity and caters to individual

needs. It means, however, that teachers, schools,

and students can easily miss the boat.

An intense debate is now under way about the

role of education with respect to the emerging national and global information infrastructure. The

policies that result from this debate may be the

most difficult and important decisions of all. All

sectors of the economy are struggling to come to

grips with the new opportunities, products, and

choices offered through these developing technologies and policies. The constantly shifting definition of the system, changing technologies, entry

of new public and private participants, and the

simple newness of the system mean that it is very

hard to articulate policy choices for the near future, much less for a decade. Some conclusions

seem clear, however:
44 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

 Having ready electronic access to information

is likely to be necessary for schools.

The costs of these services cannot be fully

determined but will include hardware, software, connectivity, use of guides and helpers to effectively navigate the system, and

fees for line access and use. How the nation’s schools might afford ready electronic access to information, especially in a

time of restricted or even reduced funding

for education, is a major policy concern.

School districts are facing huge costs just

to bring their aging, dilapidated school

buildings to where they meet basic standards. The General Accounting Office reports that $112 billion is required for the

repairs, renovations, and modernization required to restore the nation’s 80,000 public

schools to good condition and to comply

with federal mandates related to accessibility and safety regulations, for major

building features such as plumbing and environmental conditions such as ventilation,

heating, lighting, or physical security.37

 Intellectual property and privacy issues are important for schools, as they are for other groups.

 The K-12 education community, and the college-of-education communities are not well

positioned to negotiate effectively in the open

market or in the regulatory arena for rights and

access, and are unlikely to have the funding, legal support, and bargaining power to protect

themselves, unless there is intervention or

guidance from state and national policymakers

or the private sector.

Congress is considering a number of approaches for education and the emerging telecommunications complex. Some reflect the desire to

apply the concept of “universal service,” contained in the current legal framework for the

broadcasting system, to schools. There have been

suggestions to set aside portions of the information infrastructure for school and other public

uses, and suggestions to provide special sources

of funding for school connections to these system.38 The education market could possibly be

aggregated into a purchaser that generates substantial market clout. This model reflects the success of some states in centralizing purchasing of

hardware, specifying arrangement for network

connections, and specifying software from competitive vendors. For example, some states have

regulated tariffs and established targeted subsidies for schools. Georgia, for example, through its

state department of telecommunications, procures

telecommunications services for schools at the

same prearranged rate that state agencies pay.39

In California, the Industry Council for

Technology and Learning worked with the Public

Utility Commission (PUC) in developing a PUC

Educational Telecommunications Plan for the

state. When the commissioner, who originally did

not know that the schools were not connected, met

with the state’s education agency, together they

developed recommendations that overcharges to

customers be channeled to education. This

amounted to an estimated $40 million for telecommunications in the schools per year. As a part

of this partnership, Pacific Bell pledged to connect every school in the state.40 Currently, 18

37 U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, School Facilities: Condition of America’s Schools (Washington DC: February 1995).

38 See, e.g., National Association of Secondary School Principals, Council of Chief State School Officers, National School Boards Association, American Library Association, and National Education Association, press release, Nov. 15, 1994.

39 James Bailey Matthews, vice chancellor, Information Technology for the University System of Georgia, Atlanta, GA, personal comunication, Mar. 13, 1995.

40 John Cradler, Far West Education Lab, presentation to National Coordinating Council-Technology in Education and Training, meeting,

Washington, DC, December 1994.
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options 145

This first chapter highlights some of the main findings of the study and lays out several policy options

for Congress. It also analyzes several issues related to educational access to the global information infrastructure, including rough estimates of cost of and possible financing strategies for developing a telecommunications infrastructure with various levels of school access. It addresses other issues relevant to

emerging electronic information sources and teachers, such as intellectual property rights, confidentiality

and privacy of records, and limits on student access to potentially obscene or harmful materials.

Each of the next five chapters begins with a summary of key findings from that chapter.

Chapter 2 discusses the potential of technology to support, enhance, and, in some cases, redefine the job of teacher. Based on the actual experiences of teachers as reported in interviews, site visits,

case studies, and published research, the chapter examines why some teachers are using technology and

how it is changing their classrooms and teaching methods. The chapter also describes how technology

can help teachers carry out many of the administrative, productivity, and communications tasks associated

with their jobs. Finally, the chapter considers how technology can be a resource for teachers’ professional

growth, whether through formal professional development courses or informal exchanges with colleagues

and outside experts.

Chapter 3 provides a statistical picture of the presence and use of technology in schools today.

The chapter examines the extent to which schools and teachers have access to various kinds of technologies, including computers, video resources, telephones, and networking technologies. It also looks at how

schools actually use these technologies: how often, in which kinds of classes, and for which kinds of activities. Finally, the chapter examines state policies for technology access and use.

Chapter 4 analyzes the factors that influence how effectively teachers implement technology. The

chapter examines multiple barriers limiting teachers use of technology and describes the resources currently

available to support teacher use of technology. Building on case studies of promising practices, the chapter

outlines some approaches that schools and districts are currently using to help teachers learn more about

technology and draws some lessons about technology implementation from these pioneer sites.

Chapter 5 addresses the role of technology in the preparation of new teachers. It examines the

treatment of technology issues in teacher certification requirements and teacher education reform proposals. The chapter analyzes the kinds of technology preparation currently provided to teacher candidates.

Drawing on case studies of institutions that have made technology a priority, the chapter also describes

some promising approaches for integrating technology into teacher preparation and highlights ways in

which technology can improve the teacher preparation experience.

Chapter 6 summarizes the federal role in technology-related teacher preparation and professional

development. It outlines current sources of federal support for these activities, the nature and extent of

federal commitment, and new opportunities for federal leadership created by recent legislation. The chapter also examines past federal efforts to improve teacher training and promote technology, analyzing their

impact and their lessons for future federal action.

states are using preferential telecommunications for interstate service would fall within the authorrates as sources for expanding the use of technolo- ity of the Communications Act of 1934.

gy.

41 Legislation proposed (and in effect) at ‘he Congress may be left in a quandary as it considstate level speaks only to telecommunications ac- ers how much it should do with respect to expandcess rates for intrastate service; any special rates ing the technological capabilities of elementary

41 Ibid.
46 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Our children face a future in which technology will touch

every aspect of their lives. Teachers want them to

be ready

and secondary schools and colleges of education.

Clearly, federal support for an extensive expansion of educational technologies, even if it were

ideologically desirable, could be costly.42 Because technologies are advancing so rapidly, there

may never be an adequate, up-to-the-minute answer to the question of whether such investments

are worth their cost.43 Some states and local

school districts may be able to take on the burden

of investing in new educational technologies,

even without a definitive answer as to the longterm payoff, but others will not have the resources.

Given the federal budget deficit, and the tax burdens felt by American citizens in all localities, an

extensive federal investment at this time may not

be possible. The analysis in this report suggests

strongly, however, that whatever investments in

hardware and software are made, and at whatever

level, with whatever sources of funds, the investments be made thoughtfully. In this case thoughtful investment will require that infusions of

resources be accompanied by concomitant investments in the teachers who will be working with

the students and the technologies.

The Department of Education is struggling to

keep attention focused on educational access, as it

works to define what products the education market needs and how schools can best participate in

the emerging telecommunications system. Given

the large federal role in interstate telecommunications issues, if schools are not to be left behind,

Congress will need to pay close attention to this

issue as it debates regulatory and subsidy measures.

Regardless of decisions made about funding, if

unintended consequences of new technologies are

not to hinder teachers’ access to technology and

telecommunications, policymakers must be vigilant regarding three additional areas pertinent to

education and new information systems. These

areas, discussed earlier in this chapter, are privacy,

particularly with respect to the records of students,

copyright law, and the tradeoffs between protecting children from inappropriate materials and

untoward censorship of emerging networks. Protection of intellectual property products also requires effective education of the public about

intellectual property rights. This education could

begin in school as students, teachers and administrators are connected to online information

systems.

CONCLUSION

Bringing about change in the diversified U.S.

school system is a formidable task. With over 2.8

million teachers in the United States, and 3.3 mil42As discussed earlier, the costs of connecting schools, teachers, and studentsto emerging information technologies and sources are highly

uncertain. Available rough estimates suggest the costs on a national basis could be minimal (for minimal interconnectivity) or they could be

astronomical, relative to current spending by elementary sod secondary schools. In the 1992-93 school year, the National Center for Education

Statistics estimates that public and private elementary and secondary schools spent $280 billion (U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for EducationStatistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 1993, table 33, October 1993).

43 True costs will likely vary on both a national and local bases depending on what technology plans are developed, the state of current

school infrastructures, technology costs at the time of implementation, and other factors.
Chapter 1 Summary and Policy Options | 47

lion estimated to be needed by 2003, any attempt

to “retool” or provide the entire existing teacher

workforce with new skills or knowledge will need

to be done on a very large scale. Most teachers

have many years of teaching experience (the median is 15 years) and, at a median age of 42, most

attended school before computers were used in the

classroom.

Teachers are an incredibly diverse group. Some

already have experience with technology—computers at home, for example—while others have

never even been shown how to “boot one up.” And

some teachers are eager to experiment with new

ideas even at the risk of failure, while others have

little interest, energy, or time for experimentation.

The great majority of teachers probably lie somewhere in between.

Technology has been viewed by a few as a frill,

by some as a distraction, and by others as an intriguing but peripheral component of education.

OTA finds, however, that technologies offer the

ability to do many traditional things efficiently

and quickly, and a way to encourage entirely new

educational opportunities that may be of vital importance to the next generation of learners. If these

learners are to make the most of the investments

made in educational technologies, support must

be given to the teachers who guide and encourage

its use.

How can policymakers help to realize a vision

of schools where teachers effectively and carefully identify, enlist, and use electronic and communications technology to improve learning?

OTA concludes that if the federal government

wants to maintain or enlarge its involvement in

this area, the linchpin of federal policy could be a

set of initiatives that develop and support technology, and help teachers in their teaching and professional activities. When technology is effectively

harnessed to goals identified by teachers, schools,

states, and national policymakers, it becomes a

vehicle for learning that is powerfully attractive.

One of the principal policy challenges for the

next decade is to lead by example and by commitment. The experience of effective technology use

in classrooms needs to be widely shared, evaluated and used as building blocks. Resources are

needed to develop advanced learning products

(hardware, software, curriculum materials, and

tools focused on educational applications); both

resources and farsighted regulation will be needed

to make electronic communities affordable and

well designed for schools. Effective policy and

well-organized private sector involvement could

create technology options that assure resources

are equally available across the country, for all

teachers, for all students, in all schools.
The

Promise of

Technology

 for Teachers

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

 Although helping teachers use technology well may be the

most important step to helping students, there are almost no

hard data on the impacts of technology on teachers; research

has focused primarily on the implications of technology use for

students. For information about the ways in which technology

can help teachers, one must look to surveys, case studies, and

reports from teachers who are accomplished technology users.

 The experience of teachers who are adept users of technology

suggests that technology is not a panacea for all educational

needs. Nor does it appear that there is one best way for teachers

to use technology—just as there is no one best technology for

every teacher to use. Instructional goals, teacher experience,

subject matter or curriculum area, available resources and support, and student needs are all factors that affect teacher’s

technology use.

 Some teachers use technology in a traditional “teacher-centered” model of teaching, such as drill and practice for mastery

of facts and content or as tutorials to supplement teacher-controlled activities. Other teachers use technology to support different, more student-centered approaches to instruction, in

which students conduct their own scientific inquiries or projects or engage in collaborative activities, and the teacher assumes the role of facilitator or coach. The latter kinds of

teachers are among the most enthusiastic technology users,

since technology is particularly helpful in supporting this kind

of teaching.

 Student enthusiasm for technology is a powerful incentive for

teachers to use it. Teachers who are technology users often re- | 49
50 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

port that technology can make learning more

relevant to “real” life and more engaging and

motivating to students.

 Some technologies offer a new set of alternatives to traditional pencil-and-paper testing by

enabling teachers to record, review, and maintain records of student performance. For example, videotaping a student presentation not only

provides a recorded demonstration of the student’s understanding of the subject at that time,

but also creates a “living” record of the student’s progress throughout the school year that

can be viewed and discussed by other teachers,

the student, and parents.

 Simplifying daily tasks, such as recordkeeping,

may be the most immediate way to involve

teachers with technology. As teachers gain experience with technology, they often discover

ways it can help them carry out their varied duties better, faster, or more effectively.

 Increased communication is one of the biggest

changes technology offers classroom teachers.

Technology, particularly new telecommunications options, can transcend the walls of isolation that plague the profession and allow

teachers to converse with colleagues, the

school office, experts in the field, parents, and

others outside the boundaries of the school.

 Teachers who are leaders in telecommunications and other technologies are demonstrating

how technology can be a vehicle for continuing

formal and informal professional development.

Many technology-using teachers report a renewed sense of professionalism when they take

part in such activities, especially since they

have little time for face-to-face collegial activity outside the classroom. Telecommunications

can provide a means to give and receive support

from colleagues and enable teachers to expand

their knowledge in all content areas.

INTRODUCTION

New technologies1 are becoming standard tools in

American schools. Recognizing the growing role

of technology in the workplace and in everyday

life, school reform panels have stressed the need

to provide students with skills to succeed in an information-based economy.2 State and local curriculum frameworks have begun to incorporate

standards for teaching students with and about

technology. School districts are scrambling to

keep up with ever more powerful hardware and

software (see chapter 3) and are finding ways to

integrate technology more effectively into

instruction.

At the center of effective use of instructional

technology is the teacher. For students to become comfortable and effective users of various technologies, teachers must be able to

make wise, informed decisions about technology. However, technology is not a cure-all, nor is

there one single technology tool or application

that must be used by every teacher. As one group of

researchers suggested, “If we abandon the idea

that technology is a panacea—a magic cure for all

that ails our educational system—we would expect that sometimes technology will make a difference and sometimes it will not.”3 All teachers,

however, should be confident in applying

technology when and where appropriate. Like

their students, they should be “fearless” when it

comes to using technology.

1 Although many people view educational technology as synonymous with computers, for the purposes of this report, the Office of Technology Assessment adopts a broader definition of educational technology that includes computers, VCRs, televisions, telephones, video and still

cameras, audio devices, calculators and other hand-held devices, microcomputer-based lab equipment (such as sensor probes and measurement

devices), videodiscs, CD-ROM, satellites, multimedia, and telecommunications networks.

2 See, e.g., “What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000,” the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary

Skills (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, June 1991).

3 Jay P. Sivin and Ellen R. Bialo, “Microcomputers and Related Technologies: An Overview,” a report on research covering 1986 through

1990.
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers | 51

How are teachers dealing with the influx of

technology in schools? How and why do teachers

use technology? In what ways, if any, can technology help teachers do their many-faceted jobs? Answering these kinds of questions is a complex,

often frustrating task. Despite the central role of

the teacher in educational applications of technology, there has been relatively little research on

how and why American teachers use technology.

Most research about educational technology has

focused on the impact of technology on students;

little attention has been given to its impact on

teachers.

Furthermore, although teachers’ experience

and expertise with technology varies, the data that

do exist about teachers typically focus on a special

subset—the enthusiastic, pioneering teachers

who are “accomplished” technology users. Specifically, two major surveys assessed the goals, attitudes, and activities of accomplished teacher

users of technology4 (see boxes 2-1 and 2-2).

While these data do not discuss technology use by

the average teacher, or by teachers in general, they

do offer a vision of how technology can help

teachers.

This chapter describes how technology can

support, enhance, and in some cases redefine the

job of teachers. The Office of Technology Assessment has derived the information for this chapter

from multiple sources. These include the aforementioned surveys of accomplished teachers; interviews with and observations of teachers

conducted for OTA under contract;5 site visits by

OTA staff to schools at every grade level across

the country;6 conversations with hundreds of

teachers, administrators, and researchers at conferences,7 meetings, workshops,8 and over electronic mail; reviews of literature and evaluations

of local technology implementation efforts from

around the country; and OTA staff experience

working in and with schools over the last decade.

While much of the information from these data

sources is anecdotal, descriptive, and qualitative

rather than quantitative, together these sources

paint a rich, multifaceted picture of teachers’ experiences, often in the teachers’ own words. And

while the examples in this chapter are by no means

all-inclusive, they indicate the varied ways that

teachers around the country are using technology

to carry out their jobs.

It should be emphasized that for teachers to

realize the potential of technology as described in

this chapter, certain basic conditions must be present, including adequate hardware, software, guidance, time, and a school climate that encourages

4 Karen Sheingold and Martha Hadley, Accomplished Teachers (New York, NY: Bank Street College of Education, 1990); and Margaret

Honey and Andrés Henríquez, Telecommunication and K-12 Educators: Findings from a National Survey (New York, NY: Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education, 1993).

5 See especially, the following OTA contractor reports: Melinda A. Griffith, “Technology in the Schools: Hearing from the Teachers,” October 1993; John R. Mergendoller et al., “Exemplary Approaches to Training Teachers To Use Technology,” September 1994; Jerry Willis et al.,

“Information Technology in Teacher Education: Surveys of the Current Status” (Section 3: Survey and Interviews with Recent Graduates),

March 1993.

6 During the project (July 1993-December 1994), staff visited schools in California, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana,

New York, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. These sites were selected because teachers were actively

using a variety of different technologies throughout the schools.

7 For example, National Educational Computing Conferences, 1988 through 1994; New York State Association for Computers and

Technologies in Education, November 1994; New York State Education and Research Network Annual Conference, September 1994; California Technology Users Conference, November 1994; and Florida State Information Technology Annual Conference, 1994.

8 OTA Focus Group workshops, August 1994; OTA workshop on Technology Implementation Projects, “What Research Reveals About

Teachers and Technology,” Feb. 8, 1994.
52 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

In 1990, the Center for Technology in Education surveyed teachers who were “experienced and

accomplished at integrating computers into their teaching. ” The 608 teachers who completed questionnaires included teachers from grades 4 through 12 in all 50 states, drawn from a wide range of public

schools and communities nationwide. ’

The teachers who completed the survey did prove to be experienced computer users; most (73

percent) had used computers in their teaching for five years or more, some more than nine years. When

asked about the effects of computers on their teaching, 88 percent of the teachers sampled indicated

that computers had changed their teaching.

What kind of changes did the teachers report? First, many of the teachers indicated that, using

computers, they expected more of their students (72 percent) and could present more complex material

(63 percent). As one teacher wrote:

I have been able to increase student productivity and enhance laboratory routines by implementing the computer

as a lab tool. Students become better problem solvers and divergent thinkers when they are able to focus their lab

experiments in their own direction using the computer.2

Second, many of the teachers said that the computers permitted greater individualization in their

teaching (61 percent) and facilitated more independent student work (65 percent). Seventy percent of

these teachers felt that the computers allowed them to give greater attention to individual students:

My lectures are shorter on the topics covered by the software. I let the students set their own individual pace, and

take responsibility for their own learning. It gives me more time to float around the classroom and interact with the

students on an Individual basis.3

Third, many of these teachers reported that integrating the computer enabled them to spend less

time lecturing to the entire class (52 percent), or more time to conduct work in small groups and

one-on-one with individual students (43 percent).

 I have become more comfortable in the role of facilitator as opposed to a lecturer I am able to encourage children

to find answers for themselves as opposed to giving them answers.4

Data from this survey also suggest that it took time-five or six years—for these teachers to master

the use of computers as a multipurpose tool in their teaching. According to the researchers:

... [Five to six years] appears to be the point at which they [teachers] have a well-organized, workable set of

practices. With this foundation, they can flexibly make choices about using new applications and about using familiar

applications differently.5

1 Although inclusive of all regions of the country, the sample was not, nor was it intended to be, representative of all teachers or

schools The researchers wanted to question those teachers who were known for and experienced in the use of computers in their

teaching. To locate such teachers, the researchers contacted state and local technology directors, hardware and software vendors,

professional organizations, leading educators and researchers in the field, and others and asked them to nominate teachers recognized for their accomplishments using computers in their teaching. The final sample of teachers was found to be representative of the

demographics of public schools nationwide in terms of school size, region of the country, size of town or city, and ethnic composition of

student populations. The sample had a somewhat higher representation of high schools and schools from lower income levels

2 See “Source” below, p. 14.

3 Ibid , p. 15.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., p. 20
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers 153

Accomplished Computer-Using Teachers: How Their Teaching Has Changed

AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENT

I can expect more from my students in terms

of their pursuing and editing their work.

I spend more time with individual students.

I am more comfortable with students

working independently.

I am better able to present more complex

material to my students.

I am better able to tailor instruction to

their individual student needs.

I spend less time lecturing to the entire class.

I am more comfortable with small-group

activities.

I spend less time with the whole class

practicing or reviewing material.

o 20 40 60 80

Percent of teachers

NOTE: Based on the questionnaire responses of the 494 teachers (88 percent of the sample) who reported that computers had made

a difference in their teaching

Although many of these teachers were highly motivated, and had developed impressive expertise in

using computers in their classrooms, all of these teachers faced at least some barriers as they tried to

integrate computers into their teaching The barrier most often cited by teachers was the lack of time to

develop lessons that used computers Other significant barriers mentioned were problems with scheduling enough computer time, too few computers for the number of children, too few printers or other

peripherals, inadequate financial support, and not enough help for supervising student use of computers

Why did these teachers persist with this challenging task? Of 29 possible incentives for incorporating computers into their teaching, the most highly rated by these teachers was that computers became

“a tool for children that works for them in their learning, such as writing, analyzing data, or solving

problems.” Other incentives rated as important were that computers Increased the enthusiasm of the

students and helped teachers make a subject more Interesting; these teachers also reported being

motivated by their own professional growth, with a high share noting that they derived “personal

gratification from the learning of new skills. ”

SOURCE: Karen Sheingold and Martha Hadley, Accomplished Teachers: Integrating Computers into Classroom Practice (New York,

NY Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education, September 1990)
54 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

teachers to use these resources in innovative ways.

The existence of these conditions is far from commonplace, as chapters 3 and 4 explain in more detail.9 Chapter 5 discusses whether new teachers

are being prepared to enter classrooms ready to

use the technologies at hand. It should be stressed

that the accomplished teachers whose experience

is described in this chapter probably make up only

a small percentage of all U.S. teachers.

TECHNOLOGY AND THE JOB

OF THE TEACHER

It’s February, and the 6th grade is at the beach.10

This half of the school year, across all subject

areas, 6th graders are working on an environmental theme. They have chosen four sites near the

school, and every two weeks they return to those

sites to compile data. Today they are working in

small groups, collecting samples of plant life, water, and crustaceans to bring back to their science

classroom for further analysis. They will store

their findings in a computer database, which they

can access and use in other classes, such as history or math.

On the beach, the teacher walks from group to

group; using a hand-held, pen-based computer,

she jots down observations about the students as

they are learning. She can record notes about a

particular group’s work habits or the individual

learning styles of a student. The teacher can use

the hand-held device to refer to previous observations, recall a student’s particular weakness, and

ask questions to see if that student has gained

greater understanding of the material or the process. When the group returns to school, as the students conduct experiments and record data, the

teacher can download her observations from the

hand-held device to her desktop computer, which

is connected to a schoolwide information management system. Other teachers can have access

to the data, too, so if a student is having difficulty

in a certain area, the teachers are able to address

the problem together.

Teachers must carry out many tasks to make the

learning experience a rich one. They must guide

and encourage students, provide varied learning

experiences, keep track of student progress, and

evaluate student learning. In reality, this means

they must regularly find and organize information, create lesson plans, grade papers, maintain

extensive records, and deal with a range of administrative duties. And, as with any profession, they

must keep current with developments in their

field.

OTA finds that technology can be a powerful tool for helping teachers with all the different parts of their job: enhancing instruction,

simplifying administrative tasks, and fostering

professional growth activities. The experience

of some teachers further suggests that technology

can help redefine the role of the teachers, in and

out of the classroom.

Although teachers have long accomplished the

manifold tasks required in teaching without

technology, some teachers who have learned to integrate technology tools into their teaching have

found them to be useful in ways they had not

imagined. These teachers describe how technology makes it possible to meet current instructional

goals or pursue altogether new goals. Some find

that using various technologies allows them to

teach in entirely different ways (see boxes 2-1 and

2-2).

9 Chapter 3 looks at the amount of technology present in schools today and teachers’ access to various technologies. Chapter 4 explores

some of the barriers that affect technology use by teachers, as well as some models and lessons for how schools can foster more widespread and

effective use of technology by teachers.

10 This is a fictional composite of various activities at sites visited by OTA in spring 1994. However, such projects do exist. For example, the

Global Thinking Project at Georgia State University engages teachers and students in collaborative investigations of their local environments

and in global discussions of environmental issues using a telecommunications network. The project is funded through the U.S. Eisenhower

Higher Education program and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers 155

To understand better how telecommunications resources are being used in schools, in 1993 the Center

for Technology in Education undertook a survey of K-12 teachers actively involved in using telecommunications. To find such a group, they posted online announcements on more than 50 educational, commercial, and state-run telecommunications networks. They also solicited respondents through mailing

lists, conferences, state education departments, and professional contacts. Of those teachers who were

contacted in this manner, 550 completed questionnaires.l

The teachers who responded were an experienced group (83 percent had been teaching for 10 or

more years) and were heavily concentrated in jobs directly related to using technology m instruction, such

as computer specialist or library media specialist. Most (82 percent) of the respondents reported using

computers in their teaching for five or more years; on average they had been using telecommunications

for professional reasons for more than four years. Almost all (91 percent) had access to a computer at

home; 73 percent had access to a modem at home.

Teachers were surveyed about the kinds of professional activities for which they used telecommunications. The most frequently reported activities were those used for collegial exchange, including sending

e-mail to colleagues (76 percent of teachers reported doing so) and posting questions or exchanging

ideas on forums and bulletin boards (62 percent). A substantial number of teachers also reported using

telecommunications for information retrieval, such as accessing databases that contained information

relevant to students (51 percent) and databases of educational research (49 percent), downloading

curriculum materials (44 percent), accessing libraries (39 percent), and accessing information for colleagues (46 percent). A quarter of the teachers responded that they used telecommunications for one of

these functions every day. Fewer teachers reported using telecommunications for administrative tasks,

such as planning meetings (34 percent) and obtaining schoolwide information (18 percent) or attendance

records (8 percent), This may be because many of the schools in which these teachers worked did not

have the network infrastructure needed to perform such schoolwide functions. For example, 45 percent of

the schools did not have a local area network (LAN), and 43 percent of those with a LAN reported that it

was restricted to one room.

Teachers were also surveyed about the most frequent uses of telecommunications for student learning,

which were less regular than teacher professional uses. The most frequently cited activities involved

students’ accessing services and databases, Including encyclopedias (57 percent of teachers used them

with students), news retrieval services (54 percent), weather information (50 percent), Educational Research Information Center (ERIC) and other educational databases (48 percent), and scientific databases

(39 percent). Classroom exchange projects were the other major use of telecommunications with students;

these activities included pen pal exchanges (41 percent of teachers reported using these), scientific data

collection and exchange (34 percent), and social awareness exchanges (33 percent). Far fewer teachers

(about 7 percent) reported using telecommunications activities with students on a daily basis

1 The authors of the study report that “across size, type of school, and ethnic and economic representation, the schools in our

sample are comparable to national averages Although there is a trend toward more suburban schools m our sample than is the case

nationally our economic data suggest that our sample does not represent more affluent communities. In fact, the percentage of

schools which report that their students receive free or reduced-price lunches is slightly greater m our sample than is the case nationally”

(continued)
56 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

How Teachers Use Telecommunications for Professional Activities

MOST FREQUENTLY

REPORTED ACTIVITIES

Sending e-mail to colleagues

Using forums or bulletin boards

Accessing relevant student

information

Accessing educational research

Participating in discussion forums

Accessing information for

colleagues

Downloading curriculum

Accessing libraries

I

o 20 40 60 80

Percent of teachers

I

NOTE: Based on survey responses of 550 teachers who were actively revolved in using telecommunications

More than a third of these teachers reported that they served as telecommunications resource

people and facilitators for their colleagues. Approximately one-quarter reported that they were the sole

users of telecommunications in their schools; another quarter reported that several teachers in their

schools used telecommunications for activities unconnected with each other. Only one-tenth of the

respondents reported collaborating with other teachers in their building on telecommunications activities. More than half of the respondents described themselves as the principal catalyst for their schools’

telecommunications activities.

The most frequently mentioned barriers to effective telecommunications use included insufficient

telephone lines, lack of time in the school schedule, inadequate communication about school and

district telecommunications activities, and lack of funds to cover the cost of network services.

SOURCE Margaret Honey and Andres Henriquez, Telecommunications and K-72 Educators” Findings from a National Survey (New

York, NY Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education, 1993)
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers | 57

In addition, some teachers find that technology

can enhance their personal productivity. And—

perhaps the most exciting finding-some note

that technology can help support their professional growth and enable them to continue to learn and

improve their teaching skills.

There are many technologies available in

schools today, with a wide range of applications to

teaching and learning. There is no single best

technological medium that suits all teachers

equally well. Some teachers have focused on exploring applications of the computer; others a video camera or video cassette recorder. And, in

growing numbers, some teachers have become enthusiastic about the instructional and professional

applications of telecommunications technologies

to reach out to others and to a wide range of resources.

Similarly, there does not appear to be one

best way for teachers to implement technology.

Different teachers and schools find different reasons and methods for using technologies. In the

survey of teachers accomplished in telecommunications, many were using it to send electronic

mail (e-mail) to colleagues (two-thirds of those

surveyed); fewer (approximately 40 percent) used

it for student pen pal exchanges.

USING TECHNOLOGY TO

ENHANCE INSTRUCTION

Teachers use new technologies for the same reason they use books, worksheets, and other teaching tools—to help their students learn. Evidence

from an array of studies indicates that technology

in the classroom can have a positive impact on stuTeacher Kameron Conner incorporates technology into her

classroom instruction when and where it makes sense. Here,

a second-grade student records his voice as he reads from a

book. When parents visit the class, they can hear their child

reading and record a message back to the child.

dent learning, in terms of achievement in certain

subject areas, development of skills, and attitudes

toward school (see box 1-1 in chapter 1). ll

Although early research tended to focus on “the

computer” as an independent variable that somehow affected the learning process, it is becoming

increasingly clear that technology, in and of itself, does not directly change teaching or learning. 12 Rather, the critical element is how

technology is incorporated into instruction. In

a review of research on computers and basic writing instruction, for example, the researchers concluded:

. . . the most effective utilization of computer

software in the basic writing classroom combines the best of writing instruction theory with

a creative use of computer technology. Only

well-informed, trained and caring composition

11 See, e.g., C.L.C.Kulik~dJ.Kul&, “Effectiveness of Computer-Based Instruction: An Updated Analysis,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 7, 1991, pp. 75-94; Ann D. Thompson et al., “Educational Technology: A Review of the Research,” Association for Educational Cornmunications and Techology, 1992; J. Pisapia and S.M. Perlman, Learning Technologies in the Classroom: A Study of Results (Richmond, VA:

Educational Research Consortium December 1992); Ellen Bialo and Jay P. Skin, “Report on the Effectiveness of Technology in Schools,

1990-92,” Software Publishers’ Association, Washington,DC. n.d.; Stanley Pogrow, "Learning Dramas: An Alternative Curricular Approach

to Using Computers with At-Risk Students," in C. Wagner (ed.), Technology in Today’s Schools (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development 1990); and Chery M. Kane, Prisoners of Time, Research report of the National Education Commission on Time

and Learning. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1994), p. 29.

12 Ann D. Thompson et al., “Educational Technology: A Review of the Research;’ Association for Educational Communications and

Technology, 1992, p. 43.
58 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

In recent years, many researchers and educators have been trying to develop new instructional

approaches that focus on helping students learn to think and reason about important, complex problems; many are finding that technology can be a valuable tool in implementing these new instructional

approaches. For example, researchers in the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University

have developed a videodisc-based set of materials, ‘

(

The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury, ” that engage students in complex mathematical problem solving. Central to these materials is a particular

theory of learning—a “constructivist” approach that emphasizes student opportunities to engage in

in-depth exploration, evaluation, and revision of their ideas over extended periods. The mathematics

content and theory are consistent with the kinds of revisions to traditional mathematics curriculum

suggested by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). 1 "(The Jasper” researchers

have also focused on designing special environments that make learning meaningful to students by

“anchoring” instruction in a real-life context. Each “case” or problem involves complex situations that

require students to formulate and solve a set of interconnected subproblems. The essence of the series

is a set of narrative episodes. In each story, the main character is faced with a complex problem to

solve (e. g., computing the fuel necessary to fly into the forest to rescue a wounded eagle, or drawing

up a business plan, using statistics, for a booth at a school carnival). Students are challenged to solve

the problem using data presented in the story. Teachers are encouraged to have students work in

cooperative groups to consider alternative solutions to the problems. A variety of supplementary and

supporting activities allow teachers to use the materials in many different ways in their classrooms.

Video has been found to be key to the design of these instructional materials, in part, because of its

capacity to anchor the problem-solving situations in real life situations. “The video is also important

because it brings the world into the classroom in a manner that motivates students, and it makes

complex mathematical problem solving accessible to students who have difficulties imagining complex

situations by reading, ” the researchers report.

Research about the effectiveness of the Jasper series indicates that, after a year of using the

program, students who received Jasper-based instruction outperformed control subjects on complex

mathematical word problems, as well as on planning and subgoal comprehension problems; they also

demonstrated significantly improved attitudes toward mathematics.

1 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (Reston, VA: NCTM,

1989).

SOURCE. Office of Technology Assessment, based on Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University, “The Jasper Series

as an Example of Anchored Instruction’ Theory, Program Description, and Assessment Data, ” Educational Psychologist, vol. 27, No.

3, 1991, pp. 291-315.

instructors will help to bridge the gap between in “The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury,” look

technology and humanity.13 particularly promising (see box 2-3).

Certain applications, such as the approach tak- Although Jasper is just one example of how

en in the video-based problem-solving materials new ideas about teaching and learning can be im13 M. Valerie-Gold and M.P. Deming, “Computers and Basic Writers: A Research Update, ’’Journal of Developmental Education, vol. 14,

No. 3, spring 1991, pp. 10-14.
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers | 59

plemented with technology, it also illustrates the

difficulty of sorting out the “effects” of the

technology itself. In this particular example,

many design and implementation features-a

- theory of learning and cognition, particular mathematical goals and skills, varying methods and approaches for using the materials in the classroom

with students—all combine with the technology

to affect student learning. Additional research is

needed to develop a deeper understanding of

which instructional uses of technology are most

effective and under what circumstances, and how

teacher interaction with technology plays into this

effectiveness.

While improving student learning is a central

goal, technology-using teachers express enthusiasm for additional instructional benefits of

technology that may or may not be reflected immediately in measures of student learning: bringing a wider range of resources to the classroom,

motivating learners, providing new teaching

tools, accommodating individual learning styles,

and even redefining the role of the teacher. These

applications-discussed in the sections that follow—are the most typically mentioned when

technology-using teachers use words like “transform,” “relevant,’ “flexible,” and “motivating” in

discussing why they use technology in their classrooms.

■ Bringing New Resources ‘

into the Classroom

As technologies have become more widely available, they have made it increasingly easy for

teachers to access a broader range of materials

they can use in the classroom. At the most basic

level the copying machine has allowed teachers to

make copies of articles, charts, or instructional

materials from outside sources and share them directly with students. Supplementary computer

tools—such as scanners or digitizing cameras—

allow teachers to bring in outside sources, enter

them into a computer, and customize assignments

for students. For example, a teacher can bring a

timely article from the morning newspaper into

class, scan it into the computer in minutes, and

Telecommunications projects expose students and teachers to

resources and people that might otherwise be inaccessible,

often in ways that were unimaginable only a few yeas ago.

For instance, the Global Schoolhouse project (above)

connects classrooms using different technologies, such as

Cornell University’s CU-See Me software, which requires

telephones and cameras mounted near the computer so

video conference participants can see each other on their

computers.

have her students work on rewriting, editing, or

adding research to the story on the same day. Students can browse interactively or conduct electronic research searches in CD-ROM databases,

encyclopedias, or other reference works. Thus,

not only do technologies allow access to a broader

range of instructional resources, but they also offer students the opportunity to learn to use electronic tools to access information and develop

research skills using the technologies they will

face in the future.

Telecommunications creates even broader possibilities for transcending school walls and accessing a wide range of learning opportunities and

resources. Today, computers with modems, telephone lines, and local or wide area networks enable teachers and students to explore worlds

beyond their immediate reach, such as perusing

the card catalog at the local library for a list of

books on a research topic, sharing weather data

with scientists on a network, or previewing software to see if it is appropriate for a particulargrade

level.

Many of the teachers who access telecommunications networks do so after school or at night,
60 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

on their own time and very often on their own

dime—but they say it is worth it. For instance, a

teacher in Arlington, Virginia, said that she pays

for her subscription to America Online because

communicating with a scientist at a national research lab is a great way to get ideas for student

projects or to encourage students in their work.14

Teachers who use telecommunications resources particularly mention the ways it can “extend the learning environment” for students:15

 “Electronic networks bring real equality of

education to all students. My inner-city students were learning and participating with private school students who have access to very

specialized equipment. Through Internet, my

students were unaware of the social status of

these students. It was wonderful to watch them

exchange scientific information with students

they would be very uncomfortable with in a

classroom.”

 “It has expanded our classroom . . . blown

away the walls . . . filled us with a sense of possibility . . . made us less provincial . . . personally involved us with the nation and the world.”

 “We’re more keenly aware of a world outside

the classroom, in the sense of being able to

reach out to information resources and not operate in a vacuum.”

Telecommunications can connect students and

teachers—sometimes instantaneously and simultaneously—to poets or politicians, musicians or

religious leaders, university professors or researchers on a national supercomputer, or other

students down the block or on the other side of the

world. The number of these telecommunicationsbased activities is growing rapidly, in part because

of teacher and student enthusiasm for the opportunity to collect, share, and evaluate their ideas,

data, and writing with classes in other schools and

states or even in foreign countries. Some of these

links are initiated by individual teachers on a

class-by-class basis. Increasingly, telecommunications-using teachers are finding that connecting to a “listserv”16 gives them immediate access

to classes sharing a common interest in a particular topic. For example, “GLBL-HS” is a listserv

created by two New York teachers for teachers and

their students interested in discussing world cultures.17 Another listserv, called the “Noon project,” involves classes at different latitudes where

students measure the shadow of a meter stick at

noontime. Based on these measurements and the

latitude of each site, the classes calculate the diameter of the earth.18

There are also a number of more extensive curriculum-based telecommunications projects using electronic networks. While many teachers

have long used project-based teaching19 and continue to do so without technology, many teachers

are enthusiastic about what technology can add by

extending the project beyond the classroom.

These projects have typically been created with

federal or private support to cover the costs of curriculum development, organization, and teacher

support. Some projects, such as the AT&T Learning Circle, Kid Link, and the International Poetry

14 Bonnie Bracey, Ashlawn Elementary, Arlington, VA, OTA site visit, Dec. 21, 1993.

15 Comments taken from educators who responded to an online request for information. Gloria G. Frazier and Daneen Frazier, Telecommunications and Education: Surfing and the Art of Change (Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association, 1994), p. 33.

16 Listservs are lists created on telecommunications networks for discussion of topics of common interest. Some are moderated, with the

organizer guiding and framing the discussion, but others are unmoderated and more free form.

17 NetTEACH NEWS, vol. 2, No. 6, Nov. 29, 1994, p. 7.

18 TERC, “Review of Research on Teachers and Telecommunications,” OTA contractor report, Washington, DC, May 1994, p. 25.

19 Project-based teaching refers to teaching activities in which students develop skills and understanding in the context of carrying out

projects that require them to apply these ideas and processes.
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology forTeachers | 61

Guild, center around writing and the humanities. 20 Most projects, however, focus on science

and mathematics, reflecting initial developmental

support from the National Science Foundation.

“ They include Global Lab (see box 2-4), an environmental education curriculum primarily for students in junior high and high school; the National

Geographic Society’s Kids Network, which presents science topics to upper-grade elementary

school children; Kids as Global Scientists, in

which elementary school students around the

world exchange, compare, and study weather data

with each other and mentors; and the Weather Underground, a similar weather study project linking

students throughout Michigan.21 Projects such as

these can supply the focus and boundaries for interaction and can provide teachers with the content, accompanying materials, organizational

help, and technical assistance they may need to

work telecommunications into their curriculum

and lesson plans.

■ Developing New Forms of Instruction

Some teachers are creating new teaching tools

with technology that facilitate new forms of

instruction. For instance, a teacher who wished to

give her students abetter understanding of music

created a multimedia set of musical instruments

the students could “play.” Using Hypercard22

software on her computer equipped with a CDROM to play sound, she designed her own

instructional software around a set of musical

instruments and the sounds they make. Each picture of art instrument has a “button” the students

can click on to hear the instrument’s sound. The

students can play the “game” of recognizing the

Students can “play” various instruments on the computer with

MIDI (musical instrument digital interface) software, which

increases not only the students’ familiarity with instruments,

but can enhance their understanding of the way instruments

interact.

instrument by its sound only. It is not the same as

having the real instruments in the classroom-a

luxury most schools cannot afford-but the students can “play” the instruments on their own, and

it is a lot more quiet. According to the teacher, the

software has been extremely successful with her

students. “I am already able to see how the children’s increased familiarity with instruments carries over to the music appreciation class,” she

said. “They are beginning to understand why a

composer might choose a certain instrument to

convey a particular image or emotion.” 23

By encouraging students to use computers, video, and telecommunications in tandem with tradi20 AT&T Learning Circles, based in New Jersey, discontinued its network at the close of the 1994-95 school year, KidLink is an international dialog based in North Dakota; and the International Poetry Guild is at the University of Michigan, Arm Arbor. 21 Global Lab is based at TERC, Cambridge,MA; Kids Network, National Geographic Society, Washington, DC; Kids as Global Scientists,

the University of Colorado, Boulder and Weather Underground, the University of Michigan, Arm Arbor. 22 Hypercard is a software program designed to create multiple pathways for moving through a body of related material, allowing the linking together of information following an associative, rather than linear, train of thought.

23 Rhonda Coleman, music teacher, as quoted in John Steinmetz, "What Are These Things Good For, Anyway?’’ technical report for Apple

Computer, Inc., 1993, p. 10.
62 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

The Global Laboratory (GL) Project, developed by TERC1 and funded by the National Science

Foundation, engages middle- and high-school students and teachers in collaborative, hands-on, project-based investigations of environmental phenomena. Global Lab enables teachers to implement in

their classrooms an advanced form of science teaching that is experiential and process-centered and

that goes beyond memorizing facts and canned lab experiments. A specially designed telecommunications network links classrooms around the world with data exchange and analysis capabilities. The

network makes classroom collaborations possible on both regional and global scales.

In order to prepare students and teachers for collaborative classroom science, the curriculum uses a

developmental approach that leads students from carefully supported, skill-building activities to more

open-ended research investigations. The sequence is designed to introduce students to the process of

real science, empower them with essential skills for “doing science, ” and then direct them to their own

hands-on, real world investigations. The preparatory phase of the Global Lab year is called “Building

Investigative Skills, ” and the investigative stage is called “Advanced Research. ”

Students and teachers begin with a community-building activity in which classes send information

about their schools and community to other sites. As they do this, they learn how to manipulate and

navigate around the telecommunications software. For example, a class in the Czech Republic wrote:2

Our town IS a very old one It was founded in the 13th century and has evolved under both Czech and German

influences, The town IS known as the “Pearl of South Bohemia “There are however many factories with smoking chimneys and outflows into the rivers, so we have already had experience with ecological problems. So we would be very

glad to help any research into some of them

A teacher in Hawaii describes her class’s reaction to data it received from other Global Lab schools:

The students located GL schools on the map. and looked up information about the schools in our cluster. During this time, my class got revolved with longitudes and latitudes and made some interesting discoveries about their

perceptions of where certain cities were!

The GL curriculum emphasizes the process of science and leads students through a series of

hands-on activities to introduce them to key aspects of this process, such as the importance and

history of collaborative science; the need for calibrations, measurements, standardization, international

units, and reproducibility; and typical sources of errors. Each class selects a local site to study

environmentally over the school year, and they begin to assess its environmental health and quality.

Students start with qualitative observations of their sites, based on their senses (e.g., what do we see,

feel, hear, smell at the site?). Working first without quantitative tools, they soon begin to develop an

appreciation for the need for scientific instrumentation.

At this point, the curriculum introduces students to low-cost, high-tech tools developed or provided

by TERC, and then requires them to use these tools to conduct a quantitative analyses of their study

1 TERC, based in Cambridge, MA, IS a nonprofit education research and development organization, dedicated to science and

math, Since 1990, Global Lab has revolved over 400 classrooms from 30 countries around the world

2 Except as noted otherwise, all quotes are all taken from Berenfeld, “Technology and the New Model of Science Education” (see

“Source” below)
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers 163

sites. This model features an activity called “Environmental Snapshots. ” At the same hour (solar noon) on

the same day, Global Lab students around the world make an environmental profile of their study sites.

They measure parameters such as light intensity, carbon dioxide concentrations, air and soil temperature,

and soil moisture at their study site, then compile their data and exchange it with other schools. They

compare findings with projectwide data and formulate research hypotheses to explain observed phenomena. The Hawaii teacher further describes the process:

Then they finally chose which teams they would like to work on. I asked the Engineering Team to be responsible for

taking measurements of air temperature, humidity, amount of light using a Iuxmeter, and also a radiometer, to measure

pH... and wind speed. Meanwhile, the Ozone Team watched the videotape on how to assemble their devices. The

Audio Team began writing their introductions... the Art and Writer Team began musing about their study site. It

was a pleasure watching and Iistening to them comparing notes, discussing their work.

Students and teachers are then prepared to begin the project’s second phase, Advanced Research

Each classroom begins an in-depth investigation at their site in one of five research fields: including air

and water quality, environmental chemistry, ionizing radiation and stratospheric ozone, and biodiversity

and field explorations. A class in Texas explained their choice:

Our classes chose Environmental Chemistry because we are concerned about the results of local industry and

agriculture in our water, soil, and air Also, we would like to know if the recent flooding has affected the chemical [balance] in these areas.

The students discuss their work online with other schools and are encouraged to tap into local

resources, outside scientific collaborators, and scientists from TERC. After conducting their investigations, the students in each classroom prepare a research report and then conduct “peer reviews” 01

other students’ reports. An important part of the curriculum is teaching students about the ethics 01

science and the need for and nature of peer review.

Global Lab presents a challenge to many teachers. Often, participating teachers are learning content

and technology use alongside their students. Furthermore, the open-ended, inquiry-based environment

is different from the practices of many teachers. To help teachers make the transition to project-based

pedagogy, Global Lab provides them with tools, materials reinforcing the concept of contextual relevance

for student learning, a curricular framework, guidance for engaging a class in this model of scientific

inquiry and collaboration, and, perhaps most important, online support. A Massachusetts teacher said:

It’s helped me focus more on the research process and the scientific thinking process, whereas before I think I’d

gotten into the rut, having taught 25 years, of just giving them activities, having them fill out the sheets, and that’s it. So

this has forced me to start them thinking about hypothesis and guessing and thinking about what makes an experiment valid, and all the variables that could be in the experiment that might affect the data.

A Texas teacher admitted:

The thing was that starting into this project, nobody knew anything, including myself. We had no idea what had to

be done to study the problem we elected. Everybody had to go out and research it, and it turned out that Instead of

Iearning it out of a textbook or being lectured about it, we were doing everything by trial and error, step by step. And to

me it was more real science than what you normally get in a science class. I’ve learned more this year than probably

in 13 years of teaching science.

(continued)
64 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Although there has been no formal research into the impact of the Global Lab model on teachers,

preliminary evaluations revealed a great variety in the way teachers implemented Global Lab in their

classrooms, These ranged from afterschool science clubs to a full science course,

It is our core curriculum and from it we build other subjects, When we study water in Global Lab, we study water in

history, its relationship to wars, and so on, how cities are created on it, We use it to write for English and we study

English from it, We take all our field trips connected with it.3

As a project pioneering new teaching paradigms, Global Lab experiences suggest that giving

curriculum support based on a developmental model can encourage teaching with collaborative,

hands-on science investigations, When such pedagogy is enhanced by telecommunications, innovative

software and hardware tools, and online collegial and expert support, this approach to teaching

science reflects the kinds of relevant, inquiry-based scientific study recommended in the emerging

national standards recommended by the science education community 4

3 See “Sources” below, Tinker and Berenfeld, p. 15.

4 See, e.g., American Association for the Advancement of Science, Benchmarks for Science Literacy (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), and National Academy of Science, National Science Education Standards (Washington, DC National Academy

of Science, 1994)

SOURCES Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on Boris Berenfeld, “Technology and the New Model of Science Education: The Global Lab Experience, ” Machine-Mediated Learnmg, Vol. 4, Nos. 2&3, 1994, pp. 203-227, Barbara Tinker and Boris Berenfeld, “Patterns of Use Global Lab Adaptations, ” Hands-On/, fall 1994, vol. 17, No 2 (Cambridge, MA TERC), pp. 14-15

tional materials, such as textbooks and other print pieces taken from primary sources or family jouror library resources, teachers can also give both

their own lessons and student assignments more

content and depth (see box 2-5). For example, in

the social studies classes in Montgomery County,

Maryland, 24 the teachers have been provided multimedia “MacPacs,”25 to develop lessons based on

texts, photos, TV or film footage collections on

videodisc, or other powerful content that cannot

be found in other media. Teachers also require that

their students use these resources to create multimedia reports. Instead of the traditional approach

to written reports (“use a minimum three different

print sources and only one from the encyclopedia”), a teacher can suggest that students include

clippings scanned in from a newspaper, maps,

nals, photographs, references from the CD-ROM

encyclopedia, or text with highlighted words that

correspond to a student-created glossary, in addition to the other traditional research materials.

Students thus must extend their research to include a variety of information sources; draw upon

multiple ways of representing events, perspectives and interpretations; evaluate which materials work best for the presentation required; and

then synthesize this material into a cogent multimedia message.

For example, for a report on Martin Luther

King, Jr., a teacher in Kentucky has her high

school students view a full-motion videodisc segment of the civil rights leader delivering his “I

24 Linda Spoales, social studies resource teacher, Montgomery County, MD, OTA site visit Dec. 14, 1993.

25 The “MacPaC” workstations each include a Macintosh LC Computer, a CD-ROM drive, a level III videodisc player, and a passive-matrix

LCD display panel (for overhead projection of the computer screen). Each department also has a 3 I -inch television.
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers | 165

Have a Dream” speech.26 Powerful as the speech

is, it takes on additional impact when the student

searches other video materials and discovers pictures of segregated lunch counters or water foun-

 tains with “Whites Only” signs, views film

segments of speeches by other civil rights leaders

and segregationists, reviews documents that support Dr. King’s statements, and examines evidence in contemporary news articles that suggest

whether or not his dream has been met. The process is as important as the product, as students

develop valuable skills in finding, evaluating,

organizing, and communicating many types of

information using new technologies as well as

traditional research materials. Although students could go to a library, read books, watch videos, and interview people, technology has the

means to bring together all those original source

materials in an easily accessible place—such as a

videodisc or CD-ROM. Students may not otherwise have access to these kinds of sources. Some

suggest that this is what using the technology can

do best: give teachers the chance to ask and students better ways to find answers to “different

questions, richer questions, questions that make

kids think.”27

By encouraging students to use a variety of technologies--

such as video-to supplement the use of more traditional

materials, teachers make both their lessons and the

assignments more meaningful.

dents more directly than do textbooks and more

traditional teaching tools.28 Many instructional

designers have suggested that the interactive capacity of new technologies-wherein children

can actively interact with information and receive

feedback on their questions or answers-contributes to its motivating effects.29

For example, asocial studies teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland, uses a multimedia station (which includes a videodisc player controlled

by a computer using Hypercard software) in class;

where teacher questions were previously greeted

with silence, high school students now participate

actively in class discussions. The multimedia lesson converts her lecture into more of a demonstration or slide show wherein she can easily show

maps, charts, graphs, primary source documents,

and video clips of news or historical footage. The

computer technology allows the teacher to stop,

backup, go forward, or skip to another “file” of

images as students ask questions. This teacher

was particularly impressed with the level of in-

■ Motivating Learners

The nature of new technology-based resources

suggests, and discussions with teachers confirm,

that many technology-based classroom activities

can be motivating to students. Some teachers report that many students become so involved in

what they are doing with technology that they arrive before the firstbell and leave after the last bus.

These teachers suggest that technology can be a

key vehicle for stimulating learning, primarily because it creates environments and presents content

in ways that are more engaging and involve stu26 Debbie Hall, Shelby County High School, Shelbyville, KY. OTA site visit Apr. 18, 1994.

27 David Mintz, National Center on Education and the Economy, personal communication, August 1994.

28 Thompson, op. cit., footnote 12, pp. 11, 68.

29 See, e.g.,David Thornburg, "Killing the Fatted Calf," Electronic Learning (New York, NY: Scholastic, lnc., September 1994)$ pp. 24-25;

Richard Ruopp (cd.), LabNet: Toward a Community of Practice (Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 1993).
66 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Teachers have found that students working together in small

groups using technology are often more motivated and take

greater responsibility for their learning.

volvement and interest this approach generated in

students; she reported that they ask more questions, seem less afraid to speak out in class, and

were even talking about it with their parents at

home.30

Another example of the motivating effects of

technology is described by a teacher in an alternative high school who reported that he used a software simulation program as both learning tool and

behavior motivator for his class of ten 16- to

18-year-old boys. These students, referred from

their regular schools and placed in the alternative

school as a last chance before placement in a more

restrictive educational setting, were often unruly

and needed to develop social skills as much as

they needed the academic skills they had missed

in their earlier schooling experiences. Engaging

this group was a challenge; yet, almost all were

enthusiastic when presented with a science activity using simulation software. According to this

teacher, his students loved working with “The

Great Solar System Rescue’’; 31 working in teams

30 Spoales, op. cit., footnote 24.

as “experts”—meteorologists, astronomers, geologists, and space historians-they were challenged to find lost probes in the solar system.

Working with the packet of expert material provided in the software and analyzing visual clues

from the videodisc engaged their interest and focused their attention, and they learned about the

solar system in the process. When one student became disruptive in class, his punishment was not

being allowed to participate with the team for several days. The teacher said it was one of the most

effective behavior modification techniques he had

ever used.32

Some teachers contend that their students are

more motivated and take greater responsibility for

their learning when they are engaged in technology-based activities that require them to create

and share content with each other. For example, in

the Global Exchange weather-mapping project,

middle school students work in groups of two or

three to become “experts” in specific areas of local

weather. The student “experts” collect data using

Internet resources such as weather text and imagery, electronic dialogues with local scientists,

book research, and other information. The teacher

observed a higher level of motivation among students on the Internet compared with students not

using telecommunications. “I could see the kids in

the Internet classroom were more motivated to

learn the material because they knew they would

be sharing it with other kids their own age,” she

said, “and I think that the idea of sharing it with

their peers was a . . . very good motivation for them.”33

■ Individualizing Student Learning

Teachers who use technology also report that it

can be used to help them individualize instruction.

This has been one of the greatest appeals of integrated learning systems, computer and software

31 “The Great Solar System Rescue,” Tom Snyder Productions, Cambridge, MA.

32 Robert Martin, BOCES, West Nyack, NY, personal communication, November 1994.

33 Nancy B. Songer, “Knowledge Construction Through Global Exchange and Dialogue: A Case of Kids as Global Scientists,” University

of Colorado, Boulder, 1994, p. 30. Global Exchange is part of a larger project called “Kids as Global Scientists.”
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers 67

In a Kentucky high school history class, the teacher instructs her students to write a letter to President

Hoover to try to convince him that the Depression is not over. Before class, the teacher goes to the school

library and checks out a videodisc player and a videodisc, called History in Motion,1 for her students to

use during class. For research to support arguments in their letter, the students can watch the videodisc

to get a feel for the era in which Hoover was president.

The students use technology to see history as it happened: video clips of “flappers” dancing up a storm,

followed shortly afterward by unemployed people on bread lines. One student takes the remote control and

replays the sequence, freezing the frame on the bread line and confirming with another student that “this

is the same decade?” It is the student’s ability to access at the touch of a button the image of a bread line,

the teacher says, and also to replay and discuss meanings of this powerful image, that points to the real

difference between technology-based resources and print. In a textbook, the bread line doesn’t shuffle

forward while students watch the pained expressions on the faces of real people reaching for food.2

The teacher also has Time magazine archives on CD-ROM in her classroom so students—working in

teams of three or four—can peruse and download articles that give credence to their claim that the

Depression is not over. The availability of a product such as the Time CD-ROM not only provides more

information but gives the teacher more opportunities to ask different questions, questions that challenge

the students to investigate a topic in greater depth and think about the implications of the information they

are now able to access. Students can also read other students’ letters from previous years’ classes and

use any typical resources, such as textbooks, to prepare the assignment. This history class-combining

traditional and technology-based approaches to research, communication, analysis, writing, and collaborative Iearning---connects the students to new resources and information in a way that not only captures

their interest, but appears to encourage and support their participation in learning.

1 History in Motion is published by Scholastic Software, New York, NY.

2 Debbie Hall, Shelby County High School, Shelbyville, KY, OTA site visit, April 1994.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on Shelby County High School, Shelbyville, KY, site visit, April 1994

systems that correspond to curricula34 and can be dent, so that extra assistance can be given in those

presented to each student in a class based on his or particular areas where the student needs help.

her abilities. The student can work on the materi- Technology has been extremely helpful in reval---often called “drill and practice’ ’—until reaching olutionizing individualized instruction for special

a level of mastery, at his or her own pace. Reports education students, many of whom are now being

produced by these systems give the teacher a re- served in regular classrooms.35 Hardware, softcord of what areas were most difficult for each stu34 Curriculum refers to the courses offered by an educational institution (plural, curricula). Most schools have prescribed curricula teachers

must follow throughout the school year and on which students are tested as the basis for passing a course or getting credit for it.

35 Special education programs serve children with disabilities that include autism, deafness and hearing impairments, mental retardation,

orthopedic impairments, other health impairments, serious emotional disturbance, specific learning disability, speech or language impairment,

traumatic brain injury, and visual impairments. The Education for all Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94- 142), renamed the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990, guarantees that children with such disabilities be served in normal classroom settings to the

maximum extent possible.
68 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

ware, and assistive devices can help special education students progress in their learning and

communicate their knowledge to others in new—

and accessible—ways. For example, scanning devices convert text into speech so visually impaired

students, in particular, can hear the content and respond to questions. An expanded keyboard with

extra large keys or a touch-sensitive screen attached to a computer monitor are alternative input

devices that help students with motor control difficulties use the computer without struggling with

a mouse. Even a word-processing program with a

spell-checking feature can ease the frustration for

students who have difficulty with handwriting or

spelling so they can progress to deeper levels of

understanding the subject matter. As even more

devices are developed to enable special education

students to learn in innovative ways, it is hoped

that teachers will be better equipped to provide appropriate instruction.36

Some technology tools, like the Algebra Tutor,37 enable a teacher to track the paths a student

takes to reach a solution to a problem, helping the

teacher understand where the student is confused

and needs help. Other applications such as TextBrowser,38 word processing, and databases, can

provide a “window into the student’s thinking, inquiry, and problem-solving processes (giving)

teachers access to students’ misconceptions, the

ways in which they sort and categorize information, the relationships they form among ideas, and

the conjectures they make.”39

While this look into the mind of the individual

student is enlightening, it remains a nearly insurmountable challenge to find ways to draw upon

this insight and work with each individual student

in a class of 20 to 30 students, all needing the

teacher’s attention (see chapter 4). Some teachers

report that using technology can allow them to

structure their classroom activities so that students work more independently, sometimes in

small groups. This may allow the teacher more

flexibility to organize time to better meet individual student needs. While there are examples of

how some teachers work with limited availability

of technologies, clearly a more systematic understanding is needed of the factors that lead to success in such situations.

For example, in some cases, teachers have used

technology as a tool for setting up activities in

which students work in teams where their roles as

members of the team are designed to draw upon

their personal strengths and interests, to help them

find areas where they can succeed and develop

self-confidence. For example, in a school in San

Diego40 the students create adventure games for

projects called “Microworlds.” Based upon ancient cultures, games such as “Exploration in the

New World in the 16th Century,” are created using

Hypercard. Teachers organize students into teams

of researchers, graphics designers, project managers, programmers, and so forth; as students develop their budding expertise in these areas, they are

36 See, e.g., Thomas Wall and Jessica Siegel, “All Included: Inclusion of Special Education Children in Regular Classrooms Cannot Happen

Without Technology,” Electronic Learning, vol. 13, No. 6 (New York, NY: Scholastic, Inc., March 1994), pp. 24-34; also, Carol S. Holzberg,

“Technology in Special Education,” Technology and Learning (Dayton, OH: April 1994), pp. 18-21.

37 “Algebra Tutor” was developed by John R. Anderson, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, with funding from the National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.

38 D.M. Kurland, “Textbrowser: A Computer-Based Instructional Management and Assessment System for Language Arts Instruction,”

Newton, MA, Education Development Center, 1991.

39 Barbara Means, John Blando, Kerry Olson, and Teresa Middleton, SRI International; and Catherine Cobb Morocco, Arlene R. Remz, and

Judith Zorfass, Education Development Corporation, Using Technology To Support Education Reform, report for U.S. Department of Education (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993), p. 69.

40 O’Farrell Community School, Center for Advanced Academic Studies, San Diego, CA. Based on presentation by Roland L. Garcia,

Educational Technologist, at Society for Technology and Teacher Education Conference, San Diego, CA, March 1993.
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers | 69

called upon to teach others and contribute to the

success of the project as a whole.

■ Redefining Teachers' Roles

When technology is integrated into the curriculum

in a comprehensive way, and when teachers feel

comfortable and confident about using it, myriad

changes occur that may ultimately redefine the

roles of teachers. One teacher echoed the opinion

of many when she said: “I’ve gone from being the

‘sage on the stage’ to the ‘guide on the side.’”41

While some teachers have always taught in this

way, others report that the change to a coaching,

facilitator role can be daunting, especially when it

requires them to venture beyond the teacher-centered lecturing or presentation model they experienced as students themselves or in their teacher

preparation. Nevertheless, many who take on

these “new” roles find the change is welcome, profound, and often necessary.

A teacher in the National Geographic Kids Network project summed it up this way:

...1 no longer spend most of my time standing in front of my class and lecturing or having

the students read from a textbook. I have become a facilitator, stage director, resource manager, master learner, discussion leader, observer,

and evaluator. For me this change has been refreshing, enlightening. and long overdue. My

students too have changed. There are no longer

textbooks or tests with right or wrong answers.

They have become collaborators and teachers.

They have become scientists making predictions, developing hypotheses, and analyzing

data. And they spend their money buying school

pencils, folders, and banners to send to their pen

pals.42

Teachers at the Open Charter School in Los Angeles found that their roles were shifting as

technology integration took over the school. The

Some teachers use technology to tailor instruction to an

individual student's needs or to structure classroom activities

so students can work more independently.

Open Charter School received enough technology

to make available one computer for every two students. One teacher described the change she has

gone through as she has grown more comfortable

in using technology:

I don’t do things in the same way that I did

them before. I have had to become very inventive when looking for ways that I think the

[technology] tool fits best for children. My goals

changed, because I looked not necessarily at the

outcome, but the process by which they were

getting there.43

41 Bonney Bracey, Arlington Public Schools, on "The Digital Classroom” WORLDNET television program, Washington, DC, United

States Information Agency, Oct. 26,1994.

42 Joan Bissell et al., National Geographic Kids Network and Language Minority Students: The Use and Adaptation of the Hello! Telecommunications Unit in California Public Schools (Irvine, CA: Department of Education, University of California & July 1994), p. 24.

43 Steinmetz, op. cit., footnote 23, p. 25.
70 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Teachers’ roles are often redefined in classrooms where

technology has been successfully integrated. Some teachers

report that they see themselves as learners alongside their

students when technology is used.

Teachers at the school also said that by becoming

learners themselves, they had developed greater

empathy for their students. Said a teacher, “After

struggling to learn [Hypercard] programming,

now I’m more likely to suggest and provide alternatives instead of answers, so children can discover their own answers.” 44

At least part of the teacher’s new role as “guide

on the side” involves admitting to themselves and

to their students that they don’t have all the answers. In other words, one new role for the teacher

is as a learner alongside the students. In fact, an

unexpected side effect of technology use is that

students, who are often more comfortable with using technology than their teachers, end up helping

the teachers. One journalism teacher, initially intimidated by computers, found that her students

had a totally different view of technology than she

did. She described her “turnaround” this way:

“Teachers tend to read the manual and say, ‘This is

what the computer can do.’ Students tend to say,

‘It’s a computer, it can do anything.’ This is one

thing I’ve learned, and I learned it from my students.” 45 This teacher gained a new way of thinking about the technology (it could be

manipulated), the students (they could teach the

teacher), and herself (she didn’t know everything

after all, and that was free). Could this change

have occurred without technology? Perhaps. But

she maintained that, as a journalism teacher, she

would be remiss in her teaching if she failed to expose students to technologies now commonplace

in her field. So she has let the students help her

with the technology, while she teaches them the

techniques and craft of journalism.46

In the Olympia Washington School District,

students are equal partners with teachers in learning about technology applications. The director of

technology described the district’s approach:

Students often introduce technological innovations into the classroom and work with

teachers in developing course content and goals.

The result is that often initial [technology] use

by teachers does not mimic current teaching

practices. We have found that using students as

technical resources pays better dividends than

teachers depending on colleagues. Kids take to

technology faster than teachers, are more readily available, and the children’s self-esteem is enhanced by being a mentor to a teacher. The

Olympia School District does not give any

technology workshops to teachers. Most workshops are given to students and they are taught

how to pass this knowledge on to administrators,

teachers, and other students. When teachers are

involved in a technology workshop, they must

bring a student in their class, and together they

learn the skills. The pair pool their strengths, and

exciting things are happening in the district’s

schools. 47

44 Ibid. 45 Kitty Sharber, Shelbe County High School, Shelbyville, KY, OTA site visit, Apr. 18, 1994.

46 Ibid.

47 Dennis Harper, Director of Technology, Olympia School District, Olympia, WA, personal communication, August 1994.
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers | 71

ASSISTING TEACHERS WITH

THE DAILY TASKS OF TEACHING

Teachers are asked to do a lot in the time they

spend inside the school building—then they

spend additional hours at home working on

school-related projects and materials. According

to data from the U.S. Department of Education,

teachers spend 35 hours a week on average performing their required duties in the school building. Beyond these required school hours, teachers

report spending an average of three additional

hours with students—for example, coaching, tutoring, and supervising extracurricular activities—and eight more hours a week doing work

activities without students, such as preparing lessons, grading assignments, and attending meetings. In 1990-91, teachers in public secondary

schools were responsible for an average of five

class periods a day, each with an average of 23 students. Public school teachers who were responsible for a class for a whole day, such as elementary

teachers, were responsible for an average of 25

students.48

Technology offers alternative—and sometimes

time-saving—approaches to many day-to-day

functions that eat up teachers’ valuable time and

energy. Teachers who are comfortable using

technology indicate that it can help with many important daily tasks, such as keeping records, assessing student learning, preparing and evaluating

curricular materials, and increasing communication with students, colleagues, and parents.

OTA finds that teachers, like all professionals, tend to use technology when they can see

how it will help them become more productive

or do their jobs more professionally. Teachers

use technologies in ways that are most valuable

for them, whether to record grades or videotape

the performance of a school play.

Evidence for how computers can support and

enhance the job of the teacher emerged from a

four-school pilot project in Indiana in which every

teacher was given a computer and training to use

it. Two years into the program, teachers reported

that use of the computer had allowed them to be

more efficient with the time they spent on administrative tasks, to produce work that was more professional, and to be more confident about

exploring the many potential educational uses of

computers (see box 2-6).

❚ Keeping Records

As OTA observed in site visits, gradebook or other

recordkeeping software can provide a “hook” that

gets otherwise reluctant teachers interested in using technology tools. Most teachers spend large

chunks of their time maintaining records, often

detailed ones, of student scores on tests and

quizzes, daily participation, homework, behavior,

and other factors. Computerized gradebook programs are set up as spreadsheets; each time a new

grade is entered and weighted (e.g., homework assignments, class participation, quizzes, major papers, and midterm tests), the software can

automatically recalculate each student’s grade averages. The teacher can print out the student’s

grading history and use it as a vehicle for discussing with the student or parents what that student

needs to do to improve (“your quizzes were fine,

but when you failed to turn in those homework assignments it really pulled your average down”).

One high school math teacher, for instance, regularly uses an electronic gradebook to counsel students one-on-one about problems as they occur,

and she offers to show every student his or her current grade average after each quiz or test. “When

you have a quiz a week,” she said, “it’s too late to

tell them [handing back a previous quiz] that they

48 National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing in the United States, A Statistical Profile, 1990-91 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, July 1993), p. 51.
72 Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

As part of a pilot project funded by the state of Indiana, four small schools—three secondary

schools in rural locations and one small elementary school in a suburban setting—received grants to

acquire computers for the personal use of all teachers (as well as administrative staff) and to provide

training for staff on the basic software provided, The project—“A Computer for Every Teacher”—was

just that: all teachers in each school had to agree to participate and, in return, received a computer and

printer for their own use either at home or in school (wherever they chose to keep it),

An evaluation study was conducted of the project in the spring of 1992, after the teachers had had

their computers for two school years. The evaluation of this program found three areas of particular

impact: teacher productivity, professionalism, and empowerment. ’

Productivity Teachers and administrators reported substantial improvements in their productivity,

primarily in completing administrative and management tasks. Teachers recounted spending the same

amount of time on class preparation and administration, but accomplishing more, Teachers reported a

side benefit: the electronic gradebook made it possible to update grades daily, This permitted teachers

to provide more information to the students about their academic standing and what they had to

accomplish to achieve a higher grade, improving student motivation and achievement,

Professionalism: According to the teachers and administrators who participated, the availability of

computers and printers tended to improve the appearance and even the quality of materials they

prepared, Class handouts, tests, flyers, and letters to parents were perceived as looking more professional and reflecting well on the school. Moreover, teachers perceived themselves as more competent

because they could apply the computer to accomplish professional work, Some teachers in each

school became “experts” on particular programs or aspects of software-such as mail merge—and

gained the respect of colleagues, who often turned to them for help, And by being placed in the role of

learner as they received training about the computer, several teachers said they were impelled to

reconsider their instructional approaches, curriculum, and pedagogy.

Empowerment According to participants, learning to become proficient on the computer was a

great equalizer among the faculty and between faculty and students. Teachers now felt as comfortable

and proficient with computers as their students. They felt secure in suggesting computer applications to

their students and willing to learn from them as well. The staff of each school reported a sense of growth

and collegiality that emerged from the process of learning to use computers together, They described

pride in their school for becoming leaders in the use of computers in education.

1 Teachers and staff completed a questionnaire before the program began in 1990 In the spring of 1992, researchers made site

visits to each school and conducted interviews with most of the participating staff Each teacher was given a diary form and was

asked to complete a log of all uses of the computer for four randomly selected days over a two-week period in May. A followup questionnaire was also distributed to all staff; 88 percent of them completed this questionnaire A final debriefing session was held with the

four school-site coordinators in late June 1992,

SOURCE: S. Rockman et al., “Productivity, Professionalism and Empowerment: Given a Computer for Every Teacher, ” report prepared for the Indiana Department of Education, October 1992.
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers | 73

need a 96 on the next one to get an ‘A.’”49 Electronic gradebooks cart therefore become a teaching tool as well as a personal time saver, an

additional benefit teachers find useful.5o

“ In schools in which the central office and teachers are linked by a local area network with access

to databases of student records and management

software, these programs can make it simpler for

teachers to work together or with their department

head or principal to analyze student work, reexamine course goals, and adjust the curriculum or

instructional approach when needed. For example, at Piscataquis Community High School in

Guilford, Maine, a teacher who sees that a student

is having trouble in class can call up a central

grade record file from the computer on his or her

desk to see whether that student is doing poorly in

other classes. If so, the teacher will send an e-mail

message to the student’s other teachers to discuss

the student’s difficulties and decide what actions

are necessary, such as notifying the counselor and

setting up a team meeting with the student’s parents. Because every teacher in the school has a

computer with access to the instructional management software, they use the technology as an “early warning system,” allowing for intervention

before student problems become too entrenched.

■ Assessing Student Learning

As noted in the 1992 OTA report, Testing in American Schools:

A quiet, but dramatic, transformation is occurring in education as researchers and practitioners rethink basic beliefs about teaching and

learning. These research findings and the

instructional theories they have spawned raise

serious challenges to traditional classroom orgaSome teachers are using technology to maintain and update

electronic portfolios of student work. As more schools explore

alternative forms of assessment, technology offers teaches

new ways to quickly and efficiently record and respond to

student performance.

nizational models, to conventional curricula,

and, in turn, to existing forms of testing.51

One of the greatest challenges of alternative

forms of assessment, such as performance-based

assessment, is keeping track of rich but extensive

histories of student performance. Some teachers

are using technology to meet this challenge—

maintaining electronic portfolios of student work

on disk, saving hardcopies of work that students

create on the computer, or requiring students to

demonstrate competence and understanding

through multimedia or other technology-based

presentations (see box 2-7). Performance assessment methods, especially when supported by

technology, help teachers diagnose student

strengths and weaknesses and adapt instruction

accordingly, provide students with immediate

feedback on their performance, let teachers record

and score multiple aspects of competence, and

49 Lisa Martell, Piscataquis Community High School, Guilford, ME, OTA site visit, Apr. 2,1994. 50 See, e.g., Saul Rockman et al., Productivity, Professionalism, and Empowerment: Given A Computer for Every Teacher, report prepared

for the Indiana Department of Education, October 1992. Also, David Stanton, "Gradebooks, the Next Generation," Electronic Learning (New

York, NY: Scholastic, Inc., September 1994), pp. 54-58. 51 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Testing in America: Asking the Right Questions, OTA-SET-519 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1992), p. 45.
74 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

As part of a long-range, school-reform effort, the Florida School Year 2000 Initiative, Florida educators designed a specialized “teacher’ productivity tool.” Working with teachers across the state, the

state education department, in cooperation with Florida State University’s Center for Educational

Technology, developed a technology tool designed to flexibly and efficiently address the grading,

recording, and information retrieval aspects of teachers’ jobs.

In Florida, teachers designed their own tool-the TychoTM

Teacher lnforrnation Manager--handheld, pen-based

computer that helps them to create, record, and summarize

student observations, report to parents, and keep track of

student progress.

The tool-TychoTM Teacher Information

Manager1—is a combination of information

management software, a pen-based handheld computer, a central host workstation, and

data communications software. Currently, 150

teachers, mostly in grades preK-2, in 20 Florida schools are using TychoTM to create, record, and summarize student observations,

report to parents, and keep track of student

progress. In Leon County, Florida, the school

district has purchased 1,000 units of a different platform, Apple Computer’s Newton Message Pad teamed with a Wings for Learning

product called “Learner Profile” in another pilot of “smart” handheld devices for student

assessment, 2 Teachers using these devices

can save lists of selected skills and enter corresponding assessment information for more

than one student at the same time.

The convenience and flexibility of a hand-held device is obvious as teachers walk around the classroom (or wherever learning is taking place) and record information immediately. For example, a teacher

can walk through a class in session with the tool in hand and record what the students are doing as they

are doing it; later, that information can be downloaded onto the teacher’s computer for more thorough re1 Software was developed and marketed by American Management Systems, Inc., Fairfax, VA, Tycho software runs on a variety

of Windows-based mobile computing platforms; teachers in Florida tested Tycho on a Fujitsu hand-held pen-based device, 2 The Heller Report, December 1994, p. 4,

maintain an efficient, detailed, and continuous analyze and evaluate the student’s performance.

history of the student’s progress.52 The teacher and student can view the-tape together

For example, some teachers use video to help and discuss progress or areas of concern. The tape

make objective records of student performance can also be stored and revisited later in the year to

and growth. A teacher can videotape a student pre- see how far the student has progressed or to sham

sentation, speech, demonstration, or performance the demonstration with parents.

and review it later, several times if necessary, to
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers 75

cordkeeping and analysis of student progress. Such products3 can also prompt teachers to pay attention

to individual student learning styles by reminding them of previous observations (e.g., accessing the file

for a student named “Jimmy” would show the teacher an observation she made previously that she thought

was important to the student’s progress, such as: “Jimmy is learning to work well in smaller groups”).

Teachers who use such technology tools say that ultimately it makes their daily work easier, more

efficient, or more productive so time can be better spent addressing students’ needs. Even teachers

who don’t use these kinds of tools seem to understand the potential: a 4th-grade teacher in Indiana

says the tools could help her prepare student progress reports required by the school teacher on every

student every three weeks. Presently, she needs a week just to get the records together to produce the

reports, If technology could help her organize all that information, the teacher says, she would have

more time and energy to devote to her students when they need it most-as they are learning.4

3 Other products are available commercially, such as the CSL Profiles in Hand, an observation and recording tool, developed by

Chancery Software, Inc., Bellingham, WA, that uses Macintosh computers and the Apple Newton MessagePad. The Learner Profile,

from Wings for Learning, Scotts Valley, CA, uses bar codes so the teacher can walk around the Iearning environment and scan in bar

codes that represent learner outcomes or teacher-specified skills to measure progress and achievement

4 Doris Zimmerman, teacher, Shelbyville, IN, personal communication, October 1994.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on information provided by the Center for Educational Technology, Florida State

University, Tallahassee, FL, October 1994

Many schools are calling for students to maintain portfolios of student activity, throughout a

year or over several years.53 These can be extensive documents. Storage of these materials

(whether drafts of work over time, collections of

pictures, test scores, reports, journal entries, selfassessment, or other items) on CD-ROM makes

them more convenient to maintain, access, and

update, and saves scarce storage space in classrooms and school offices.

❚ Preparing Curricular Materials

Preparing materials for daily lessons is one of the

largest parts of the teacher’s day. Some teachers

are using new technologies to help them preview,

access, create, and incorporate new materials into

their lesson plans. Word-processing software,

combined with printers, for example, have proved

valuable tools for teachers when preparing worksheets, creating tests, and updating lesson plans.

Teachers take pride in being able to use programs

like spreadsheets and word processors to produce

professional-looking documents. As one high

school journalism teacher says, with “the right

computers and software, the school newspaper actually looks like a newspaper, not a student publication.”54

Often it is the school media center where videodisc players, VCRs, computers with CD-ROM capabilities, and other hardware are available, along

with collections of software and programming for

preview or classroom use. For instance, a teacher

53 For example, states such as Vermont now require student portfolios as an alternative form of assessment. Likewise, some schools have

followed suit, including Webster Elementary School, San Augustine, FL, and O’Farrell Community School, San Diego, CA; both require ongoing student portfolios.

54 Sharber, op. cit., footnote 45.
76 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Multimedia stations with any combination of a computer

videodisc player, VCR, television, or CD-ROM can be used by

teachers to preview and pnepare materials for classroom use.

A computer connected to a videodisc player with a barcode

reader, for example, simplifies customizing classroom

presentations.

might go to the school media center, review the

teacher’s guide and table of contents in a product

like the “Windows on Science” videodisc?5 and

enter the code numbers for a particular segment

she is teaching (e.g., how animals adapt to their

environment). She can review the segment,

choose parts she wants, and use a barcode scanner

to capture that sequence and play it back in the

classroom. Teachers at the Open Charter School in

Los Angeles, for example, use computer-controlled videodiscs for customized presentations to

students. They preselect film clips or images they

want to show and stop the presentation at any

point for discussion. As one teacher said, “I can

talk to kids and tell them about things-like the

capability of sea stars to flip over—but now I can

show them. I don’t need to watch an entire film to

get to the part I want to see. And the students can

go back and watch it over and over.”56

New telecommunication technologies enable

teachers to access information from a variety

of sources-universities, schools, government

agencies, or any organization that has a publicly

available database. From the electronic files in the

database, teachers may access documents, such as

written reports, lesson plans, or research papers;

graphic images such as weather maps and satellite

or still camera photographs; or other kinds of information. In fact, information retrieval is one of

the most common purposes for which teachers use

telecommunications. 57

Teachers who use telecommunications emphasize several advantages of electronic information

retrieval. They can find sources of information

that are far more current than materials in standard

textbooks, such as satellite photos that may be

only hours old. In addition, once teachers are comfortable using the technology, searching for relevant materials electronically may be quicker or

more convenient; for example, perusing a library

card catalog online is usually faster than going to

the library to look. Teachers can access materials

that may not be available otherwise, such as those

created by colleagues, or information not published in traditional ways. Also, teachers who retrieve information electronically can easily store

and use the materials when and how they want,

such as adapting lesson plans for their own class.

Via telecommunications networks, teachers are

now being encouraged to participate as contributors to as well as users of electronic resources. For

example, the Eisenhower Clearinghouse for

55 “Windows on Science” is published by Optical Data Corp., Warren, NJ. In 1990, the videodisc series was approved by Texas for purchase

with state textbook funds. 56 Steinmetz, op. cit., footnote 23, p. 27.

57 Honey and Henriquez, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 19.
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers | 77

Mathematics and Science Education58 is creating

an electronic catalog of instructional plans written

by teachers in the broad areas of mathematics and

science.59 Other network service providers have

created places for teachers to distribute their own

instructional plans over a network. Virginia’s Public Education Network (PEN) has areas—called

Academical Villages, in the Jeffersonian parlance—where teachers place materials that other

teachers may download and use in their classrooms. In fact, the state’s most recent technology

plan, designed to replace the existing Virginia’s

PEN system, was influenced in part by the idea of

making teacher-created documents easier to post

and more accessible to network users.60

❚ Improving Communication

Teaching is one of the most isolated professions.

Teachers are “classroom bound” most of the

day with limited access to the outside world;

yet, an essential and vital part of the job of

teaching is maintaining open communications

with parents, other teachers, the school office,

and other professionals.

Teachers spend a great deal of their time worrying about, helping, counseling, and sharing information with students and parents, yet they are

expected to do so in most cases without the aid of

technology. Telephones, perhaps the most

ubiquitous and necessary technology available

to other professionals, are rare in most K-12

classrooms. Only an estimated 12 percent of

teachers (one in eight) in this country have a telephone61 in their classrooms. As one teacher

pointed out, “Telephones may be the only tool we

don’t give teachers because we are afraid they will

use them.”62 Some teachers stand in line to use the

one phone available to them (even, in some cases,

a pay phone) in the teachers’ lounge or principal’s

office, to make arrangements for field trips, for

bringing guest speakers into their classes, or for

scheduling parent volunteers. Actually, a national

survey suggests that the main reason teachers

want telephones in their classrooms is to contact

parents about immediate problems or concerns,

such as student behavior, attendance, and completion of homework.63

There are other duties required of teachers that

would be far simpler if they had easy access to

telephones. For example, educators in New York

undertook a review of what it takes to convene a

meeting of the school personnel required by law to

meet with the parents of each special education

child to review the child’s Individual Education

Plan.64 They found that often six people, in many

cases coming from three different buildings, were

required to attend these meetings. For the teacher

to go to the school office or faculty lounge and

stand in line to make all the phone calls necessary

to set up each meeting literally took hours of play58 The Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education is funded by the U.S. Department of Education and is

located at Ohio State University.

59 “An Invitation To Share Your Best Work,” brochure prepared by the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science

Education, Columbus, OH, n.d.

60 Glen L. Bull et al., “Anthology: Establishing an Evolutionary Path to a Peer Client-Server Internet Architecture for Virginia’s Schools,”

paper presented at the U.S. Department of Education Secretary’s Conference on Educational Technology, Washington, DC, May 8-10, 1994.

61 NEA Communications Survey, as cited by Henry J. Becker, table 3.1: Reported Market Penetration and Estimated Simultaneous Student

Accessibility for Various Electronic Technologies, “Analysis and Trends in School Use of New Information Technologies,” OTA contractor

report, March 1994.

62 “Integrating Technology and Professional Development,” unpublished report, Westfields Conference Center, Chantilly, VA, Apr. 27,

1994.

63 NEA, op. cit., footnote 61.

64 Gregory M. Benson, director, Education Program Development, Office of Educational Technology, New York State Department of

Education, personal communication, Novermber 1994.
78 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

I

Telecommunications use by teachers has expanded in the

last few years, and the number of curriculum-based

telecommunications projects is increasing as more teachers

and students seek opportunities to share and evaluate ideas

and activities with classrooms around the globe.

ing telephone tag with busy psychologists, counselors, resource personnel, and parents. Without

easy access to phones, much less voice mail or

e-mail accounts where messages can be left, the

task of corralling all the required players is a

scheduling nightmare.

It doesn’t have to be that way. In Billings, Montana, a local business partnership has enabled the

district to put a phone on every teacher’s desk in

the Lockwood Schools.65 The telephone system

connects teachers and students to each other, to

parents, and to resources outside the school. The

phone lines allow for voice mail, use of modems

or fax machines from the classroom, and access to

parents as the need arises. Each teacher at the

Lockwood Schools also has a “broadcast” mailbox to send and receive messages to groups. For

instance, if a member of the school’s technology

committee wants to leave a message telling other

members about a meeting time, the broadcast

mailbox can handle it. Voice mail lets teachers

leave or retrieve messages for each other and for

outside callers, such as parents, calling in to check

on a homework assignment.

Telecommunications use by teachers, especially fore-mail, has expanded in the last few years,66

and with good reason: teachers with classroom access to local or external telecommunications networks can contact other educators, experts,

scientists, and practitioners to discuss issues related to their teaching practice, developments in

their field, and classroom experiences. Furthermore, a growing number of teacher-based networks offer teachers a chance to connect with

other people in a variety of forms. Electronic mail,

users groups, and listservs, by at least one estimate, account for nearly 80 percent of the general

public’s use of the Internet overall; teacher use

seems to reflect this trend.67

Schools do not have to have external network

connections to receive some of the benefits of increased communications via technology. Many

schools are exploring the use of internal networks

as vehicles for enhancing schoolwide communication. For example, when the principal of Webster Elementary School in St. Augustine, Florida,

received a model school technology grant from

the state, he chose to use it first to improve communication in his school by building a “teamwork

infrastructure” that would connect the teachers in

his building.68 Each of the school’s 53 teachers,

who were scattered across three building wings

and several mobile trailers, was given a computer

connected to a local area network that links all the

classrooms and the principal. Teachers share lesson plans and files of teaching ideas with one

another and have ready access to the principal

65 OTA site visit March 1994.

66 Becker, op. cit., footnote 61.

67 Frank Odasz, teacher on the Big Sky Network Dillon, MT, in a public address, Secretary’s Conference on Educational Technology,

Washington DC, May 10, 1994.

68 "The Managing Principal," Electronic Learning (New York, NY: Scholastic, Inc., May/June 1993), PP. 26-31.
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers | 79

throughout the day as questions or problems arise.

The principal maintains that e-mail is “the most

important technology” in his school; in addition to

checking it constantly throughout the day, he issues a daily e-mail bulletin to update teachers and

staff on the day’s activities:

The bulletin lets teachers know exactly

what’s going on. When a school has morale

problems, 99 percent of the time it’s because of a

lack of communication. The rumor mill feeds

the gossip chain and before you know it, people

feel left out of the information loop. The network gives me open communication with teachers.69

The principal at Webster Elementary has also

used the technology to streamline the paperwork

within the building, creating school forms (e.g.,

letters to parents and field trip requests) and put

them on the network so that teachers can fill them

out and send them back easily. Weekly newsletters

to parents, a parent-school voice messaging system, and a daily video newscast (where students,

not the principal, make the day’s announcements)

are also important parts of this principal’s approach to using technology in his school to create

a “team environment” centered around open communication. And the teachers seem to like it too—

according to an outside evaluation, Webster was

the only one of the five Florida model schools in

which 100 percent of the teaching staff were participating in the technology grant.

Local area networks (LANs) are the mode of

connection planned for the Edison Project School

Design.70 The current plan outlines a goal to provide every student with a computer at home to access “the Common,” a LAN linking all local

Edison teachers, administrators, students, and

families. Each local school’s LAN will be connected to a wide area network of all the Edison

schools nationwide, enabling them to communicate with one another. Computers housed in each

school’s media center will provide Internet access

so media specialists can tap into vast resources

and gather information for their schools. Edison

staff suggest that at the present time the Internet is

too complex for individual teachers or students to

navigate.71 Edison leaders hope that the Common

will become the center of a geographical community and social center for teachers and families.

They foresee richer collegial relationships and

joint curriculum development among teachers,

and increased parental involvement, as bulletins

and notices are sent home over the network so parents can discuss student work and school issues

online with teachers and school staff.

FOSTERING TEACHER

PROFESSIONAL GROWTH

As with any profession, teachers need opportunities to expand their knowledge, keep pace with developments in their field, try out new methods,

exchange ideas with peers and experts, and refine

their skills (see box 2-8). They are also required, in

most districts, to take a certain number of continuing education credits for recertification or promotions. Some of this training comes through

courses or one-day workshops offered by the district, generally referred to as “inservice training.”

Most districts require teachers to attend one or

more days a year of this inservice training, usually

on a limited list of topics selected by the district.

While this may be an efficient delivery system for

the district, it is not always the training that a

teacher needs or would choose on his or her own.

In fact, research suggests that professional development is more likely to be effective when it en69 Ibid., p. 27.

70 The Edison Project, a private company formed in 1991 and based in New York City, was developed by Whittle Communications, Knoxville, TN, to create public schools “where creativity, technological sophistication, high motivation, accountability, responsiveness. . . are the

norm,” and to do so by “spending the same amount [of money] per student as the average school district now spends.”

71 The Edison Project Technology Implementation Plan, p. 6; and Nancy Hechinger, The Edison Project, New York, NY, personal communication, Sept. 12, 1994.
80 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Professional development is a general term, often used interchangeably with staff development or

teacher training, to indicate the structured or unstructured process by which teachers already in the

classroom expand their knowledge, skills, abilities, or experience to further their effectiveness. Most

states and districts have a requirement that teachers must take a certain number of hours or credits of

such professional development in order to maintain their teaching certificates, or for moving ahead on

the salary schedule.

Yet the amount of work time during which teachers are actually paid for professional development

activities is limited. Compensated professional development opportunities are usually restricted to two

to four days each year; this time often includes district meetings and classroom preparation time at the

beginning of the year. ’ Any additional training or learning activities usually occur after school or on

weekends on a teacher’s own time. Additional release time for professional development for teachers

can be particularly difficult to arrange, not only because it can be costly (substitutes must be hired to

take a teacher’s place), but also because of logistical difficulties. Teachers must often still prepare

lesson plans for substitutes; in addition, many want to minimize the amount of instructional time away

from their students since they feel responsible for covering curriculum goals and keeping students and

projects moving along.

Furthermore, teachers experience multiple competing demands for their Iimited staff development

time. Many different kinds of school-based reforms are being encouraged and most will require new

learning or expertise by today’s practicing teachers:

[Teachers] are faced with a staggering array of complex reforms. Teachers are told that they have to set higher

standards for all students, eliminate tracking, tailor lessons to kids’ individual needs (including those with various

disabilities), adopt small-group and cooperative learning techniques, design interdisciplinary and multicultural curricula, work in teams with other teachers, promote “critical” and “creative” thinking instead of rote learning, attend to

children’s social and emotional needs, rely on “performance assessment” instead of multiple choice tests, get with

the latest technology, encourage active learning in “real-life” contexts, use fewer textbooks, and become

“agents of change” in their schools.2

The most typical ways teachers upgrade their skills are by taking credit courses on their own at local

universities or attending inservice courses or activities put on by the local school or district. These

inservice activities are viewed as a vehicle to enhance teaching, provide new information to teachers,

or remediate for teacher deficiencies.

Frequently, inservice training entails a single workshop or course for a group of teachers, with the

assumption that “one-shot training” is all teachers need to apply their newly acquired skills, content, or

techniques in the classrooms. Yet research has suggested that teachers learn best, not from one-shot

lectures by experts, but by seeing methods used in actual classrooms, by trying out new techniques

and getting feedback on their efforts, and by observing and talking with fellow teachers. 3 As one

researcher noted:

1 Elizabeth Arnett, “Business People and Educators Have a Lot To Learn from Each Other, ” The Harvard Education Letter, vol. Xl,

No 1, January/February 1995, pp. 7-8

2 Edward Miller, “The Old Model of Staff Development Survives in a World Where Everything Else Has Changed, ” The Harvard

Education Letter, vol. Xl, No. 1, January/ February 1995, p. 2.

3 See, e.g., J. Little, “Teachers’ Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform, ” Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, vol. 15, No. 2, summer 1993, pp. 129-151.
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers 81

The problem of harnessing staff development IS compounded by its increasingly sprawling prominence On the

one hand, it is correctly seen as the central strategy for Improvement. On the other hand, it is frequently separated

artificially from the institutional and personal contexts in which it operates. 4

Professional development efforts have evolved over the years in several directions. Two very different approaches to professional development have been in competition with each other for the past 40

years—professional development as a form of remediation versus professional development as a

method of culture building within a school:

One approach--deficit training-views teaching as technical work and seeks to improve it by training teachers in

a set of techniques and discrete behavior. This approach has, in fact, been dominant The other approach---growth

and practice-defines teachers as professionals, views them as having requisite knowledge to act on behalf of their

students, and seeks to develop structures to enable them to collaborate with colleagues and participate in their own

renewal and the renewal of their schools.5

Recent research suggests that professional development may work best when schools create

working conditions for teachers that foster continuous learning and professional growth, such as

providing opportunities for teachers to reflect on their teaching practice or to refine ideas with colleagues, For example, in the Tupelo (Mississippi) School District, teachers are encouraged to travel to

other school districts to gain a new idea about how to improve practices in their own classrooms If a

teacher convinces the Tupelo district to try the practices that he or she has observed, the district wiII

pay for the cost of changes in that teacher’s classroom.6 The superintendent of schools in Tupelo says

You can’t tell people how to do things; they have to experience it, and it has to make sense to them. So we provide

[money] for any teacher in the district to go anywhere in America. to observe cutting edge educational practices

We don’t require that they return to the district and change anything, but what’s happening IS that they are seeing

other, new ways of teaching.7

Yet the biggest barrier to professional development of teachers is simply lack of time in the school

day or calendar. According to Prisoners of Time, the widely quoted report of the National Education

Commission on Time and Learning:

The greatest resistance of all [to reallocating time in schools] IS found m the conviction that the only valid use of

teachers’ time is “in front of the class;” the assumption is that reading, planning, collaboration with other teachers, and

professional development are somehow a waste of time 8

4 Michael G. Fullan, “Staff Development, Innovation, and Institutional Development, ” in Bruce Joyce (ed.), Changing School Culture Through Staff Development, 1990 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, p 4

5Ann Lieberman and Lynne Miller, “Professional Development of Teachers, ” Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 6th Ed., vol.

3, M. Alkin (ed.) (New York, NY Macmillan Publishers, 1992), p 1049

6 As of early 1992, several “grants” had been awarded to teachers so they could change practices in their classrooms Funding

has been provided through a $3.5-million private endowment to the district. Isabelle Bruder, “Underwriting Change, ” Electronic Learning (New York, NY, Scholastic, Inc., February 1992), pp. 26-27.

7 Ibid

8 The National Commission on Time and Learning is a nine-member independent advisory board established by the Education

Council Act of 1991 and charged with conducting a comprehensive, two-year review of the relationship between time and Iearning in

the American schools. Prisoners of Time (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1994), p 17

(continued)
82 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

One of eight recommendations set forth in the Commission’s report is to give teachers time to learn

or prepare better for their work Evidence suggests that teachers are committed to improving their own

knowledge and practice even on their own time. One study of the costs of staff development found that

for every dollar spent by districts and schools directly on formal staff development activities, individual

teachers personally contributed 60 cents in their own time, with no present or future financial compensation. 9

Some schools and teachers are finding that technology can be a great resource to facilitate new

kinds of professional development, some technologies may help solve time and distance problems that

have traditionally interfered with collegial interaction. For example, electronic mail can circumvent the

problem of teachers not being free for collaboration or discussion at the same time as their colleagues.

Telecommunications technology can also pull together biology teachers scattered across a large

geographical area or enable teachers to take online credit courses from home. Videotaping technologies allow teachers to record their own teaching, for supervision and observation purposes; it also

allows the work of “master teachers” to be recorded and shared with others. Telecommunications

technologies are fostering the growth of “electronic communities” of teachers who can share teaching

experiences, problems, lesson plans, and new ideas.

9 Judith Warren Little et al., Staff Development in California (San Francisco, CA Far West Laboratory for Educational Research

and Development, December 1987)

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1995

courages teachers to participate in their own renewal rather than supplying teachers with prepackaged information or training.72 Yet many

teachers are far from colleges, universities, or central training resources in a state or district that

might offer courses or topics of interest in their

teaching field. Technology is one means of filling

this gap. Increasingly, technology can provide

teachers access to new ideas, master teachers

and other professionals outside the school setting, and courses and enrichment activities

both formal and informal. It can also make it

possible to provide continuing support after

courses end or after educators have “met” over

a network.

■ Expanding Opportunities for

Formal Continuing Education

Technology-based resources can greatly enhance

opportunities for convenient, flexible, continuing

education courses and workshops—whether required for recertification or taken for personal

growth. 73 Educational programs and courses offered over cable or public television, distancelearning networks, packaged video (videotape,

videodisc, or CD-ROM), and telecommunications networks can extend the range of options for

a teacher’s study (see box 2-9).

Distance-learning technologies enable learners

in locations distant from one another and/or the

72 Ann Lieberman and Lynne Miller, “Professional Development of Teachers,” Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 6th Ed., M. Alkin

(cd.) (New York, NY: MacMillan Publishers, 1992), vol. 3, pp. 1045-1053.

73 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Linking for Learning: A New Course for Education, OTA-SET-430 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers | 83

instructor to participate in courses via video, audio, and computer technologies. These technologies are increasingly being used to provide

instruction not just for students, but also for teachers and other school staff. For example, teachers in

the 90 school districts in Los Angeles County participate in staff development programs offered by

the LA County Office of Education’s satellitebased Educational Telecommunications Network

(ETN).74 This service was developed in response

to the need to provide equitable staff development

for teachers regardless of local budget and geographic constraints. A range of courses are offered

on topics such as “Making Economics Come

Alive in the High School Classroom,” “Grouping

for Instruction in Language Arts, K-12,” or

“Creating an Emotionally Safe School: Conflict

Resolution and Peer Mediation.” The programs

and courses are led by experts—many of whom

are local teachers—from the ETN studios and sent

by satellite signal to school sites around the

county that have satellite dishes to receive the

broadcast signal. Participants can call in and interact by telephone with the presenters in the studio.

Each participating school site also has a facilitator

who leads discussions and other activities after the

broadcast.

Teachers looking for ways to improve their

own teaching may also engage in what researchers

refer to as “reflective practice.” Technology can

provide valuable resources for extending this concept. Reflective practice involves asking focused

questions, sharing concerns, seeking common

meanings in teaching practice, or constructing

ideas in collaboration with other teachers. “Video

has a long, successful tradition as a means to support this form of collaborative learning among

teachers. Moreover, research supports the notion

that shared observation, discussion, and planning

of teaching in peer groups can lead to improved

practice.”75 Typically, to learn from other teachers, a teacher has to find time to watch and observe

in classrooms—a difficult scheduling feat for

most teachers. Video allows classroom interactions or master teachers to be taped for convenient

viewing. Or teachers can tape themselves teaching, then ask a colleague, principal, or coach to offer a critique or perspective.

One group of researchers has been organizing

teachers into video “clubs” on a school or district

basis. Teachers make videotapes of their own

teaching and teacher-student interactions. The

clubs watch and discuss one another’s videos as

well as videos of exemplary practice. The groups

have a facilitator who helps them focus on relating

standards of exemplary teaching to their own

practice.76 This can be particularly valuable for

student teachers or new teachers just learning their

craft, but it is also being used as a part of the process for preparing teachers to meet the standards for

Master Teachers set forth by the National Board

for Professional Teaching Standards (see chapter

5).

Telecommunications-based electronic communities are another vehicle for teachers to engage in reflective practice.77 An electronic

community can be a nonjudgmental forum for

74 Information about ETN provided by Sandra Lapham, consultant-in-charge, Instructional Media and Technologies, Los Angeles County

Office of Education, August 1994, ETN Program Guide, 1993-94, Los Angeles County Office of Education.

75 Jeremey Rochelle, Cherie Del Carlo, and John Frederiksen, “Restructuring Through Video-Based Reflection on Practice,” unpublished

manuscript, Institute for Research on Learning and Educational Testing Service, n.d., p. 2.

76 Ibid.

77 See, for example, the AT&T Learning Circles project and the TERC LabNet project, started in 1989. LabNet provides support for high

school science teachers; the project is designed as a community of practice, connected mainly by a telecommunications network through America Online. There are currently more than 500 teachers in the project, experimenting with new teaching strategies, reflecting on teaching experiences, sharing resources, solving problems, and building collegial relationships. William Spitzer et al., Fostering Reflective Dialogues for

Teacher Professional Development (Cambridge, MA: TERC, 1994).
84 Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

When the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) issued standards for teaching

mathematics, educators around the country applauded this first set of educational standards promoted

by a national professional association. However, agreeing on the standards—and developing the

suggested content, materials, tools and approaches to teaching in support of these standards—was a

substantial challenge. Even more daunting is the challenge of getting the word out to educators and

helping them implement this new vision of mathematics education in schools around the nation. To

respond to this need, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) created a new framework for professional

teacher education, channeling the resources of its 347 affiliated public television stations nationwide

and their experience in working with local educators.

The opportunity for PBS to enhance traditional educational services to schools came in 1993 with

the launching of Telstar 401, a state-of-the-art satellite greatly expanding programming capacity. This

expanded satellite access, combined with VSATs (very small aperture terminals), telephone, television,

and computer technologies made it possible for PBS to also offer interactive data, voice, video, and

multimedia educational services to teachers and students. “We’ve tried to bring together technologies

in a way that really services people, ” said PBS’s executive vice president for education1 “ ... we started

(with math) because it was the NCTM that was first out of the box with standards” for curriculum, In

collaboration with NCTM,2 in the fall of 1994, PBS launched Mathline, the first discipline-based educational service offered over the PBS “telecommunications highway. ”

The Middle School Math Project, the first of several planned Mathline services, is a year-long

professional development course for middle school mathematics teachers. Each Mathline group has

approximately 25 teachers—some self-selected, some chosen by their schools—and a mentor teacher.

The management of each project is handled locally by the 20 participating public broadcasting

stations, representing 16 states. The local stations do more than broadcast video lessons—they also

distribute course materials over the computer network and offer technical and organizational support to

participants.

With the assistance of NCTM math consultants, the PBS affiliate Thirteen/WNET in New York produced a series of 25 hour-long video segments, in which teachers demonstrate and model the instructional approach and content promoted by math standards (e.g., ways to help build students’ skills in

reasoning, estimating, communicating, and problem-solving in math). In the “Something Fishy” video,

for example, a Maryland teacher uses small fish-shaped crackers to demonstrate how students can

learn how proportions can be used to count a large population (e.g., the number of fish in the entire

Chesapeake Bay).3 The videos are aired on the local PBS station at a time when teachers can tape

them (at home or school) for viewing later at their own convenience, or several times to study key points in

detail as they choose. The groups discuss the videos in an online discussion facilitated by a master teacher. In a discussion of the “Something Fishy” lesson, for example, one teacher commented that, although the

concept was a good one, the technique would never work in most classrooms: “The kids would eat the

crackers before the lesson was over!”4

1 Sandra Welch, quoted in Mark Walsh, “Station Break, ” Education Week, Oct. 12, 1994, p. 24.

2 Funding support was also supplied by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the AT&T Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation

of New York, and the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association

3 Walsh, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 25.

4 Jinny Goldstein, vice president, Education Project Development, PBS, Alexandria, VA, personal communication, January 1995.
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers 85

In addition to the video segments and discussions, two national video conferences are broadcast

live, presenting the opportunity for teachers to talk with math educators and expert teachers from

around the country. The participating teachers can call in their reactions and questions live, tape the

videoconferences for later review, and discuss the ideas and questions generated in their subsequent

computer conferences.

The model is new for professional development—interactive, flexible, reaching teachers in local

communities who might not otherwise have access to high quality professional development. The

teachers’ reactions, halfway through the initial year, have been positive. As a teacher in Spring Lake

Park, Minnesota, said, “Most teachers are isolated in their classrooms. This gives them exposure. ”5 The

facilitator for her project suggests that teachers respond well to being freed from inflexible inservice

training at a set time and place. “They can sit in 10 minutes here or there to participate in the

discussion. You also tend to get a lot more thoughtful responses than you might get in a teaching

seminar. ”6 Despite the fact that they may never meet face to face, the class becomes an electronic

community of learners.

Under a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, PBS is studying the feasibility of using the Middle

School Math Project as a model for other professional development activities for teachers, across a

range of content areas. The lessons learned in the pilot project for middle school math teachers will

form a basis for considering future steps.

5 Walsh, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 25.

6 Ibid.

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995; based on Public Broadcasting Service materials and personal communications, January 1995

teachers to ask questions, solicit opinions, and ex- ers. Unlike schools in some other countries, time

plore personal philosophies with the aim of improving their teaching.

78 Through these kinds of

exchanges, teachers can also build collegial relationships and become more adept at learning from

each other.

❚ Fostering Collegial Work

with Other Professionals

American schools tend to be structured in ways

that do not encourage collegial work among teach78 Spitzer, ibid., pp. 7-8.

is not set aside in the teacher’s day for working

with colleagues on a regular basis.79

Teaching, more than many other occupations, is practiced in isolation, an isolation that is

at times crushing in its separateness. Collegiality is non-existent for many teachers, unless hurried lunches over plastic trays in unkempt

lunchrooms are viewed as exercises in colleagueship, rather than the complaint sessions

they are more likely to be. Knowledge is the currency in which a teacher deals, and yet the teach79 In Japan, for example, teachers typically have more students per class (35 to 40 versus 23 in the United States), but Japanese teachers are

only in front of the class four hours a day. Likewise, teachers in Germany are in class with students 21 to 24 hours per week, but their work week

is 38 hours. In these countries, time outside the classroom is considered essential to the teachers’ professional development. National Education

Commission on Time and Learning, Prisoners of Time (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1994), pp. 23-27.
86 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

er’s own knowledge is allowed to become stale

and devalued, as though ideas were not the lifeblood of the occupation. The organizational

structure of schools, so far as the professional

staff is concerned, is built on a series of one-onone relationships. Since there is little incentive

for teachers to integrate their behavior with that

of other teachers, they tend to go their own ways.

Teachers are so accustomed to working on their

own that they are surprised when someone tries

to act as a colleague and collaborate.80

As discussed in chapter 4, most teachers’ days

allow them little time or specific opportunities to

share ideas and communicate with colleagues, and

there is little incentive for them to work together.

Some teachers who have had regular opportunities to interact with other teachers—in person or

electronically—report that the collegial support

they receive far exceeds their expectations. One

teacher in Florida who team-teaches once a week

said, “I could never go back to teaching alone. I

can’t imagine how I did it before.”81 This teacher

received time and support from her school to plan

and prepare lessons with other teachers; she felt

that the chance to draw on another teacher’s expertise and contribute her own knowledge was invaluable. As one education writer pointed out,

“The beginning of the end of isolation is bringing

teachers together. Teachers feel more powerful

when they are part of a group with a common purpose than when they labor on their own.”82

Some teachers have found online resources,

such as listservs, bulletin boards, or e-mail, to be a

convenient and time-saving way to connect with

colleagues and other professionals or resources

outside the school. Some networks, such as TENET in Texas, Virginia’s PEN, and the Scholastic

Network, are designed specifically for teacher inquiry and growth. Teachers also use commercial

networks like America Online and Prodigy for

this purpose; many of these networks have educational forums. Teachers who use these services

say that the exposure to new colleagues, ideas, and

resources can invigorate their enthusiasm for their

own learning (see box 2-10). As a recent survey of

accomplished educators’ use of telecommunications found:

. . . the opportunity to communicate with other educators and share ideas [is] one of the major

benefits of this technology. Obtaining rapid

feedback on curricular issues and other topics of

professional interest, and keeping current on

subject matter, pedagogy, and technology trends

are also important incentives.83

A teacher in Kentucky who subscribes to the

service Prodigy84 and regularly uses it at home,

noted that she has forged an online relationship

with people in her state department of education.

“I didn’t even know who they were when I first got

online,” she said, “but we had some of the same

questions we wanted answered, and they didn’t all

have to do with my school. I still haven’t met them

face-to-face, but I feel like I know them.”85

Some learning opportunities allow teachers to

contribute to the resource base of expertise, not

just take from it. For example, the Bellevue Washington School District network—called Belnet—

has been used to further the district’s philosophy

of peers learning from peers. Teachers use the network for planning and joint teaching efforts. New

ideas about instructional practice, materials, and

strategies pass through the network, as do discussions about using technology to promote learning.

80 Gene I. Maeroff, The Empowerment of Teachers: Overcoming the Crisis of Confidence (New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 1988),

p. 3.

81 Nancy McLaughlin, Webster Elementary School, St. Augustine, FL, OTA site visit, Apr. 20, 1994.

82 Maeroff, op. cit., footnote 80, p. 24.

83 Honey and Henríquez, op. cit., footnote 4, p. 19.

84 Prodigy—like America Online and others—is a commercial telecommunications networking system that charges a monthly fee (approximately $9.95) and hourly rates ($2.95/hour) for use of the network. Costs include software for connectivity.

85 Debbie Hall, Shelbyville, KY, OTA site visit, Apr. 18, 1994.
Chapter 2 The Promise of Technology for Teachers 87

Perhaps one of the greatest benefits for teachers using telecommunications technologies is the ability to

engage in collegial exchanges—the opportunity to talk with other teachers about teaching. For example, a

teacher in Alaska can communicate with a teacher in South Carolina to discuss the ways in which both are

using The Diary of Anne Frank in their respective literature classes; these teachers can share lesson plans,

collaborate on activities online, discuss students’ difficulties or successes, and generally offer support to

each other as the school year progresses.

Below are some examples of teacher dialogs in which teachers discuss some of the ways they use

telecommunications in their teaching and in their professional life. These teacher comments came from

BreadNet, the telecommunications network established by the Bread Loaf School of English at Middlebury

College in Vermont, for secondary school English teachers. The enthusiasm and sense of collegial support

is common among telecommunications users worldwide

 I must assure you that the network has changed my classroom. This year we have opened up our room to the

rest of the nation, We are isolated here, especially in the cultural sense. My class has become aware of the differences

and similarities of students in Hawaii, Vermont, Mississippi, South Carolina, as well as bush and urban Alaska. Discussions in class often center around how differently or similarly students we are communicating with view a certain

idea. When we went on a recent trip to see the Anne Frank exhibit in Anchorage, students commented they wished

everyone we had been writing to [throughout the year] could have been with us My students will never again view

Native Alaskan culture in the narrow fashion theyh ad viewed it before this year, Just that one concept change is worth

the whole project.—Teacher, Trapper Creek, Alaska.

Let me share with you a very real success story. Kelly, a very bright 11th grader in Honors English, was painfully shy, She would take a “O” before she would stand before her classmates and speak. However, as soon as she

began to “talk” online, I saw her begin to shine She expressed her views on our [class] poems in a clever, insightful,

and witty manner. I took her to the conference in Myrtle Beach and while she would still not speak before the

educators at our inservice, there has been a great deal of change in her at our school. She has gained confidence from

positive feedback online and is now preparing to do a special oral presentation on Wordsworth for her classmates.

I honestly feel that the telecommumcations experience allowed her to view herself on another and more positive

light.— Teacher, Pawleys Island, South Carolina.

My children were able to participate in two projects on Bread Net. One was responding to the Korean Tale “Story

Spirits,” which went into a publication with responses from Alaska and Virginia. They were very proud and excited to

see their responses printed alongside those of middle and high school students! The parents were also impressed. The children also contributed to a statewide newsletter about what was happening in our schools.

One of the most exciting things I participated in was the Alaska publication of “A Day in the Life of a Teacher.” It

made me rethink my philosophy and set down honest thoughts The thoughts of my colleagues astounded me and

gave me new directions in my own thinking. The establishment of the Alaska Teacher-Researcher Network folder [online] gave us an easy avenue for communication that we have had difficulty establishing on the university system.

This is due to the ease of the software. I have been able to connect to colleagues around the nation on a

beginning project about the inclusion of special education students in the regular middle and high school classroom

While BreadNet has not become a regular fixture in my classroom [for instructional purposes] for a number of

reasons, it has become a definite fixture m my professional life Being able to communicate with colleagues in my

state and nation on such an expedient basis has opened new avenues for me in my professional life. —Teacher, Juneau, Alaska

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on teacher comments contained in unpublished documents obtained from Jim

Maddox, Director, Breadloaf School of English, compiled for PBS Retreat, Apr. 27, 1994.

4
88 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Teachers use technology for many reasons, but ultimately

getting and keeping students engaged in learning is the

strongest motivation.

The system, which is connected to the Internet,

also provides a followup to staff development;

when teachers complete a class, they can gain

additional help, or advice from their peers on

Belnet.86

Sometimes collegial support is an added benefit of a student-centered project, as shown by the

Georgia ClassConnect project, a trial project that

connects four high schools and four colleges.

Teachers at any of the eight sites have a chance to

teach a group of students at any or all of the other

seven sites. Classrooms are equipped with

technologies to facilitate full interaction: monitors, cameras, instructor and ceiling-suspended

microphones, a fax machine, a document camera,

and a personal computer that controls the equipment at each location. Although the primary focus

of this pilot project is distance learning for the students, teachers have learned methods and strategies watching their colleagues that they have

incorporated into their own teaching.87

CONCLUSION

The central question for a teacher has always been:

how can this help my students? This is as it should

be, and will not change as technology enters the

classroom. However, although research on educational technology has consistently focused on

how it mayor may not benefit students, students

are not on their own in schools. It maybe time to

rewrite the question and direct more research efforts to explore some answers for teachers. Helping teachers may, in fact, be the most important

step to helping students.

The examples in this chapter illustrate several

ways in which technology can help teachers improve instruction, change the teaching and learning process, fulfill daily tasks, and engage in

regular professional development. But these visions of what is possible are far from the reality in

many schools and for the typical teacher. As the

next chapter will show, many schools do not have

the basic technology infrastructure to support telecommunications and other newer applications.

And as chapter 4 will explain, there are scheduling, organizational, curriculum, and other barriers

in many schools that hamper more effective use of

technology by teachers. Furthermore, as chapter 5

explains, if new teachers are not well prepared to

use technology as they enter the classroom, they

start teaching at a disadvantage. Chapter 6 suggests federal programs are attempting to improve

the nation’s capacity to help teachers learn about

technology.

Still, as this chapter and others indicate, teachers in a wide range of settings are overcoming the

barriers, blazing new trails, and learning lessons

from which others can benefit. Clearly, technology implementation is a challenging task. Teachers

need support if it is to become a reality.
Technology

 Access and

 Instructional

Use in Schools

 Today

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

 Research to date has collected only minimal data from teachers

about how much technology is available to them and how they

use various technologies for instructional or professional use.

 Projections suggest that by spring 1995, U.S. schools will have

5.8 million computers in use for instruction—about one for every nine students. Nevertheless, a substantial number of teachers still report little or no use of computers for instruction.

 Compared with other countries, the United States leads the

world in the sheer number of instructional computers in

schools. About half the computers in U.S. schools, however,

are older, 8-bit machines that cannot support CD-ROM-sized

databases or network integrated systems or run complex software. This problem is particularly pronounced in elementary

schools. When compared on the availability of the more powerful 16- or 32-bit computers, the United States falls well below other countries. This aging inventory limits the ability of

many teachers to use some of the most exciting applications of

computers.

 During the past two years, the most rapid growth of technology

in schools has been in CD-ROMs, videodiscs, modems, and

local area networks (LANs). Available data are weakest in providing information about how much access schools actually

have to these newer technologies, much less how they are being used.

 Video is the most common technology used for instruction in

schools; sources include direct broadcast, cable, satellite, or

videotaped programming. As of 1991, the typical school had

seven TVs and six videocassette recorders (VCRs). Most | 89
90 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

teachers make some use of video instruction

during the school year, but data about kinds of

use and effectiveness are lacking.

 The most common uses of technology in

schools today are the use of video for presenting information, the use of computers for basic

skills practice at the elementary and middleschool levels, and the use of word-processing

and other generic programs for developing

computer-specific skills in middle and high

schools. Other uses of technologies—such as

desktop publishing, developing mathematical

or scientific reasoning with computer simulations, information gathering from databases on

CD-ROM or networks, or communicating by

electronic mail—are much rarer in the classroom. Technologies are not used widely in

traditional academic subjects in secondary

schools.

 Schools do not always locate their technology

in the most accessible sites. Most schools still

place a majority of their computers in computer

labs rather than individual teacher’s classrooms. Similarly, modems may be located on

a central computer in the principal’s office,

making it difficult for teachers to integrate

computer or telecommunications activities

with other learning or professional activities

during the course of a day.

 High schools are more likely than elementary

schools to have newer or more powerful computers, LANs, hard disk drives, laser printers,

videodisc players, and distance-learning capabilities. The greatest disparities in the distribution of computers among schools at the same

level (i.e., elementary, middle, secondary) are

found between small schools and large schools.

Schools with fewer students tend to have many

more computers per student. This pattern of

more resources per student in smaller schools

also holds for video equipment such as VCRs

and TVs.

 The majority of K-12 schools are ill-equipped

to participate in the opportunities presented by

telecommunications networks. While telephones, modems, fax machines, and other telecommunications links with the outside world

are present to varying degrees in school buildings, they are not yet generally found in classrooms. Fewer than one teacher in eight has a

telephone in the classroom. Furthermore, most

schools lack connectivity, administrative and

organizational support, and technical expertise

to integrate electronic networks into the teaching and learning process. Major investments of

time and other resources will be required to

prepare schools to effectively use electronic

communities.

INTRODUCTION

As demonstrated by many promising examples

throughout the United States (see chapter 2),

technology can be a rich resource for teachers of

all kinds to use in various educational settings.

With available technologies, teachers can solve a

range of educational problems, meet a variety of

learning goals in all curriculum areas, and serve

varying age levels or student populations. In addition, technologies offer teachers tools for accomplishing a variety of administrative tasks and for

enhancing their own professional development.

Before teachers and students can use technology for these ends, however, they must have access

to the hardware and software. How widespread is

access to various technologies in classrooms

today? How much and what kinds of technologies

are available to the typical teacher? How are available technologies being used? This chapter attempts to provide an objective statistical portrait

of the presence and use of educational technologies in American schools. The technologies covered include:

 computers of different levels of power and

sophistication;

 computer-based equipment such as CD-ROMs,

printers, and LANs;

 video resources such as televisions, videocassette recorders, cable, satellite, and videodisc

players; and

 telecommunications networks and other technologies for two-way communication of voice,

data, and graphics.
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use in Schools Today | 91

Statistical information in this chapter comes

principally from three major nationwide surveys

of schools, teachers, and students conducted in the

United States between 1989 and 19931: the U.S.

portion of the 1992 Computers in Education

Study of the International Association for the

Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA),2

the 1991 National Study of School Uses of Television and Video conducted by the Corporation for

Public Broadcasting (CPB),3 and the 1993 Communications Survey of Member Teachers of the

National Education Association (NEA).4

Although these are the best, most nationally

representative data sources5 currently available,

they still provide only a rough estimate of what

schools are doing with technology. In part, this is

because the landscape is changing so rapidly—

hardware and software available in today’s marketplace have grown in technical sophistication

and decreased in cost compared with what was

available just a few years ago. In addition, much of

the available survey data come from principals or

technology coordinators who tend to focus more

on technology access and use at the building or

district level rather than the classroom level. In

general, recent national survey data are weakest in providing information about the classroom context of technology use and teachers’

professional use of computers.

Available data are also lacking regarding access

and use of telecommunications networks by

teachers and schools—in part, because these applications have been increasing so rapidly in the

past several years. Telecommunications networks

allow teachers to interact with other professionals

and take advantage of resources beyond the limits

of their school or community. This chapter will

discuss the ways in which schools are obtaining

access to these networks and factors that affect

their participation.

WHAT TECHNOLOGIES DO SCHOOLS

OWN AND HOW ARE THEY USED?

Available survey data provide a picture of which

technologies schools own and how much the average school has. In examining these data, however,

one must remember that the presence of hardware

is only a first step. To use hardware effectively,

schools also must acquire the computer software

and video programming that give it life and must

orchestrate the available equipment to make it accessible to teachers and students. Teachers need to

see the value of using technology, have an idea of

how to use technologies effectively to accomplish

their instructional goals, and must receive the

training and continuing support necessary to overcome the inevitable challenges technology poses.

Estimating the amount of hardware available in schools today is relatively easy compared with estimating how frequently it is used

and for what purposes. Yet information about

the uses of technology is necessary for under1 Much of this chapter is adapted from Henry J. Becker, “Analysis and Trends of School Use of New Information Technologies,” contractor

report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, March 1994. In this contractor report, results of a number of major national surveys of

educational technology were synthesized and analyzed. See appendix B.

2 Ronald E. Anderson et al., Computers in American Schools, 1992: An Overview, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement Computers in Education Study (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1993).

3 Andrew L. Russell and Thomas R. Curtin, Study of School Uses of Television and Video: 1990-1991 School Year (Arlington, VA: Corporation for Public Broadcasting, February 1993). Also, see Research Triangle Institute, Study of the School Uses of Television and Video: Methodology Report (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, Mar. 20, 1992).

4 Princeton Survey Research, National Education Association Communications Survey: Report of the Findings (Princeton, NJ: Princeton

Survey Research Associates, June 2, 1993).

5 This chapter also includes information from reports in progress or published and technical documents related to these three studies. The

major features of these three studies and the four other studies used in the analysis are described in appendix B.
92 Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

91

78

52

VCR

68

42

TV monitor Personal

computer

■ ACCESS: Teachers who report that the resource

is “readily available” at their work site.

❏ USE : Teachers who report using the resource

“regularly for instruction.”

52

Instructional

software

31

3

I

Tool Multimedia Videodiscs Online

software a

software database

a For example, word processing, database management, spreadsheet

SOURCE: National Education Association, Status of the American Public School Teacher, 1990-1991 (Washington, DC: 1992)

standing the status of technology in today’s

schools.

One nationally representative survey of teachers illustrates the gap that often occurs between

having access to technology and actually using it.6

Teachers who reported having various technology

resources “readily available” at their worksite

were asked if they used that resource “regularly.”

About 70 percent of teachers who have access to

video resources use them regularly, and about 60

percent with access to personal computers use

them regularly (see figure 3-l). Among teachers

who have access to multimedia, videodiscs, online databases, and other newer technologies, an

even smaller share report using them regularly.

❚ Computers

Of their total expenditures to date for technology

(as defined in this report), schools have spent the

most on computers. Over the past decade, schools

have spent roughly $500 million on new computers. Between 1989 and 1992, for example, schools

added 1.1 million computers, increasing their inventory by nearly 50 percent, from 2.4 million to

3.5 million.

The typical high school in 1992 had 54 computers (median), and the typical elementary or middle

school had about 25 (see figure 3-2). The United

States leads the world in sheer numbers of computers in schools (see box 3-l), although many of

6 National Education Association, Status of the American Public School Teacher 1990-91 (Washington, DC: National Education Association, 1992).
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use in Schools Today 93

Elementary school I

I

Middle school I

High school I

NOTE: Figures given are medians. Computer data from 1992, video from 1991.

SOURCES: R.E. Anderson (ed.), Computers in American Schools 7992: An Overview (Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota, 1993). A.L. Russell and T.R. Curtin (eds.), Study of School Uses of Televisions and Video: 1990-97 School

Year (Arlington, VA: Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 1993).
94 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

In 1989, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) conducted its

first Computers in Education study of schools in 23 countries, including Austria, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States. ’ Surveys were conducted in each of three types of schools: elementary

schools (those with a 5th grade), middle schools (those with an 8th grade), and high schools (those with

the last year of secondary education). Within each school sampled, the principal, a computer coordinator,

and several teachers completed questionnaires. At that time, nearly 100 percent of schools in the United

States had some access to computers. Advanced 16- or 32-bit computers were found to be rare all over

the world.

In 1992, the survey was repeated in the aforementioned five countries, and in eight more. In addition,

the 1992 study also tested over 69,000 students in grades 5, 8, and 11 in 2,500 schools to assess their

practical computer knowledge. Western European students had the highest scores, followed by American

students, then Japanese students. The Western European countries in the study have a formalized computer education curriculum, while the United States does not. Japan only recently has introduced computers into its educational program.

Results from the survey indicate that the United States leads the world in raw number of school computers as well as in computer density (the ratio of computers to students). However, because American

schools started introducing computers years before most other countries, they now have many more older

8-bit machines. If countries are compared on the median percentage of their school computers that are 16-

or 32-bit computers, the United States falls well below the other countries.

1 Twenty-three countries participated in the 1989 study, and 13 m the 1992 study Currently, published data are available for the

1992 survey of these five countries.

SOURCE: Ronald E Anderson (ed.), Computers in American Schools 1992: An Overview, IEA Computers in Education Study (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1993)

as discussed below.

Projections based on these data indicate that as

of spring 1994, the number of computers used for

instruction in K-12 public and private schools totaled about 4.95 million.7 During the last three

years, the total number of computers in schools

has risen by about 18 percent annually-about

700,000 more computers per year---compared

with an annual net of about 15 percent during the

those in current inventory are older 8-bit models, 1980s. 8 Further projections suggest that by spring

1995, instructional computers in the United States

will number about 5.8 million units----or approximately one computer for every nine students.9

Age and Power of Computers

Over the past decade, most schools have acquired

computers incrementally, making purchases on

different occasions. Consequently schools often

7 Ronald E. Anderson, “Hardware Projections in K-12 schools,” technical memo from the IEA Computers in Education Study, University

of Minnesota, Oct. 22, 1994. Projections based on 1992 IEA data, op. cit., footnote 2, and Quality Education Data, Technology in Public

Schools, 1993-94 (Denver, CO: Quality Education Data, 1994).

8 Although industry sales indicate about 1 million units are sold each year, the instructional inventory only increases by 700,000 because

schools discard some and use some mainly for administrative purposes.

9 Anderson, op. cit., footnote 7.
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use in Schools Today 95

Old, less

powerful (8-bit)

computers

Other 3 %

4 9 %

26%

/

Intermediate

(combination

8- and 16-bit)

computers

Up-to-date,

more powerful

(16- or 32-bit)

computers

❏

❏

Old, less powerful

(8-bit) computers

Intermediate (combination

8- and 16-bit) computers

Up-to-date, more powerful

16- or 32-bit) computers

Elementary 60%

Middle school 480/o

Elementary 23%

Middle school 28%

28%

I

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

a Includes primarily Apple Il+, IIc, and Ile.

b Includes the Apple Ilgs and IBM XT8088.

c Includes the Mac 6800, Mac 11, Mac LC, AT 80286, 386, and 486

SOURCE: R.E. Anderson (cd.), Computers in American Schools 1992: An Overview (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1993),

have machines of varying age and power. The

8-bit Apple II computer, the most popular computer marketed to K-12 schools for use in instruction in the 1980s, still comprises a large portion of

school computer inventories even though it is no

longer made and cannot run most newer software.

As of 1992, one-half of the computers used for

instruction in the United States were 8-bit computers, primarily Apple IIs. An additional 26

percent were somewhat more powerful but still

comparatively limited computers with 16-bit processors and 8-bit transmission buses (see figure

3-3). 10 Most new software being designed today

cannot run on either of these types of machines.

10 These machines include the Apple IIgs and the IBM XT 8088.
96 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Outdated inventories are particularly pronounced in elementary schools. The number of

newer 16- and 32-bit computers has grown most

rapidly at the high school level, where the inventories have been shifting fairly quickly away from

Apple II and toward IBM PC-compatibles. (Many

school districts moved Apple IIs from high

schools into elementary schools.) In 1992, over 40

percent of the elementary schools had no computers newer than Apple IIs.11

Why are there still so many Apple II computers

in K-12 schools? First, until recently their unit

costs remained lower than the more powerful

16-bit models. Second, until only four or five

years ago, more software aimed at the school market was available for the older model computer.

And third, schools tend to continue to outfit labs

and classrooms with more of the same kind of

computers they already own, to accommodate all

the students in a classroom at the same time or

within a reasonable period.

Enhanced Capabilities and Peripherals

In the brief history of personal computers, there

have been several technological advances that

might be called “order-of-magnitude” improvements—changes involving a 10-fold increase in

speed, miniaturization of components, or a

10-fold improvement in capabilities. For example, at the beginning of the 1980s, floppy disks

quickly replaced audiocassettes as input-output

storage devices because they enabled users to access data at least 10 times as fast. Obvious examples today are the 16- and 32-bit computers whose

order-of-magnitude increases in RAM memory

and speed accommodate much more complex

software than older machines; slowly these newer

models are displacing 8-bit computers in schools.

Four other order-of-magnitude improvements

in personal computers have the potential to revolutionize computer use in schools: hard disk storage, LANs that connect computers within the

school building, CD-ROMs, and laser printers.

The first three each promise 10-fold or greater increases in access to programs and data beyond the

typical floppy-disk-based computer. Laser printers—especially in conjunction with LANs—

promise substantial improvements in both the

speed and appearance of printed output. All of

these innovations have been widely implemented

in business settings. What about in schools?

With hard disks and LANs, teachers and students can store program and data files without

worrying about the mechanics of loading programs from diskettes. As of spring 1992, hard

disks and LAN-connections were each available

on about 20 percent of all K-12 school computers.

Based on current purchasing trends, the Office of

Technology Assessment estimates that at least 25

percent of school computers have both LANs and

hard disks today, and perhaps one-third now have

one or the other.

LANs are somewhat less prevalent in elementary schools than in high schools: 16 percent of

elementary school computers were part of a LAN

compared with 24 percent of high school computers. Similarly, hard disks are found much more

often on high school computers. As of 1992, 30

percent of high school computers had hard disks

compared with only 12 percent of elementary

school computers.12

CD-ROM drives allow storage of and easy access to large amounts of data, including text combined with detailed illustrations, animation,

sound effects, and spoken language. Schools are at

a much earlier stage in acquiring CD-ROM storage than hard disks and LANs, although CDROM drives are among the fastest growing

computer peripherals. According to one survey

conducted during the 1992-93 school year, 44 percent of U.S. public schools had at least one computer equipped with CD-ROM, nearly triple the

percentage found two years earlier; as with other

computer technologies, high schools were more

11 Anderson, op. cit., footnote 7.

12 Hard disks and LAN data from 1992 IEA survey, op. cit., footnote 2.
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use ln Schools Today | 97

likely to have CD-ROM than elementary schools

(see figure 3-4).13 Unfortunately, surveys have

not yet collected data on the number of school

computers equipped with CD-ROM, nor on

whether computers so equipped reside on a network, what levels of schools have them, or how

much they are used. CD-ROM equipped computers tend to be placed in the school library or media

center, to make them accessible to a larger number

of students and teachers.

Since the mid-1980s, when teachers and students began using computers as word processors,

schools have also invested heavily in printers. In

1989, for example, schools had one printer for every three computers, although more than 90 percent of these printers were the slower dot-matrix

kind. Four years later, dot-matrix printers still

made up nearly 90 percent of the inventory of

school computer printers. Between 1989 and

1992, high schools acquired an average of one laser printer, but they also acquired seven more dotmatrix printers per school. Even less change

occurred at elementary and middle school levels.

In 1992, only one-sixth of elementary schools and

one-third of middle schools had a laser printer for

teacher or student use, compared with about twothirds of high schools.14

Together these data suggest that some of the

more promising uses of computers by teachers

and students-desktop publishing, mathematics instruction using analytic graphing and calculating software, information-gathering from

CD-ROM encyclopedias or network databases-can only be accomplished in a limited

way, if at all, on most of today’s school computers.

Location of Computers

As discussed above, the speed, memory, and peripherals available on school computers affect the

ways teachers use them in their teaching and proAbout half of all public schools have at least one computer

with a CD-ROM drive. They are often placed in central

locations like this high school Iibrary

fessional activities. Another key factor that affects

how teachers use computers is the location of the

computers within the school building. Placing

several computers in a common location, such as a

computer lab, enables teachers to use computers

with the whole class simultaneously, but also

makes it more difficult for teachers to integrate

computer activities with other learning activities

throughout the day. When computers are in labs,

teachers lack the easy access needed to use them as

an everyday tool or resource. About one-half of all

computers used for instruction in 1992 were located in centralized computer labs, while about 35

percent were located in teachers’ classrooms. The

rest were placed in other special instructional

rooms, libraries, offices.15 As schools’ inventory of computers continues to grow, more computers will probably be placed in classrooms,

although experience from the past decade suggests that this is likely to occur gradually.

OTA site visits suggest that schools with a substantial inventory of technologies are investing increasingly in laptop computers, which can be

moved around the school building and taken home

13 Market Data Retrieval, Educational Technology 1993: A Survey of the K-12 Market (Shelton, CT: Market Data Retrieval, 1993).

14 IEA data, op. cit., footnote 2.

15 Ibid.
98 Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

CD-ROM

Video disc player

I

44%

I

57%

I

I

38%

52%

 62%

I

I

37%

49%

53%

Satellite dish

9%

19% ❏ Elementary

❏ Middle school

■ High school

o 20 40 60 80 100

SOURCE: Market Data Retrieval, Education and Technology,

by teachers and students. Some schools place their

laptops on carts that can be wheeled around to

make any teacher’s classroom into a temporary

computer lab. 16 No data are available on the number of laptops currently owned by schools. Similarly, some districts and states are investing in

computers for teachers (workstations) equipped

with software and tools commonly needed by

teachers. Again, no systematic data are currently

1993: A Survey of the K-12 Market (Shelton, CT: 1993)

available on teachers’ access to this kind of

resource.

Differences in Computer Resources

Among Schools17

The student-computer ratio18 gives some indication of how many students have to share a computer. This ratio has declined dramatically over the

16 See, e.g., John R. Mergendoller et al., “Case Studies: Exemplary Approaches to Training Teachers To Use Technology,” contractor report

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, September 1994.

17 Unless otherwise indicated, the data in this section are taken from Ronald E. Anderson et al., Computers in American Schools 1992: An

Overview, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement Computers in Education Study (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1993).

18 The number of students enrolled in a school divided by the number of computers available for students to use.
Chapter 3 Technology Access and lnstructional Use in Schools Today | 99

past 10 years; as of 1992, United States schools

averaged one computer for every 13 students.

Closer examination of available data suggests,

however, that there is enormous variability in stu-

“ dent-computer ratios from school to school. For

example, there are vast differences between

schools with the lowest “computer density” (in the

20 percent of schools with the fewest number of

computers per capita) and those with high computer density (in the 20 percent of schools with the

largest number of computers per capita). For example, elementary schools with high computer

density average only seven students sharing a

computer, while those with low computer density

average 35 students sharing a computer (see table

3-1 ).

There is also a wide range in student-computer

ratios across states-varying from a low of eight

students per computer in Wyoming to 22 per computer in New Hampshire (see figure 3-5). This

variability may reflect the fact that some schools,

districts, and states launched large-scale technology initiatives over the past several years, while

others have emphasized different educational reforms, placing less emphasis on computer acquisition. 19

Another way of looking at whether computers

are equitably distributed is to compare the student-computer ratios of schools having different

demographic characteristics. Using the most representative national data available, this kind of

analysis shows that the most pronounced differences in computer density among schools at the

same level (e.g., comparing elementary schools

with each other) are between small schools and

large schools. Schools with fewer students tend

to have many more computers per capita. Statistical analysis suggests that these differences are

not simply due to differences between urban and

rural schools. For example, in middle schools,

Placing computers together in a computer lab is common

and supports some forms of instruction. Teachers also need

computers and other technologies in the classroom if they are

to use them regularly as teaching tools.

where the differences are most pronounced, small

schools have approximately 14 students per computer, while large schools have 24 (see table 3-l).

This pattern of more resources in smaller schools

also holds for video equipment such as VCRs and

televisions. 20 This finding may reflect the tendencies of many districts to allocate technology funds

on a per building basis, rather than a per student

basis. It could also reflect commitment to providing every school building with what is viewed as a

“critical mass” of technology (e.g., 30 computers

for a lab).

The percentage of minority students in a school

has a different relationship to student-computer

ratios across the three school levels. While there

are small differences among elementary schools

with different proportions of minority children

(see table 3-l), there are no differences among

19 Ronald E. Anderson, "State Technology Activities Related to Teachers" contractor report for the Office of Technology Assessment, Nov. 15, 1994.

20 CPB data, op. cit., footnote 3.
100 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Elementary Middle High School

Computer densitya

Lowest 20% 34.5 35.5 31.4

Middle 60% 15.8 14.0 10.4

Highest 20% 7.2 5.4 3.7

School control

Private 20.5 18.2 15.2

Public 17.5 15.1 11.9

School sizeb

Small ‘15.9 14.4 11.5

Large 22.5 24.3 17.1

Percent minorities

0-3% 16.7 14.0 12.5

4-24% 18.6 16.2 12.5

25-100%. 18.7 18.3 12,4

a Schools were di vided into three groups based on the computers per capita. “Highest 20%” refers to the 20% of schools

that have the most computers per capita, “Lowest 20%” refers to the 20% of schools with the fewest number of computers per capita.

b The dividing point between small and large schools was at an enrollment of 500 students at the elementary level, 700

students at the middle school level, and 1100 students at the high school level,

SOURCE: R.E. Anderson (cd.), Computers in American Schools 1992: An Overview, (Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota, 1993), table 2,3, p. 17.

high schools. The largest differences appear in

middle schools, where schools with less than 4

percent minority enrollments have an average of

14 students per computer, while schools with

more than 24 percent minority enrollments have

18 students per computer.

Ratios of students to computers do not indicate

which students within the schools have access to

and experience with computers. Research done in

the 1980s found that in the early years of computer

adoption in schools, poor and minority students

had less access to computers both at home and at

school. In addition, data showed small gender differences favoring boys over girls in access to computers in school.21 Some recent data from the IEA

study suggest that while girls are still somewhat

less likely to report using computers at school or

receiving instruction in computers, ethnic minority students are slightly more likely than white

students to report having had these opportunities.

The authors of this report write:

The advantage of ethnic minority students

over white students will come as a surprise to

those who read the statistics from previous studies in the early to mid- 1980s. Further investigation of the forces behind this pattern is needed,

but we might speculate that the minority advantage at the 5th- and 8th-grade levels stems from

the success of programs like Chapter One which

21 See Rosemary E. Sutton, “Equity and Computers in the Schools: A Decade of Research,” Review of Educational Research, winter 1991,

vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 475-503.
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use in Schools Today 101

Students per computer

❏ 8.0-12.0

 12.1 -16. 0

 16.1 -22. 0

?

NOTE: Students per computer is a measure of how many students have to share a computer. Smaller numbers (e.g., 8.0) mean that fewer students

have to share a computer.

SOURCE: Quality Education Data, Technology in Public Schools, 1993-94 (Denver, CO: 1994).

fund the purchase of new technology to be used

with disadvantaged students.22

How Much Do Students Use Computers?

There are few reliable data about how much the 4

million-plus computers in schools are actually being used; the only estimates are rough ones. One

problem is that reports of use vary greatly depending on the source. For example, using reports of

computer coordinators and making certain assumptions about shared use of computers (i.e.,

that one-half of the time students share a computer

with a peer, and both are profiting from its use simultaneously) yields the following estimates:

Computers are used about one and three-quarters hours per student per week at elementary

schools.

Computers are used approximately two hours

per student per week at middle schools.

22 Anderson, op. cit., footnote 2, p. 81.
102 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Schools are beginning to invest in laptop computers

because of the flexibility they provide. These students use

computers like books or notepads, taking them wherever

they go.

Computers are used approximately three hours

per student per week at high schools.

On average, computers are used about two

hours per week per student across all school

levels.23

The students themselves, however, report

much less frequent use:24

● 24 minutes per week in grade 5,

■ 38 minutes per week in grade 8, and

■ 61 minutes per week in grade 11.

At most, this is only one-third of the time estimated from the coordinator reports. There are several possible explanations. School computers may

be sitting idle much more than the adults reported;

students may be underestimating their experiences; some students may be having rather intensive computer experiences while the rest are

having more limited, occasional, or exploratory

ones. Available data do not provide answers to

these questions.25

The data from both the coordinators and the

students suggest that, in the aggregate, older students who use computers to any significant extent

use them two to three more times during a typical

week than younger students do. However, universality of use—providing experience with computers to all students-is more likely at younger

grade levels. For example, student data suggest

that 74 percent of all 5th graders used computers

during the year on more than a few occasions, in

comparison to 57 percent of llth graders.

How Many Teachers Use Computers?

Data on the number of teachers who use computers vary greatly depending on how one defines a

“computer-using teacher.” Two different definitions-one quite inclusive, the other much more

stringent-yield very different estimates. In addition, these definitions have focused on use of computers for direct instruction with students only; no

data are available on other teacher uses such as administrative tasks or professional development.

In the 1992 IEA survey, a “computer-using

teacher” was defined liberally as a teacher who

“sometimes” used computers with students. Using this broad definition of how much teachers

themselves report using computers, 75 percent of

5th-grade teachers, and about half of 8th- and

23 Based on the 1992 IEA data, these estimates are, of course, averages and do not indicate whether all students have this same experience

with computers or whether some students monopolize their use—either because of their own preferences, the course-taking patterns of different

students, or the assignment practices of different teachers.

24 In the Becker contractor report for the Office of Technology Assessment (see footnote l), the estimate of total computer time for a student

was made by adding the number of occasions of computer use the study reported for each of nine subjects. Answers were coded according to

grade level. Each occasion was multiplied by the number of minutes estimated for that grade level, and the total number of minutes was divided

by 30, representing the roughly 30 weeks that had elapsed during the school year up to the time the questionnaire was completed.

25 Another possible reason for the apparent inconsistency between teacher and student reports is that many teachers may have some (but not

all) their students in a class or some (but not all) of their classes use computers, or they allow students to do so at their option without systematically requiring computer use of all students.
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use in Schools Today | 103

11th-grade teachers were found to be “computerusing” teachers.

A more stringent way to define “computer-using” teachers is to include only those teachers who

clearly required most or all students to do work on

computers.26 Under that definition, about onehalf of 5th-grade teachers, one-third of 8th-grade

English teachers, and one-fifth of 11th-grade English teachers qualify—roughly 20 to 30 percentage points fewer than under the other definition. If

an even more stringent criterion is employed, one

related to frequency of use,27 the percentage of

teachers who identify themselves as “computer

using” is even lower—about one-third the size of

the original group. Thus, the percentage of

teachers classified as computer-using teachers

is quite variable and becomes smaller as definitions of use become more stringent.

Instructional Uses of Computers by Teachers

Over the past decade, the advice of “experts” in

educational technology about what teachers

should do with computers has been constantly

changing—from BASIC programming, to Logo

programming, to tutorials provided by integrated

learning systems, to generic computer applications such as word processing, to activities

integrated with existing curricula, to studentdeveloped multimedia presentations, and now to

telecommunications-based learning communities28 (see box 3-2). According to survey data,

however, when teachers are using technology

for instruction they do so in much more traditional ways.

For example, IEA survey data indicate that the

most common activities on computers for elementary students have been drills in basic skills and

instructional games. Also popular at all levels are

general “computer literacy” activities: use of various instructional programs and generic computer

applications such as word processing. School

computer coordinators estimate, for example, that

students spend the most computer time learning to

type on computer keyboards and use word-processing programs. Interestingly, the estimated

share of computer time students spend on mathematics declines between elementary school and

high school from 18 to 8 percent, suggesting that

math teachers are using computers primarily for

students to practice arithmetic skills rather than to

solve higher-level mathematics problems. Between 1989 and 1992, the one significant change

in the allocation of student computer time was a

one-third decline in the time spent teaching students computer programming as a part of computer literacy education.

Available data suggest that in secondary

schools, computers are used relatively infrequently for teaching and learning in traditional academic subjects, far less than in classes

focused on teaching students about computers.29 Although most middle-school and highschool students reported using computers for at

least one academic subject, for most subjects, this

meant using computers only once or twice over

most of the school year. If one examines only

those classes for which students had used school

computers on at least 10 occasions during that

26 The criterion used by Becker (see footnote 1) was that at least 90 percent of a teacher’s students actually have used computers for their

class as reported by the teacher. This presumably counts only those cases where students use computers at the teacher’s instruction rather than

totally on their own initiative.

27 For example, when the class is using computers, a typical student will do so at least once during the week; or during the school year an

average student will have had six experiences using any one of several types of software such as word processing, “print shop” programs, or

desktop publishing.

28 Henry Jay Becker, “Computer Experience, Patterns of Computer Use, and Effectiveness—An Inevitable Sequence or Divergent National

Cultures?” Studies in Educational Evaluation, vol. 19, 1993, pp. 127-148.

29 IEA Student data, op. cit., footnote 2.
104 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Teachers are told to:

Rationale:

Teachers are told to:

Rationale:

Teachers are told to:

Rationale:

Teachers are told to:

Rationale:

Teachers are told to:

Rationale:

Teachers are told to:

Rationale:

Teachers are told to:

Rationale:

1982

Teach students to program in BASIC.

“It’s the language that comes with your computer. ”

1984

Teach students to program in LOGO.

“Teach students to think, not just program. ”

1986

Teach with integrated drill and practice systems.

“Individualize instruction and increase test scores. ”

1988

Teach word processing.

“Use computers as tools, like adults do. ”

1990

Teach with curriculum-specific tools (e.g., history

simulators, data probes).

“Integrate the computers with the existing curriculum. ”

1992

Teach multimedia hypertext programming.

databases, science

“Change the curriculum—students learn best by creating products for an audience. ”

1994

Teach with Internet telecommunications.

“Let students be part of the real world.”

SOURCE: H.J. Becker, “Analysis and Trends of School Use of New Information Technologies, ” Off Ice of Technology Assessment contractor report, March 1994.

school year (i.e., once every three weeks since the

survey ‘was completed 30 weeks into the school

year), more than one-third of secondary school

students reported using computers this often in a

computer class, but for other subjects the percentages were much lower: 9 percent for an English

class, 6 to 7 percent for a math class, and only 2 to

3 percent for a social studies or science class.

Since word processing is a major activity in secondary school computer education classes as well

as in business education classes, it seems clear that

high school is still primarily a place to learn

how to use word processing, rather than a

place where teachers have students do word

processing in order to achieve other academic

goals. This is even more likely for other applications, such as spreadsheets and database programs, which have been less integrated by

teachers into subject-matter instructional practices than word processing.

At the elementary school level, the survey

data suggest that students use computers overwhelmingly in an exercise mode-doing drills

and playing various kinds of games with

instructional content—rather than in a productivity mode, using computers as a tool to
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use in Schools Today | 105

solve problems or create products. For example,

53 percent of 5th graders said that they used

school computers to play games on 10 or more occasions during that school year, while 13 percent

said they did word processing. Similarly, about 65

percent of 5th-grade teachers report that computers in their classes are mainly used for language

arts skills practice and games, while 18 percent

say they are used primarily for writing and word

processing; about 17 percent report both categories of use.

❚ Video Technologies

The past several years have witnessed a growing

interest in teaching that uses video as a resource.

This is due, at least in part, to the expansion of

cable programming with educational content, the

widespread availability and familiarity with videocassette recorders, developments in computerbased video, and an increase in the supply of

videodiscs for schools.

For the next several years, the basic projection

mechanism for video will likely remain the television set or the composite (computer) monitor.

Nearly every school in the country has at least one

TV set for use in the instructional program. According to a 1991 survey of public schools, the

mean number of sets per school was 12; the median per school was seven sets.30

Unlike the case for computers, the availability

of television sets is nearly the same among elementary, middle/junior highs, and high schools.

In 1991, there were slightly more than four television sets for every 10 full-time teachers at each of

those levels. In a 1993 survey, 41 percent of teachers reported having a television set in their own

classrooms.31

Almost every school in the United States has at

least one VCR. As of 1991, the mean number per

public school was 6.3, or one for every 1.9 televisions. As with televisions, elementary, middle,

and high schools have about the same number of

VCRs per capita. The typical school has one for

every five teachers.

Teachers use VCRs for showing commercially

produced videos and for recording programs from

cable or broadcast television and showing them

later. Most schools maintain a library of prerecorded cassettes. Based on Corporation for Public

Broadcasting (CPB) data, 67 percent of teachers

reported that they record shows at home for school

use, and many others said that they ask other

school personnel to make recordings for them.

It is interesting to note that, unlike most surveys on computers in schools, data on video and

television are given at the classroom level, or per

teacher, rather than per student. This may reflect

the fact that, unlike computers, video technologies are seen more as technologies to be controlled

by the teacher, who presents information to

groups of students or the entire class, rather than

technologies operated by individual students.

Cable and Satellite Connections

Teachers have an increasing number of sources of

video programming beyond prerecorded cassettes, educational broadcasting, and recordings

made at home. Between 1991 and 1993, there was

a 25 percent increase in the proportion of schools

with direct cable connections,32 so that now as

many as three-fourths of all schools have cable

somewhere in the school building. Another survey found that roughly one-third of all teachers in

the sample reported having cable TV service in

their own classroom.33 “Access to cable” can

mean different things to different schools, however, depending on the channels carried by the local cable provider and the type of service to which

30 CPB survey, op. cit., footnote 3. The large difference between mean and median suggests that while most schools have a few television

sets, a small minority have made a substantial investment in televisions, enabling most teachers to have one in their rooms.

31 NEA Communication Survey, op. cit., footnote 4.

32 Market Data Retrieval, op. cit., footnote 13, p. 140.

33 NEA Communications Survey, op. cit., footnote 4.
106 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Unlike videotape, which must be played in a Iinear fashion,

videodiscs allow students and teachers to browse through,

capture, and play video images in any order

the school subscribes.34 One study, for example,

reported that, although 61 percent of schools reported having access to the Public Broadcasting

System (PBS), and almost as many had access to

national commercial broadcast networks, far fewer had access to commercial cable channels that

offer a number of educational programs, such as

the Discovery Channel (35 percent) or the Learning Channel (16 percent).

An increasing number of schools and districts

are obtaining satellite dishes, giving them a wider

selection of programming than that offered by

their local cable distributor. According to one report, the proportion of schools directly accessing

satellite broadcasts nearly doubled between 1991

and 1993.35 As of 1993, 50 percent of all school

districts reported having a satellite dish as did 17

percent of all public schools. High schools are

more likely to have satellite dishes than are middle

or elementary schools (see figure 3-4).36

One contributor to the recent growth of satellite

dishes in middle and high schools has been the

Channel One project created by Whittle Communications, Inc. (and now owned by K-III Communications). Whittle installed satellite reception

systems in schools that committed to show students “Channel One,” a daily 12-minute news

program, which includes two minutes of commercials. Each participating school also received two

VCRs and enough 19-inch television sets to put

one in each classroom.

By the spring of 1993, three years into the program, approximately 12,000 schools were receiving Channel One, according to Whittle. A

three-year evaluation report of Channel One translates this to mean an audience of over 18 million

teens, or almost 40 percent of the 12-to 18-yearolds enrolled in school.37 With these participation

numbers, the Channel One offer seems to have

contributed substantially to the installed base of

video technologies in middle and high schools

throughout the country. Some evidence suggests

that this impact may be greater in poorer school

districts. One survey found Channel One participation to be higher among districts with a poverty

rate exceeding 25 percent than in districts with

poverty rates under 5 percent (42 percent vs. 25

percent) .38

Videodisc Players

Teachers use instructional videodisc differently

than they use videotapes. Teachers commonly

videotape programming to show in a linear format; for example, to have students watch a

10-minute instructional television segment or an

hour-long program from beginning to end. An

34 Andrew Russell, CPB, personal communication, Dec. 9, 1993.

35 Market Data Retrieval, op. cit., footnote 13. The specific rate of increase reported was 85 percent.

36 Ibid., and CPB survey, op. cit., footnote 3.

37 Jerome Johnston and Evelyn Brzezinski, Taking the Measure of Channel One: A Three Year Perspective (Ann Arbor, MI: University of

Michigan, Institute for Social Research, January 1994).

38 MDR, op. cit., footnote 13.
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use in Schools Today | 107

instructional videodisc, by contrast, usually contains many thematically related but short (under 3

minutes) discrete segments of action and still video. The teacher or student can access and directly

control the segments of visual and audio materials. Using a remote control, barcode reader or

computer equipped with hypermedia software,

the teacher can browse through, access, and play

different segments of video in any order—using

them, for example, to illustrate and enhance a presentation or discussion.

The number of public schools with at least one

videodisc player doubled between 1991 and 1993,

to 41 percent.39 During that period the variety of

educationally appropriate videodisc software increased substantially, and at least two states allowed videodiscs to appear on the list of “texts”

approved for adoption as options to printed textbooks. As with many other technologies, more

high schools report having a videodisc player than

do middle and elementary schools (see figure 3-4).

Still, in terms of access, the question is not

whether a school has videodisc equipment but,

rather, what proportion of teachers can use the

videodisc equipment without difficulty. In a 1991

survey of teachers, only 12 percent reported that

they had videodisc players readily available to

them in their schools. Furthermore, less than half

of those teachers reported actually using the videodisc regularly for instruction (see figure 3-1).40

Camcorders

Camcorders and other video equipment allow students and teachers to undertake new kinds of

learning activities, such as making their own video reports or recording student presentations.

Most schools have at least one camcorder; as of

1991, this was true of 80 percent of elementary

schools and 90 percent of middle and high

schools. Some 8 percent of all schools even had

their own TV studio in 1991, including 22 percent

of high schools. But not every school makes this

equipment available to teachers or students. According to one survey, just slightly more than half

of the schools with camcorder or studio facilities

used these for student instructional activities, including giving students production experience or

feedback on their own performance in a classroom

activity.41

How Much Are Video Technologies

Used in Schools?

Available data on teachers’ use of video resources

reflect conditions in the spring of 1991.42 For televisions, VCRs, and other video resources whose

use has been reasonably stable over time, the 1991

information is still useful; for videodisc, CDROM, and emerging technologies where use is

expanding quickly, the 1991 data are clearly insufficient.

Most teachers in the United States make some

use of video-based instruction during the year.43

In the CPB survey, about 80 percent of U.S. teachers said they had used instructional television or

video some time during the school year. About

one-half of all teachers (51 percent) said they had

used TV or video in teaching in the past month.

The teachers most likely to have used video recently are elementary school teachers and secondary science and social studies teachers.

Estimates derived from the CPB data suggest

that across all subjects, secondary students, on average, spend one and-one-half hours per week

watching video material in school. The average

39 MDR, op. cit., footnote 13, p. 81

40 NEA, op. cit., footnote 6, pp. 53-54.

41 CPB survey, op. cit., footnote 3.

42 Ibid.

43 Although the survey questions specifically asked about “video,” use of film media was not explicitly addressed in instructions to teachers, making it difficult to know how much film use is incorporated into these statistics.
108 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

elementary student is estimated to watch video in

school for slightly more than one hour per week.

❚ Technologies for Two-Way

Communication

The instructional technologies discussed above

are used primarily to transmit information or to

help develop student competencies. But it is

another function of instructional technology

where applications are expanding rapidly—to facilitate two-way communication, allowing teachers and students to share their ideas, questions,

and productions with the world outside of their

school. As schools attempt to make learning

more meaningful to students and to anchor it

in “real world” examples and experiences,

more and more educators are looking for technological tools that help teachers and students

to communicate with the outside world.

Schools are acquiring and exploring a range of

technologies and tools that facilitate two-way

communication. These include new ways of using

older technologies such as telephones, facsimile

machines (fax), and modems; combinations of

different technologies, such as distance-learning

systems; and new kinds of telecommunications

hardware, software, and services. Because many

of these latter applications are so new in schools

and are expanding so rapidly, up-to-date survey

data about access are not available. However,

some data have been collected about telephones,

modems, fax machines and distance-learning

technologies in schools; these are discussed below.

Telephones and Fax Machines

Telephones and fax machines are two communications resources with great potential for teaching and learning; too often, however, they usually

are accessible only to school administrators. Access to telephones, in particular, is currently a major technology issue being discussed by teachers’

organizations. Although one-third of all teachers in a recent survey felt it was “essential” to

have a telephone in their classroom, only one

teacher in eight had a telephone in the classroom that could be used for outside calls. Less

than 1 percent had access to voice mail. Most

teachers have to make calls from the school office

or a faculty lounge, where many colleagues share

a phone and most conversations cannot be held in

private. Sixty-three percent of teachers surveyed

felt it is “essential” for parents and teachers to be

able to contact one another during the school day;

almost three-quarters of teachers feel that having

telephones in the classroom would improve

parent-teacher communication at least “somewhat.”44

Among the reasons for restricting teachers’ access to phone services are concerns about costs

and unregulated use. Installation and monthly

charges tend to be prohibitive for a restricted

school budget, in part because phone companies

often charge schools higher-priced business rates

for installation and message unit charges.45

Teachers seem less interested in having access

to fax machines. Although approximately onefourth of teachers had access to a fax machine in

their school, most did not view it as an important

instructional resource.46 Since fax machines are

relatively rare in schools, it is likely that most

teachers are not aware of their instructional or administrative potential.

Modems

Modems, which allow computers to communicate

electronically across a telephone line (“telecomputing”), have been available almost from the be44 NEA Communications Survey, op. cit., footnote 4.

45 Edmund L. Andrews, “MCI Plans To Enter Local Markets,” The New York Times, Jan. 5, 1994, p. D1; and U.S. Congress, Congressional

Budget Office, Promoting High-Performance Computing and Communications (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June

1993), pp. 39-43.

46 NEA Communications Survey, op. cit., footnote 4.
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use in Schools Today | 109

ginning of personal computing.47 Although many

districts have modems, they were originally dedicated primarily to administrative uses. With the

advent of new educational applications of electronic networking, however, modems have become an important gateway to telecomputing.

In recent years schools have begun installing

more modems for teachers to use for instructional

activities. For example, in the 1989 IEA survey,

slightly more than one-fourth of U.S. schools had

a modem that could be used by teachers or students. By 1992, that percentage had grown to 38

percent overall, including 60 percent of all high

schools, 35 percent of middle schools, and 33 percent of elementary schools.48

As with other technologies, the presence of a

modem in a school building does not tell much

about the average teacher’s access to telecomputing. Many teachers may consider access to a modem anywhere in the school sufficient for the

occasional special project. Over the long run,

however, if telecomputing is to be used regularly,

classroom access to a modem or alternative connection will be necessary.

Distance-Learning Technologies

The most established educational technologies for

two-way communication are those used in distance learning. For more than a decade, schools

have used live one-way video technologies via

satellite or broadcasting in conjunction with twoway audio (via phone lines) or other two-way media such as computer networks or fax machines to

expand learning opportunities. Some distancelearning projects also involve two-way video

communication through microwave or fiberoptic

transmission. Distance learning is most often used

by schools in remote, rural, or sparsely populated

areas and by other schools that lack traditional

educational resources, such as a qualified teacher

for a low-enrollment course. Distance-learning

technologies allow high schools, for example, to

offer courses, such as advanced calculus, Japanese, and Russian, that may not be available

otherwise.

The prevalence of distance learning is difficult

to estimate, in large part because its definition is

inexact and inconsistent. In a 1991 survey, about

17 percent of districts reported having some capacity for live video with interactive capabilities.49 Another survey found that in the 1992-93

school year, 28 percent of districts had some distance-learning capability and that 11 percent of all

schools were involved in distance-learning—

double the number from their data taken two years

earlier.50 In this survey, high schools were much

more likely to have distance-learning capabilities

(25 percent) than either middle (10 percent) or elementary (8 percent) schools, probably because

high schools use it to offer advanced courses for

which they may not have enough students to hire a

qualified teacher.

In about 70 percent of the districts with distance-learning capabilities, two-way interaction is

limited to voice-only interactivity through dial-up

telephone lines,51 an arrangement that allows only

a small number of the participating classrooms to

communicate on-air with the studio video instructor during a given class period. About 20 percent

of districts’ distance learning employs two-way

video. Available surveys do not assess the number

of classes or students using distance learning for a

portion of their instructional time.

47 Wireless modems, using cellular technology, are also now available. Their use in schools is still very limited, due to the expense of initial

purchase costs and the costs of per minute charges when used for connecting to networks outside the building.

48 IEA data, op. cit., footnote 2.

49 Calculated from CPB data, op. cit., footnote 3.

50 Market Data Retrieval, op. cit., footnote 13. District percentages from the MDR file are, however, questionable because of the low response rate in that survey.

51 Ibid., and CPB Survey, op. cit., footnote 3.
110 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

A camera mounted on the computer takes pictures or videos

of Iearners at one site and sends them to students at other

locations, adding a personal touch to collaborative group

work.

However defined, the use of distance learning

in K-12 settings has increased considerably in the

last several years. While fewer than 10 states were

participating in distance-learning projects in

1987, virtually every state is now involved with

distance learning in some way. In addition to using distance learning for student instruction, many

states and districts use it for videoconferencing,

teacher training, and professional development

(see chapters 4 and 5).52

Technologies for Linking to

Wide Area Networks and the Internet53

There are several possible ways schools can link

up with wide area networks (WANS) in general,

and the Internet in particular (see box 3-3). The

52 Market Data Retrieval, op. cit., footnote 13.

options for telecommunications connections are

shifting, as individual modem dial-up connections give way to more sophisticated and higher

speed connections to WANs and the Internet;

these options include connections via LANs,

high-speed phone lines, dedicated connections,

and so forth. Other models of connectivity include

Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN), satellites, digital cable, or other linking technologies.

Several connectivity formats are described briefly

below; however, no national data are currently

available regarding how many schools and districts are using any of these options.

Direct single modem dial-up

Connectivity often begins with a pioneering individual teacher making personal connection to a

network through a dial-up modem-in some cases

a regular telephone line and a computer outside

the classroom, in the principal’s office or the library. The teacher might access any of several services with different features: one aimed primarily

at Internet connection (e.g., the World Wide Web);

one that seems easy to use, such as America Online; a state-level network, such as The Texas

Education Network (TENET); or a special interest

network such as EcoNet for ecology. Most dial-up

services now offer some form of Internet connectivity, and through that, access to other services, a

factor that is gradually reducing earlier problems

with unconnected networks. 5 4

LAN-lnternet (director indirect)

without video

To reach the Internet directly, a user must go

through an Internet node. Nodes are allocated by

regional network providers who provide networking hardware as well as the electrical connection.

53 Much of this section is taken from TERC, "Review of Research on Teachers and Telecommunications" contractor report prepared for the

Ofice of Technology Assessment May 1994. 54 However, it is important to note that “Internet connectivity’’ comes indifferent levels, starting with e-mail only and progressing through

access to file transfer, Wide Area Information Servers (WAIS), and other services. Dial-up services have to support each major server function

like these separately, and are quickly augmentig their services. However, "full" Internet connectivity of the kind that would support video may

not be practical through dial-up providers for some time.
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use in Schools Today | 111

Some schools have established their own Internet

node and server at a school and connect that to the

school’s LAN. The server can be a point of presence on the network where resources of value

within the school can be published. As of December 1994, there were 189 Internet sites in K-12

schools.55 For example, the Ralph Bunche School

in Harlem has its own Internet server. A single

low-speed data-only line (e.g., 56 Kilobits per

second (kbps)) is sufficient to support multiple users, providing they do not require video or heavy

use of high-bandwidth services, such as the World

Wide Web (WWW).

Other schools avoid the costs of an Internet

node by using an indirect connection; that is, connecting their LAN to another one nearby that has

Internet connectivity. This nearby connection

could be a district headquarters, a college, the high

school, or a friendly business. Again, a 56-kbps

dedicated line can support a few dozen teachers

who use relatively simple applications.

LAN-Internet with video

Sending video images over networks requires

substantial bandwidth and entails higher costs

than other options. Networking capacity that handles digital video will also increase the performance of all other kinds of networking. In

addition, there are new kinds of network-based

multimedia presentation software, such as WWW

browsers like Mosaic,56 that can be used only over

networks with video capacity, even if they do not

use video. An Internet connection through a

“T-1”1.5 Mbps (megabits per second) line connected to a school LAN could support the entire

school.

Although many network services are currently

offered via single modem dial-up, dedicated access to the Internet is becoming increasingly attractive because, although it entails higher costs

up front, it may be more cost-effective and certainly less limiting in the long run. Furthermore, these

connections can support multiple users simultaneously, offer access to many of the most

innovative and high-powered telecomputing innovations, and serve as a common mode of access

to a broad range of electronic communities.57

Despite the advantages and growth of alternative connectivity scenarios, few schools currently

have any connectivity options. In those that do,

most are still using a single phone line connected

to a dial-up modem and computer. A lack of telephone lines in schools and especially in classrooms is cited as the greatest barrier to

teachers’ participation in electronic communities.

58 As discussed above, many of the telephones that do exist in schools often serve

administrative purposes and are not available to

teachers for classroom use or for making outside

calls to networks. For example, a recent study of

TENET reports that “84,683 phone jacks were in

Texas’ 1,058 school districts. However, only 2

percent of the classrooms had access to a phone

line.”59

55 Gleason Sackman, Coordinator, SENDIT, North Dakota State University, personal communication, December 1994.

56 Mosaic refers to a class of software tools that originated with the National Center for Supercomputer Applications’ Mosaic. Several software tools are now available with similar functions.

57 For example, see Yvonne Marie Andres, “Hello Internet: Tools for the Classroom, Comparison of Internet Connectivity Options,” Global

School Net Foundation, Bonita, CA, May 1994.

58 Margaret Honey and Andrés Henríquez, Telecommunication and K-12 Educators: Findings from a National Survey (New York, NY:

Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education, 1993).

59 WEB Associates, “TENET After One Year,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Telecommunication in Education Association,

February 1993.
112 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

The creation of networks for microcomputers ushered in a new era in the development of computers.

Computer networks use electronic pathways (wired or radio-based) to connect one computer with other

computers, enabling a person at one terminal to communicate with other people, to transfer information

electronically, and to use computers in a distant location.

Local area networks (LANs) consist of computers connected together in the same physical area, usually

within one building. LANs can be connected to other LANs, expanding the people and computers with

whom users can communicate. Networks of computers able to communicate over larger distances are

called wide area networks, or WANs. LANs are often a building block for a WAN. WANs may span cities,

states, or even continents; most are closed systems set up for a specific group of users (e.g., private corporate networks or state networks). The Internet is neither a LAN nor a WAN but an “lnternetwork”---a network of networks that share a common set of protocols. It provides access to databases and networks

around the world. LANs are typically used to share resources, such as printers, and to deliver instructions;

schools typically use WANs or the Internet to access external resources. ’

The most common network connection for K-12 educators to state networks or the Internet is typically

made by using a modem and a telephone line. The modem modifies the digital information used by the

initiating computer so that it can pass across telephone lines. Another modem at the other end restores the

information to a digital form that can be used by the receiving computer.

Information Services

A variety of information services with varying levels of sophistication are available to help people communicate and transmit information across computer networks. To use an information service, a computer

must have client software to communicate with the server software at the other computer.

The most common services of computer networks are electronic mail (e-mail), transfer of computer files,

and remote log-in. E-mail allows the user to send messages to another person, a group of people (a list), or

an electronic forum (also called an electronic bulletin board) where many people can read them. Computer

networks also let users copy and transfer electronic files from a computer where they are stored, called the

server, to the user’s machine. These files may be written documents, maps, graphics, images or video, or

software files. Remote log-in enables a user at one location to use a computer at a distant location for such

activities as searching through library catalogues or making airplane reservations. These three services are

the building blocks of more sophisticated applications of networks. Some types of connections may support only one or two of these three basic uses; for example, a connection may permit sending e-mail to a

distant colleague but may not support transferring files from that colleague’s computer.

One popular service is a chat room. In a chat room, messages entered by any user immediately show

up on the screen of all users, and a written record of the conversation is maintained. Chat rooms are a form

of synchronous communication (participants must be available at the same time); e-mail, by contrast, is an

example of asynchronous communication (users can communicate on their own schedules).

A small but growing number of teachers are gaining access to other kinds of information services available through the Internet, such as Gopher, World Wide Web, and Wide Area Information Servers (WAIS).

These services enable people with Internet connections to view and transfer files or to access extensive

databases (e.g., articles, graphics, software, current weather and weather forecasts, or stock market

prices). The basic prerequisites for access include the appropriate client software and a modem or other

1 See Denis Newman et al , “Local Infrastructures for School Networking Current Models and Prospects,” Technical Report

No, 22 (New York, NY Bank Street College of Education, Center for Technology in Education, May 1992)
Chapter 3 Technology Access and lnstructional Use in Schools Today 113

connection to a WAN; in addition, the WAN must support the desired service. “Internet connectivity” can take

place at many different levels. Some WANs have restricted connections to the Internet that allow only certain

kinds of services, such as exchanging e-mail or using Gopher but not using World Wide Web or WAIS.

A IAN or WAN that is fully connected to the Internet will support any of the varied and growing services

that follow Internet protocols—procedures defining how to make new services work over the Internet—and

will allow users to link with any other computer that is also fully connected.

Organization and Support Structure

As yet, there is no one organization responsible for administering or supporting the Internet, so getting

support in the use of Internet services has been a problem for teachers. Organizations that currently provide teachers with connections have only limited support for beginners and have given little thought to

helping beginners acquire the necessary client programs. Some help is available, however, in the form of

books, electronic documents, and commercial products that combine books and ready-to-use software.2

Some support structures do exist. For each electronic community of teachers, whether organized

around a curriculum project or a topic of mutual interest, there is typically a group that provides the organization and a support structure to help define that community. Typically, the group provides such elements

as a name, a registration procedure, a framework of expectations, a timeline, print or electronic materials,

and support services. Examples of organizing structures include: curriculum projects, such as AT&T Learning Circles, NGS Kids Network, and TERC’s Global Laboratory; discussion groups, such as the Consortium

for School Networking (CoSN); and programs, such as NASA’s Spacelink.

Educators can access information services through either commercial service providers, such as America Online, CompuServe, Prodigy, Delphi, and Apple’s eWorld; or through nonprofit service providers, such

as state-supported networks. Both commercial and nonprofit providers are actively soliciting participation

of teachers, schools, and districts. While these organizations do not presently provide full connectivity to

Internet resources, they do offer extensive support to users. Some of the state networks have text-based

menu systems. Commercial providers use graphical software to support inexperienced users and provide

extensive user support through e-mail, answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs), and an “800” number. They also have designed ways to minimize connect time (the time when the phone line is actually in

use), thereby keeping down the cost of their services.

2 For example, Ventana Media has published the “Internet Membership Kit, ” which includes a set of Internet client programs,

required protocols, and documents for both Mac and Windows platforms Purchase entitles the user to free Internet account setup,

one month’s free service, and SIX hours of free online time through an Internet service provider.

SOURCE: TERC, “Review of Research on Teachers and Telecommunications,” Office of Technology Assessment contractor report,

May 1994

Faster modems and LANs that enable multiple that only 11 percent had access to wide area netusers to connect to outside networks at the same work services as well as a local area network; none

time are not yet commonly available in schools. A of these schools used their LAN to distribute data

1990 survey of 485 California schools reported from the WAN.6O Although these data are surely

60 Denis Newman et al., “Local Infrastructures for School Networking: Current Models and Prospects,” Technical Report No. 22 ( New

York, NY: Bank Street College of Education, Center for Technology in Education, May 1992).
114 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

out of date by now, they suggest a problem that remains significant nationally:

Teachers’ and students’ access to the educational services now appearing on the Internet is

problematic, because few schools have information infrastructures capable of routing data to individual classrooms. Unlike higher education,

K-12 institutions typically have neither host

computers powerful enough to allow direct access to the Internet nor a web of telephones and

modems that could enable individual Internet

usage through dialing up a provider. Further,

many schools do not have networks that transmit data around the entire building, and the networks in individual classrooms often have such

low bandwidth that sending educational material from computer to computer is very slow. Interconnecting different types of networks within

a school or district is also a complex technical

challenge.61

State-Level Networks

An increasing number of states are organizing and

funding state networks for teachers and students

and sometimes for other public agencies and businesses. In a 1993 survey, 33 states reported supporting one or more telecomputing networks, for

K-12 instruction.62 Six more states had a partially

operational network, and nine more had one in the

proposed or planning stages (see figure 3-6).

Some of these networks use a design whereby

teachers dial into local computers, which in turn

process and store messages. These local computers are placed to maximize the number of teachers

who can reach them through local rather than

long-distance telephone calls. Most state networks aim to provide services at little or no charge

to teachers. For teachers who are not local—a significant proportion—“800” numbers are often

provided at substantial expense to the state.

State networks vary considerably in their

scope, purpose, sophistication, and support services. Among the most ambitious are Virginia’s

PEN (see chapter 5), which aims “to guarantee access to the Internet to every public school educator

at no charge,”63 and TENET (see box 3-4).

Many states have established networks with

gateways to other networks. For example, Florida’s Information Resources Network (FIRN) provides free electronic (e-mail) to all educators and a

menu that offers access to many Internet-based

services. FIRN also supports distance-learning

services, an automated card catalog, a technical

assistance system, staff development teleconferences, and satellite-delivered training for teachers.64

Other states have established less ambitious

networks, offering such services as e-mail lists,

news groups, and computer conferencing. Indiana, for example, supports both a statewide fiberoptic network for education called Intelnet, and a

bulletin board called IDEAnet for educator communications, conferencing, and database access.

Montana administers the Montana Educational

Telecommunications Network (METNET), connecting individual schools with Distance Learning Centers, Regional Training Centers, and

Compressed Video Sites. Oklahoma encourages

schools to link up to SpecialNet, a network designed to facilitate special education. New Jersey

Link (NJLink) served over 4,000 teachers in 1993,

61 Chris Dede, “The Technologies Driving the National Information Infrastructure: Policy Implications for Distance Education,” paper

commissioned by the Southwest Regional Laboratory in connection with the U.S. Department of Education’s Evaluation of Star Schools, October 1994, p. 11.

62 Educorp Consultants Corporation, Networks Now: The 1993 Survey of How States Use Telecommunication Networks in Education (Roanoke, VA: Educorp, 1993).

63 Glen L. Bull et al., “Considerations Underlying the Architecture of a State Public School Telecomputing Network,” Consortium for

Educational Telecomputing: Conference Proceedings, Robert F. Tinker and Peggy M. Kapisovsky (eds.) (Cambridge, MA: TERC, Apr. 18-19,

1991), pp. 121-134.

64 Anderson, op. cit., footnote 19.
Chapter 3 Technology Access and lnstructional Use in Schools Today 115

Operational

Partially operational

Planning/proposed

No plans

Information not available

SOURCE: Educorp Consultants Corp., Networks Now. The 7993 Survey of How States Use Telecommunication Networks in Education (Roanoke,

VA: 1993).

offering free information resources, communication with other educators, and other network

services.

Other Networks

Other networks in which educators participate

have been organized by school districts, communities, and the private sector. School districts use

networks to foster districtwide educational goals

and to link with local and out-of-town electronic

network resources. While district networks often

include only such services as exchanging e-mail

within the district, posting messages on bulletin

boards, and reaching the Internet with e-mail,

some are more ambitious. The Boulder Valley Internet Project, for example, is a collaboration of

the local university and the school district that

aims to link as many schools as possible with

high-speed connections and to encourage teachers

to use these resources. Similar efforts are under

way in other districts.65

Community-based electronic networks link

many of the functions of community life with one

another. In these electronic communities, anyone

in the geographic area served can participate. As

of January 3, 1995, there were 130 of these local

65 Rrports about other district projects can be found in Kenneth M. King and John Clement, EDUCOM, “Toward a National Network Infrastructure for K-12 Education: Final Report on a Fact-Finding Mission,” unpublished manuscript, 1990.
116 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

With 40,000 participants and a 1993 average of 100,00 Iog-ons per month, the Texas Education Network

(TENET) is among the largest and most successful state efforts to open the world of telecommunications

technology to teachers. Established in 1989, TENET aims to provide connectivity to all educators and students in the state via a local or 800-number telephone call. The University of Texas in Austin operates TENET via the THEnet (Texas Higher Education Network) backbone and houses its central resources and

operations staff.

Teachers in grades K-12 pay $5 per year for an account; university faculty and teacher education students pay $25. Participants receive such services as e-mail, news groups, conferencing, file transfer, curriculum guides, Internet gateway, and access to national, state, and local user groups.

Several aspects of TENET support preservice education and professional development for teachers.

Through special interest groups, teachers can share information and discuss educational issues. TENET

also has online training and maintains information files on a range of topics pertinent to teachers.

Among the most notable features of TENET is its major teacher training component. The network maintains 80 master trainers from all regions of the state. Master trainers provide support to school technology

coordinators, Regional Education Service Center (RESC) support staff, and others. They also communicate

regularly on a TENET special interest group and provide workshops and other training sessions for teachers. Among the training issues addressed are how to join electronic teacher groups for professional development, how to locate and download instructional materials, and how to use telecommunications to involve

students in global projects or collaborative writing.

The state has steadily increased its financial commitment to TENET since its creation, and in FY 1994

invested about $2.5 million in the network’s operation. In FY 1995, the state will spend $4.5 million on the

network. As TENET becomes more popular, Texas is grappling with how to meet demands for additional

phone lines and storage space at reasonable cost.

SOURCES: J.R. Mergendoller et al., “Case Studies Exemplary Approaches to Training Teachers To Use Technology, ” Office of

Technology Assessment contractor report, September 1994; Educorp Consultants Corp., Networks Now: The 1993 Networks in

Education (Roanoke, VA: Educorp, 1993); Connie Stout, Director, TENET, personal communication, November 1994; Geoffrey Fletcher, Interim Executive Deputy Commissioner for Curriculum, Assessment, and Professional Development, Texas State Department of

Education, personal communication, January 1995.

FreeNets in 42 states, according to an online survey.

66 These networks offer bulletin boards for

students sharing work, expedite inquiries to local

public agencies, facilitate information sharing and

research, provide local databases, and so forth.

With over 35,000 registered users and over 10,000

log-ins per day, the Cleveland FreeNet, operating

out of Case Western Reserve University, is probably the largest community network in the world

and a model for community-based networks. b7

The network provides users with everything from

e-mail services, to information about health care,

education, technology, recreation, law, auto mechanics, or just about anything else the host operators would like to place on the machine.

Anyone in the community with access to a home,

office, or school computer can connect to the sys66 Elizabeth Reid, National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN) survey, Jan. 3, 1995.

67 Doug Schuler, “Community Networks: Building a New Participatory Medium,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 37, No. 1, January

1994, pp. 40-48; and Sister Dolores Stanko, National Public Telecomputing Network and Community Computing, distributed over e-mail by the

Cleveland FreeNet, on Dec. 12, 1992.
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use in Schools Today | 117

tem, 24 hours a day, and use these services. All of

it is free and all of it can easily be accomplished by

a first-time user.

Not surprisingly, community-based networks

face the challenge of developing viable models of

low-cost network services that are accessible to all

community members. Some keep costs low by offering users access to larger networks for the cost

of a local telephone call.

Use of Telecommunication Networks

Reasonably current national survey data provide

some information concerning the school use of

telecommunications hardware and software for

information gathering, electronic mail, and collaborative instructional work. In the 1992 IEA

survey, data collected at the school level indicated

that in 10 to 15 percent of schools at least one

teacher used electronic mail/information networks (e.g., Compuserve); usage was higher at the

high school level than in elementary schools.

Approximately the same percentage of high

schools reported using online databases such as

Dialog. IEA also asked separately about two

instructional programs involving telecomputing—AT&T Learning Circles and the National

Geographic’s Kids Network. According to the

survey, AT&T Learning Circles had been tried in

about 4 percent of schools nationwide at all levels,

and the K-8-oriented Kids Network garnered participation in 6 percent of elementary schools and 3

percent of middle schools. Altogether about 20

percent of schools reported using one or more telecommunications service. However, no information was available about the number of teachers

using the service at any given site.

A year later, the 1993 NEA Communications

Survey inquired of its sample how many teachers

had ever participated in a “learning network at

school, such as the AT&T Learning Network or

the National Geographic Society’s Kids’ Network” (6 percent had); whether the respondents

were currently engaged with their students “in an

on-line collaborative teaching or distance learning

[activity]” (4 percent were), and whether they

“had access to” public electronic mail and information utilities such as Prodigy (19 percent),

Compuserve (14 percent), America Online (7 percent), and Dialog (9 percent). In addition, 4 percent said they had access to the Internet through

their school. Altogether, nearly 25 percent of the

NEA sample of responding teachers reported having access to at least one of these telecommunications services. While the NEA sample is not

representative of the U.S. teaching population,68

if the same percentage were applied to all U.S.

schools, it would mean that as many as 600,000

teachers nationwide were involved in telecomputing.

The extent of telecomputing activity among

teachers is not well understood—especially now

as potential opportunities for participation are

mushrooming. Furthermore, although the number

of telecomputing teachers is growing rapidly,

these data indicate that the great majority of U.S.

teachers still do not have access to telecommunications services.

Telecommunications Software69

In addition to access to hardware, teachers’ participation in electronic communities is often determined by the ease of use and functionality of

available telecommunications software. According to TERC, to meet the needs of teachers, telecommunications software should have the

following features: a user-friendly (“point-andclick”) interface (see figure 3-7); network connectivity among multiple computer systems

(MS-DOS, Macintosh, etc.); multiple options for

connectivity, including the Internet; the capacity

to send formatted nontext enclosures, such as

graphics, spreadsheets, and data video images; the

ability to enable the same message or formatted

data to be sent to multiple parties who use diverse

68 The NEA survey excludes teachers from most large city districts and others that are not NEA members (see appendix B).

69 Much of this section is taken from TERC, op. cit., footnote 53.
118 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

COMMUNITY /

FORUM—is where

interdisciplinary \ LabNet Online ‘

science and general

teaching discussions LabNet: Toward a Community of Practice

occur.

SCIENCE LIBRARY— COMMUNITY is where experiments SCIENCE STUDENT TEACHERS’

FORUM LIBRARY FORUM LOUNGE

and articles are posted,

as well as any other .

files that LabNet

teachers think others Projects and Contests

will find of interest. BioIogy/Life Sciences

Files are described by Chemistry About Workshops,

keyword and short GeoIogy/Earth Science LabNet

abstracts, and can be Physics

downloaded to the MiddIe/EIementary member’s computer.

Network

Host: BSpitzer Keyword: Labnet Tips & Help

Non-interactive material copyright TERC

SPECIAL INTEREST /

AREAS—there are /

subject areas for each NETWORK TIPS & HELP—

science discipline and here are files that should

a middle/elementary answer most users’ questions.

school area.

STUDENT FORUM—

is where students post

questions related to

projects on which they

are working. LabNet

teachers are encouraged

to read the Student Forum

and post replies if they

can help, and to

encourage their students

to use it as a resource.

TEACHERS’ LOUNGE—

directory of LabNet

members, member

profiles, and a conference

center where teachers

can “chat.”

WORKSHOPS,

GRANTS, ETC.-details

of workshops and

conferences are listed

and explained here.

 ABOUT LabNet—

contains general files that

describe the project and a

copy of the membership

application for those

interested in participating.

SOURCE: TERC, “Review of Research on Teachers and Telecommumcations,” contractor report prepared for the Off Ice of Technology Assessment,

1994

software and hardware configurations; the ability

to download and manipulate files at user computers without re-formatting; and be capable of being

easily updated.

There are a growing number of Internet-based

telecommunications software tools for information searching and retrieval. NCSA Mosaic and

other similar tools are among the most powerful

because they provide a user-friendly means of

connecting with World Wide Web and Gopher resources on the Internet. The Web includes online

documents that consist of text, images, sounds,

video, and animation on a range of topics, such as

Gaelic texts, art exhibits, movie clips, and electronic magazines. Documents can include footnote like links to other files, so that by pointing

and clicking, the user can move from one document to retrieve relevant information from other

documents located elsewhere on the Internet. In

addition, the telecommunications functions in the

Mosaic interface are automated so as to be nearly

invisible to the user. However, Mosaic is useable

only through a direct, relatively high-speed connection, and this type of connection is still rare in

school settings.

Telecommunications, with the access it can

provide to resources beyond the classroom walls,

has considerable educational potential. Yet the evidence reviewed here indicates that most schools

are not equipped to participate in these opportunities.
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use in Schools Today | 119

STATE POLICIES ON ACCESS AND USE

State policies can be an important influence on

teacher use of technology. A telephone survey and

review of state literature done under contract to

OTA indicates that states have taken diverse approaches to addressing the challenge of educational technology.70 This section summarizes some of

these data. (See, also, chapter 4 for discussion of

state technology policies related to inservice

teacher training and chapter 5 for state policies on

teacher certification and technology.)

❚ State Staffing for Technology

One way that states can influence local technology

use is through state staffing and support for educational technology. Staffing policies vary considerably across states. In one state, the educational

technology coordinator is an associate commissioner; in others, a part-time consultant. Some

coordinators are located within a media division,

others in an instructional technology unit, and

some in a telecommunications office. Some state

educational technology units have budgets in the

many hundreds of million dollars; other states

fund little more than a single staff person.

❚ Technology Integration

All but seven states reported that they require or

recommend integrating computers or information

technology into the curriculum (see table 3-2).

About 25 percent of the states actually mandate

the integration of computer technology across the

curriculum. For instance, the Iowa Legislature in

1993 established an Educational Technology

Consortium charged with developing technology

plans for the state that ensure “equity of access”

and assist schools with the integration of hardware

and software into their curricula. However, the

way technology is to be integrated is less clear. In

fact, some states continue to equate technology

policy with mandating courses about computers rather than assisting teachers to learn to

teach with a range of technologies.

❚ Computer Courses for Students

Twelve states require that public schools offer

computer-related courses such as keyboarding or

computer literacy, while an additional 20 states

recommend to districts that such courses be offered. For example, since 1984 Arkansas has required high school students to take a one unit

course in “computer science;” a new plan to be implemented in 1996 requires Arkansas schools to

offer more advanced, elective computer science

courses as well. Washington State law requires

that each school district provide an opportunity

for high school students to take at least one course

in “computer education,” or allow students to take

it in another district.

❚ Student Computer Competency

Today 19 states mandate computer competency

requirements for graduating seniors. Additionally, as states define and set new achievement standards consistent with the Goals 2000: Educate

America Act (see chapter 6), many are attempting

to address skills students will need to work with

technologies. Maine law stipulates that schools

make instruction in the use and application of

computer skills available to secondary students

and requires each student “to demonstrate proficiency in the use of computers that include loading, operating, and applying fundamental skills.

This may include word processing, keyboarding,

developing a data base, accessing data, and using

software.”71 Maine recommends that technology

be built into the curricula in grades 7 or 8, but

leaves it up to the districts to establish their own

plans and procedures. Utah requires that every

high school student be computer literate before

graduating, which students may demonstrate by

70 Anderson, op. cit., footnote 19.

71 Dennis Kunces, Planning Guide for High School Diploma Computer Proficiency Requirement (Augusta, ME: Maine Department of

Educational and Cultural Services, 1989).
120 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Requires

Promotes Requires Mandates computer Requires

technology computer computer training for inservice Students

integration in course for competency teacher technology per

curriculum students for students certification training computer

State name (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Colorado

Connecticut

District of

Columbia

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho / ’

Illinois

Indiana

Montana

(6)

17.7

8.6

12.3

14.0

19.5

11.2

13,8

12,9

18.5

11.3

12.8

18.8

14.5

15.9

11.1

10.2

9.9

12.0

19.5

14,4

13.8

16.3

13.4

11.1

17,9

13.4

10.6

10.4

13.6

22,0

15.4

12.4

12.3

13.1

10.4

16.0

13,5

13,0

14.7

16.2
Chapter 3 Technology Access and lnstructional Use in Schools Today 121

Requires

Promotes Requires Mandates computer Requires

technology computer computer training for inservice Students

integration in course for competency teacher technology per

curriculum students for students certification training computer

State name (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

13,7

10,4

18.4

12.1

13.3

19.9

13.0

10,9

11.2

11.4

8.1

a An ' ✓ ' in the column means a state has that policy A blank cell means that the policy does not exist.

The definitions of the column check lists areas follows:

(1) State requires (or recommends) that public schools integrate computers or information technology in the curriculum

(2) State requires that public schools offer computer-related courses such as keyboarding or computer literacy

(3) State has a mandate for computer competency or performance standards for students related to information technology

(4) Teacher certification in the state includes a requirement for training in computers or technology (see chapter 5)

(5) State has a requirement for inservice computer or technology training (see chapter 4).

(6) Microdensity is defined as students per computer. (Data from QED, 1994 report on Technology in Public Schools, QED, Denver, Colorado.)

SOURCE: R.E. Anderson, “State Technology Activities Related to Teachers,” OTA contractor report, Nov. 15, 1994

taking a computer literacy course or passing a test quirements in either student technology comof technology-related skills and knowledge.72 petency or in teacher technology training.

Many states, like Vermont, do not mandate Therefore, OTA finds that the relative amount

technology competency, but recommend that dis- of computer technology available in a state

tricts make computer competency a graduation re- should be used with great caution as an indicaquirement. North Carolina recently has designed tor of that state’s commitment to technology in

an innovative, detailed competency-based curric- instruction (see table 3-2).

ulum in technology including considerable emphasis upon “information skills.” Beginning in

1995, students will have to pass a performance- CONCLUSION: ISSUES WITH POLICY

based competency test. AND RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

The state survey suggests that the amount of The data examined in this chapter suggest several

educational technology hardware in a state is not themes, issues, and questions that have implicacorrelated with the state’s tendency to establish re- tions for future policy decisions and research

72 Utah State Board of Education, “Elementary and Secondary Core Curriculum Standards,” Instructional Technology, Utah State Board of

Education, Salt Lake City, UT, n.d.
122 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Classrooms such as this one, with five computer workstations

as wall as a television monitor, offer teachers flexibility in

teaching with technology Many states are seeking funding

to provide this level of technology access in all classrooms.

agendas. This section discusses the importance of

developing anew definition of access to technology, the importance of two-way communication,

additional research needed for policymaking, and

strategies for better understanding effective

instructional practices.

■ A New Definition of Access

One overarching theme emerging from the data

presented throughout this chapter is the need to

begin thinking differently and more critically

about what constitutes “access” to technology by

teachers and students. Conventional data on infrastructure-numbers of computers in a school, student-computer ratios, and school ownership of

various kinds of video and telecommunications

equipment—are insufficient measures of meaningful access to technologies. What is called for

is a new way of defining access that examines

the kinds of infrastructure, organizational arrangements, and other supports teachers need

to use technology effectively in the classroom.

Under such a definition, a first step might be to

look at the availability of hardware and software,

but in a more discerning way than just counting

computers. Key factors include the age and power

of hardware and the kinds of peripherals and software the equipment can support. Also crucial are

the presence of connectivity hardware, software,

and services. As the earlier discussion suggests, it

is now possible to use the same technology in several different ways, depending on what the purpose of the user is, which kinds of software and

peripherals are available, and how multiple

technologies are combined or connected. It is also

important not to overlook older technologies,

such as the telephone (see box 3-5).

A second step might be to examine whether existing technologies are arranged and organized in

a way that is conducive to frequent and effective

use by teachers and students. Are different kinds

of technologies located in a central place or in individual classrooms? Can existing equipment be

made more mobile? Is there a LAN, and could it be

used for more purposes than at present? Are certain kinds of technologies “reserved” for certain

kinds of teachers and students, such as advancedlevel science students or business education students? Is the hardware situated so that it can be

used effectively for different kinds of instruction,

such as group projects, buddy learning, or individual study or research?

A third step might be to examine the kinds of

support that teachers need to use the infrastructure

effectively: to integrate technology into their everyday teaching, to use technologies for two-way

communication, and to use technologies to encourage the best instructional practices. These

supports, discussed in more detail in subsequent

chapters, might include exposure to innovative

uses, high-quality professional development, and

ongoing technical support and expert advice.

■ The Importance of Two-Way

Communication

The potential of new technologies to facilitate

two-way communication has changed dramatically in recent years and holds great promise for

changing teaching, learning, and professional development. Telecommunications and networking

technologies, in particular, create incomparable

opportunities for teachers and students. And new

hardware, such as videodisc or CD-ROM players,

makes it possible to combine the excitement of
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use in Schools Today 1123

Technologies are used by schools for many reasons and to accomplish different goals. Technologies for

teaching and learning vary in key characteristics: how richly they convey information, how suitable they are

for whole classroom versus individual student use, how many pieces of equipment are required for simultaneous use by an entire class, how portable they are, how interactive and adaptable they are to individual

student or teacher needs, and how flexibly they can be used by teachers in a school setting. These characteristics affect which technologies schools acquire and how they use them.

To some extent, therefore, the amount and type of hardware and software a given site “needs” depends

on the educational goals it expects to meet using technology. As a part of this planning process, some

states and districts are trying to designate some basic levels of technology to which each building and

classroom should have access and to estimate the costs of such an infrastructure.

For example, Kentucky’s Master Plan for Education Technology calls for a communication system for

voice, video, and data that will interconnect all computer workstations in the classroom, school, district,

office, public library, and Kentucky Department of Education with other statewide and national education

networks. ’ Goals for instructional technology include a telephone in every classroom, a portable teacher

workstation for each of the 36,000 teachers in the state, and a computer workstation for every six students.

About 100,000 additional workstations will be needed to meet the student workstation goal. Taking into

account existing infrastructure that meets the standards of the Master Plan, the state estimates that $560

million will be needed to implement the plan over a period of six years.2

Implementation of the Kentucky plan began in 1992. The one-time costs of hardware and software will

be shared equally between the state and local districts. The ongoing maintenance and operations costs at

the state and district levels will be funded by the state, while local school districts will bear the maintenance costs of the system’s school, classroom, and family/school connection levels.

A recent initial planning document from the New York State Department of Education outlines the potential costs of implementing a vision of an even more advanced technological infrastructure for K-1 2 schools

in that state. This plan outlines the costs of putting a basic amount of new technology in every public

school building throughout the state and networking them.3 A three-stage deployment is envisioned. The

first stage would put five workstations with multimedia and network links in the library-media center of each

of the state’s 4,016 public schools. The second stage would put one workstation in each of an estimated

187,000 classrooms and network them to a wide area network and the Internet via a broadband T-1

connection (1.5 mega bytes).4 The third, full-blown model adds four more workstations in each classroom.

The table displays the technologies and costs for this three-stage deployment, as well as the estimated

1 Kentucky Department of Education, "Master Plan for Education Technology, ” Council for Education Technology, Apr. 30, 1992

2 Revisions to Master Plan for Education Technology, adopted by Kentucky State Board for Elementary and Secondary Education,

November 1993.

3 Existing hardware, software, and networking in schools were Ignored in this cost model. In addition, this model reflects an estimate of the total life-cycle costs, exclusive of consumable materials (e. g., printer toner and paper) and furniture for a five-year period.

The Iife-cycle cost analysis takes into account not only hardware and software, but also maintenance, technical support, training,

networking, and other “hidden” costs. This model particularly emphasizes the staff development and technical support components

of successful technology implementations. Basic Iist prices are considered in the cost model, since the model’s author considered it

Impossible to estimate any discounts that would be applied on such a large-scale purchase. M. Radlick, “A Cost Model: Implementing

Technology in New York State Public Schools—A Paper for Discussion,” New York State Education Department, Albany, NY, November 1994

4 Building wiring would be fiberoptic cable to all classrooms, and copper from thereto the desktops. Every workstation should be

networked to the Internal LAN resources and out to the wide area network, including the Internet Networking and network resource

must be able to support high-bandwidth applicatlons, including multimedia and interactive video from other sites. Included in the

multimedia capability IS videoconferencing at the workstation level Radlick, ibid.

(continued)
124 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Proposed Five-Year Cost Model for Implementing Technology in New York State Public Schools

Stage of model

Stage 1

Put in the

library-media

center of each

public school

building

(total = 4,016)

Stage 2

Put into each

classroom

(total =

187,000)

Stage 3

Add into each

classroom:

Total costs

Network

infrastructure

Technologies (per building)

■ 5 workstations with

software, a

IAN, and lnternet connections

■ 1 laser

printer

■ 1 CD-ROM

tower

■ 1 color LCD

projector unit

■ 1 workstation

with software, LAN,

and Internet

connections

■ 1 laser

printer

■ 1 color LCD

panel

■ 4 workstations with

software,

IAN, and lnternet connections

■ 56 kb link to

Internet

■ 1 router

■ 1 server

■ initial cost of

network connection to

library/media

center b

■ T-1 network

link

■ initial costs

of network

connections

to classrooms

Additional

cost for the 4

remaining

years in

First-year hardware

cost Iifecycle c

$371,593,000

includes about

$73 million for

training and

support personnel

$3,627,350,000

includes about

$769 million for

training and

support personnel

$2,992,000,000

$6,990,943,000

$436,991,200

includes about

$233 million for

training and

support personnel

$2,616,200,000

includes about

$1.7 billion for

training and

support personnel

$1,047,200,000

no additional

training and

support

$4,100,391,200

Total cost

$ 808,584,200

$6,243,550,000

$4,039,200,000

$11,091,334,200

a Total cost of each workstation estimated at $3,500. Workstation includes a 486 (DX2) or Pentium or Macintosh Power PC 7100 with

CD-ROM and color monitor Basic operating system (Windows or System 7) assumed to be bundled. Cost = $3,000, Additional application software cost = $500

b The cost of network Connections is assumed to average $7,500 per Classroom, The initial network connection to the llbrary/media

center is assumed to average $15,000

c Includes hardware and software maintenance (1 O percent), training, support, and cost of service across T-1 and 56-kb links

SOURCE: M Radlick, “A Cost Model lmplementing Technology in New York State Public Schools—A Paper for Discussion, ” New York

State Education Department, Albany, NY, November 1994.
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use in Schools Today 125

costs for operating, maintaining, upgrading, training, and support over a five-year life cycle. The estimated

total cost comes to just over $11 billion over five years.5

The New York state annual education budget for 1992-93 was slightly more than $21 billion. In 1992-93,

New York schools spent an average of 2.2 percent of their total education budgets on technology, which

includes hardware, software, network technical staff, instructional staff, and supplies and material. The total

amount spent across the state that year was about $360 million.6 Thus, fully implementing this cost model,

even across a 10-year period, would require a substantial increase in the percentage of the education

budget invested in technology.

5About 37 percent of the total is for Instructional hardware and software; 17 percent for building the network infrastructure; 21

percent for ongoing costs such as maintenance, upgrades, and Iine charges; 9 percent for training; and 16 percent for staff support

personnel.

6 Michael Radlick, “Technology Expenditures in New York State Schools, ” unpublished draft, New York State Education Department, Dec. 7, 1994.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, based on Kentucky Department of Education, op. cit., footnotes 1 and 2, and

Radlick, op. cit., footnotes 3 and 6.

video with the information transmission power of

the computer and the communication capabilities

of high-speed telephone.

Given these trends, connectivity is likely to

become the major technology issue of the next

several years. Although few up-to-date data are

available, it appears that a very small percentage

of teachers have access to the kinds of telecommunications and networking technologies needed,

for example, to participate in a global science

project, or contact distant colleagues for advice on

attention-deficit disorder.

Policymakers might respond by developing

new kinds of guiding principles for access to and

use of telecommunications. This is already occurring in discussions at the federal, state, and local

level about educator access to a “National Information Infrastructure.” Other issues to be

addressed include the issues of copyright, confidentiality, funding and subsidies, and limiting student access to some forms of information (see

chapter 1).

Framing policies in these areas will not be an

easy task, since the field of educational telecommunications is still so young and fluid. New uses

for telecommunications are emerging all the time,

and it is not yet clear what classroom applications

are possible or most effective.

❚ Additional Research Needed for

Policymaking

Help in framing policy could come from more extensive research. Available data are weak regarding the very newest technologies available to

teachers—new forms of analog video and digital

multimedia technologies like videodisc and CDROMS and new opportunities for telecommunications via computers. There are few data on how

much or in what ways teachers are taking advantage of existing network access. In what ways are

student-learning routines affected by the availability of telecommunications access to the outside world? How is a teacher’s professional life

affected by these resources? Future studies of

educational technology should focus on the

uses of those new media—not simply their

presence, but how they affect the learning of

students and the jobs of teachers.

Having access to technologies does not ensure

that they will be used well. As noted in this chapter, more comprehensive use could be made of
126 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

the current technology inventory in schools.

Evidence for restriction in current usage can be

found in the persistence of drill-and-practice,

games, keyboarding instruction, “computer

classes,” and certain kinds of video viewing. It is

hard to draw clear conclusions about how existing

resources could be used more comprehensively,

however, because teacher use is an area where data

on educational technologies are weakest. Surveys

to date have collected only minimal data directly

from teachers about their own access to and use of

technology. Knowing that technology resources

are in a school is insufficient to understand whether and how teachers are using them. Observations

of and interviews with teachers could help to provide the kinds of contextual information that

would illuminate many of the questions surrounding the gap between access and use.

New research might examine several issues regarding teacher use. How and why do teachers use

technology in instruction across the various curricular areas? How do teachers integrate videotaped presentations, for example, in different

subject matter? How are teachers using camcorders, telephones, or telecommunications links?

Which resources are effective for which educational goals? To what extent do teachers use

technology for other parts of their job, such as carrying out administrative tasks, participating in

professional development, communicating with

the world outside school, or involving parents in

the schooling process?

Furthermore, the discrepancies between teacher and student reports about how many minutes

students use computers, and between teachers and

district-level educators about how many teachers

are “computer-using” teachers, suggest the need

for deeper analysis of what constitutes technology

“use.” How long or how intensive must an interaction with various technologies be to constitute a

meaningful learning experience for students?

How many learners can use various technologies

at the same time in a beneficial way? Is tracking

occurring in how students are permitted to use various technologies? What constitutes teacher

“use”?

❚ Effective Instructional Practices

Currently the most common uses of technologies

in schools reflect educational philosophies of

instruction that view students as recipients of information dispensed by the teacher (or by the

technology) and the acquisition of specific skills

and knowledge. However, many technology experts feel that the real potential of technology

lies in its capacity to support pedagogical approaches that encourage students to become

active participants in their own learning and to

acquire critical thinking skills and more complex understandings.

The potential for more than an electronic blackboard is one of the most compelling reasons for

pursuing educational technology (see chapter 2).

Right now, however, a gulf exists between the

ambitions of technology experts and software developers and the practice of teachers in classrooms. Helping teachers use technology to

facilitate different educational philosophies and

teaching practices will require substantial change

in curriculum, instructional methods, and teacher

understanding.

In addition, further study is needed about the

quality and relative effectiveness of various

instructional uses of technologies and their applications. How effective are instructional computer games in helping students acquire specific

skills and knowledge? What is the effectiveness of

various kinds of video viewing experiences? How

effective is browsing of digital libraries as a research tool? What elements make for a quality

multimedia program? What is the most effective

use of distance-learning technologies? For example, distance learning can vary greatly in quality

and instructional philosophy, from teacher lectures transmitted by satellite, to more interactive

learning sessions where students can conduct experiments with the distant teacher looking on or

exchange observations and data in real time.

Finally, OTA finds that access to any technology in a school is just a starting point. The

next chapter will explore the barriers teachers face

as they try to use technology, as well as some im-
Chapter 3 Technology Access and Instructional Use in Schools Today | 127

plementation models and lessons from places actively attempting to overcome these barriers. As

the next chapter suggests, to use technologies effectively, teachers and administrators must have a

vision of how they can best be deployed; they need

the appropriate hardware, software, and training

to pursue these goals and applications, and continuing support to overcome the obstacles presented

in adopting technology for instruction or teacher

support.
Helping

 Teachers Learn

 About and Use

 Technology

 Resources

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

 Most teachers have not had suitable training to prepare them

to use technology in their teaching. A majority of teachers report feeling inadequately trained to use technology resources,

particularly computer-based technologies. Although many

teachers see the value of students learning about computers and

other technologies, some are not aware of the resources

technology can offer them as professionals in carrying out the

many aspects of their job.

 In a majority of schools, there is no onsite support person officially assigned to coordinate or facilitate the use of technologies. Even in schools where a technology coordinator exists,

most of the time is spent supervising students, or selecting and

maintaining software and equipment. Very little time goes directly to training or helping teachers use technologies.

 To use technology effectively, teachers need more than just

training about how to work the machines and technical support. To achieve sustained use of technology, teachers need

hands-on learning, time to experiment, easy access to equipment, and ready access to support personnel who can help them

understand how to use technology well in their teaching practice and curriculum.

 Schools and school districts are using a number of different approaches for training teachers and implementing technology.

These include developing “technology-rich” model schools;

training a cadre of teachers who train and help their colleagues;

providing expert resource people; giving every teacher a computer; training administrators alongside teachers; and establishing teacher resource centers. Data do not confirm that any

one strategy is more effective than another; often they work in | 129
130 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

combination. Districts may be well advised to

use multiple training and support strategies tailored to the educational goals of the local site.

 Lessons from experienced implementation

sites suggest that those who wish to invest in

technology should plan to invest substantially

in human resources. Currently most funds for

technology are spent on hardware and software.

Increasingly experienced technology-using

sites advocate larger allocations for training

and support.

 Support for technology use from the principal

and other administrators, from parents and the

community, and from colleagues can create a

climate that encourages innovation and sustained use.

 Schools should avoid acquiring technology for

technology’s sake. Developing a technology

plan—thinking through the goals for technology use at the local site and involving teachers

in the planning process—is an important step

in ensuring that the technology will be used by

those it is intended to support. Many districts

have found that it works best to start with small

focused efforts, which can engender lessons,

success, and experience before committing to

more large-scale programs.

 Although sites have made significant progress

in helping teachers learn to use generic technology tools such as word processing, databases,

and desktop publishing, many still struggle

with how to integrate technology into the curriculum. Curriculum integration is central if

technology is to become a truly effective educational resource, yet true integration is a difficult, time-consuming, and resource-intensive

endeavor. Research funding is needed to help

explore and develop technology tools best

suited for specific curriculum areas, especially

disciplines other than science and math.

INTRODUCTION

As discussed in chapter 3, most schools and teachers today have at least some access to multiple

kinds of video and computer-based technologies.1

Yet much of this technology is not being used to its

potential and most classroom environments are

still not significantly influenced by technologies.

In contrast to chapter 2, which provided examples of promising uses to which teachers are putting new technologies, the first part of this chapter

examines why teachers do not use technologies

more and factors that affect how technology

comes to be used in schools. This section draws on

published surveys of technology use among

teachers, the research literature on technology use,

site visits made by Office of Technology Assessment staff to schools and districts throughout the

country, a contracted series of interviews with and

observations of teachers,2 and conversations with

hundreds of teachers and administrators at conferences and meetings and over electronic mail.

The chapter then describes some approaches

schools have used to overcome barriers and implement educational technology more widely. Finally, drawing on places where technology has been a

priority, the chapter suggests lessons learned

about fostering technology implementation. In

addition to the sources listed above, these sections

draw on the research literature on educational and

technological innovation, studies and evaluation

reports from technology implementation projects,

and a series of case studies contracted by OTA.3

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE

TECHNOLOGY USE BY TEACHERS

Why don’t teachers make wider use of instructional technologies? What is the experience of teachers as they encounter new technologies in their

schools? This section first provides a general

1 Most teachers do not yet have access to or experience with telecommunications networks and related technologies. See ch. 3.

2 Melinda A. Griffith, “Technology in Schools: Hearing from the Teachers,” Office of Technology Assessment contractor report, October

1993.

3 John R. Mergendoller et al., “Case Studies of Exemplary Approaches to Training Teachers To Use Technology,” Office of Technology

Assessment contractor report, September 1994.
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources | 131

overview of some factors that influence the extent

to which teachers use technology. These include

availability, time, and differences among teachers

in their attitudes toward change and technology.

This section then focuses on three specific areas:

1) training and understanding, 2) onsite support,

and 3) systemic factors such as planning and the

assessment system.

Clearly, before teachers can use the technologies they must first have access to them. As chapter 3 has suggested, the amount of computer and

video technologies used for instruction in schools

has grown considerably in recent years. Most

teachers now have some access to these technologies. Yet as chapter 3 has also illustrated, many of

these technologies are not necessarily easy for

teachers to access and use as part of their daily routines. In addition, a substantial portion of the

school computer inventory is made up of older,

less-powerful machines. Access to telecommunications technologies is especially limited. Beyond these problems of access to machines,

however, lie a number of other important barriers

to more widespread use of educational technologies by teachers.

First, it is important to recognize that technology tools require time to master. Hardware and

software, no matter how “user-friendly,” are complicated and constantly changing. In any profession, time must be invested in learning how to use

a particular piece of software to accomplish workrelated goals; furthermore, keeping up with

upgrades or new software requires ongoing investments of time. But teachers, in particular, are

“prisoners of time:” as a national study recently

underscored. 4 American schools require teachers

to spend the vast majority of the school day engaged in actual instruction, which leaves little official time for planning, preparation, or learning

To learn to use new technologies, teachers need time for

“hands-on” exploration and collaboration with colleagues.

new things. Even accomplished technology-using teachers, who are highly motivated, rated

the lack of time as among the most problematic

barriers to technology use in schools.5

Furthermore, teachers are an incredibly diverse

group. Some teachers express eagerness to experiment with new ideas, even at the risk of failure,

while others say they have little interest, energy, or

time for experimentation.6 The great majority of

teachers probably lie somewhere in between these

two poles. As one educator explained, “Most

schools have a bell curve distribution of teachers

ranging from the aggressive, active, enthusiastic

innovators to those who are counting the hours until retirement.”7 Even the most energetic and inno4 National Commission on Time and Learning, Prisoners of Time (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1994).

5 Karen Sheingold and Martha Hadley, “Accomplished Teachers: Integrating Computers into Classroom Practice, "Center for Technology

in Education, New York, NY, September 1990. See ch. 2 for further information on this study.

6 See, e.g., Michael Fullan, The New Meaning of Educational Change (New York: Teachers College press, 1991).

7 David Thornburg, quoted in Electronic Learning, vol. 13, No. 6, March 1994, p.16.
132 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

vative teachers experience many competing

demands to learn new things—new curriculum

standards, teaching methods, behavior management techniques, assessment methods, techniques

for working with special needs children, and so on

(see chapter 2).

This is also true when it comes to technology.

Teachers, like others who use technology, fall

along a bell curve in which there is a small percentage of innovators and visionaries eager to try

new things, a larger number of those who follow

the lead of others, and a small group who are skeptical of change8 (see box 4-1). Teachers vary widely in their experience with and knowledge of

technology. Some teachers already have computers at home, for example, while others have never

been shown how to “boot one up.” Some teachers

may be unclear about what technology can offer

them because they have had very limited experience with technologies or little exposure to models that use technology to enrich the curriculum,

deliver instruction in different ways, or improve

personal productivity. Furthermore, there probably are some teachers who will actively resist or

avoid learning about technology for reasons that

may not be well articulated.9 The words of one

high school geometry teacher illustrate that some

teachers don’t want to change:

I’m the old-fashioned type—after so many

years, you build up a file on your subjects. . .For

me to go into teaching computers. . .I would

have to start all over. I would have to actually sit

down and work everything out, and it would require a lot more work on my part to run a class

the way I want it run. . . I just don’t want to do

it. . .Don’t want to change.10

The kinds of pedagogical beliefs and practices

a teacher holds may also influence whether he or

she uses technology.11 For example, one interview study found that “high-tech” teachers tended

to hold a student-centered approach to learning

(e.g., inquiry methods, collaborative learning,

hands-on practices) and had used the technologies

to implement this philosophy.12 The “low-tech”

teachers (those who, despite being given opportunities to use technologies, were not doing so) were

more diverse in their teaching approaches. Some

held student-centered educational beliefs but were

reluctant to use technologies because of personal

fears or inhibitions or because of problems with

accessibility and scheduling of equipment. Others

were described as taking more traditional approaches to teaching (e.g., following the routines

of the textbook, using a lecture format); these

teachers reported not using technology because

they feared it would undermine their authority

with students or because they felt pressed by the

number of district-mandated curriculum requirements and therefore did not feel they had instructional time to give to additional activities.

No systematic data exist to tell us what constitutes the normative “technology experience” of

teachers in schools today, nor whether technology

is more readily used by certain kinds of teachers.

However, talking to teachers—hearing their concerns and stories—can help in finding what is required to encourage more widespread use of

8 See, e.g., Geoffrey A. Moore, Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Technology Products to Mainstream Customers (New York,

NY: Harper Business, 1991).

9 See, e.g., Ronald G. Ragsdale, Permissible Computing in Education (New York: Praeger, 1988).

10 Janet Ward Schofield, Computers and Classroom Culture (New York: Cambridge University Press, in press), ch. 4.

11 See, e.g., Larry Cuban, Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920 (New York: Teachers College Press,

1986); Larry Cuban, “Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade,” Office of Technology Assessment contractor report, Oct. 8,

1994.

12 “High-tech” and “low-tech” teachers were identified in each district by the district computer coordinators. Margaret Honey and Babette

Moeller, Teachers’ Beliefs and Technology Integration: Different Values, Different Understandings, Center for Technology in Education, Technical Report No. 6 (New York, NY: Bank Street College of Education, August 1990).
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources 1133

This figure illustrates one market-based model of how any new technology product attracts new customers throughout its life cycle. The very small group of innovators pursue new technology products

aggressively; they are “technologists” and make technology purchases simply for the pleasure of exploring

the new technology product. Ear/y adopters are not technologists, but find it easy to imagine and understand the benefits of a new technology. According to this theory, there is a large “chasm” or gap between

the early adopters and the next and much larger group-the ear/y majority. Winning the interest of the early

majority is key to market success since they represent about one-third of the consumers; this groups

shares some of the early adopter’s ability to relate to technology, but they are also driven by a strong sense

of practicality. These individuals want to see “well-established references” before investing substantially.

This chasm exists, in part, because these individuals do not want to have to “debug” someone else’s product—they want their technology to work properly and to be easily integrated.

The Technology Adoption Life Cycle The late majority differs

from the early majority mostly

in that they feel less comfortable about their own ability to

handle a technology product.

As a result, this large group

(again about one-third of the

total) wants to wait until something has become an established standard. Finally, there

viewed as not worth pursuing.

This model suggests that

within any group of individuals, such as teachers, there will be tremendous variability in their willingness to

explore and accept new technologies. Clearly there is a small group of teachers who have been active

innovators and have eagerly embraced new technologies in schools. Similarly many schools have teachers

who could be called “early adopters. ” But today, the challenge may still lie in “crossing the chasm” and

getting the next, and much larger, group of teachers sold on the usefulness and practicality of technology

use for them.

SOURCE: Geoffrey A. Moore, Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Technology Products to Mainstream Customers (New York,

NY: Harper Business, 1991).

technology. In the section that follows, a number to reify these barriers or make teachers or policyof common barriers that have been identified in makers feel that the situation is hopeless. Rather,

the technology implementation literature will be it is intended to help alert policymakers and other

discussed and highlighted from the teacher’s per- readers to factors they should consider if they despective. In a real school setting, some, all, or sire to integrate technology into teaching and

none of these barriers--or other barriers-maybe learning.

present. The discussion that follows is not meant
134 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

❚ Training in Technology Use and

Understanding Potential Applications

Teachers’ Perceptions

When asked what would help them use technology better, many teachers mention the need for

more knowledge about how to use various

technologies. For some, this means operational

skills, i.e., how to make the technology work. In

one survey, a majority of teachers said that they

felt they needed training in orderto adequately use

a personal computer (56 percent), standard computer software (61 percent), multimedia software

(62 percent), instructional videodiscs (67 percent), and online databases (72 percent). Far fewer

felt the need for training in using video resources;

only 7 percent of teachers said they needed training to adequately use a videocassette recorder

(VCR), 9 percent for a television monitor, and 14

percent for instructional videotapes.13

Some teachers worry that their lack of knowledge might result in embarrassment or “feeling

like a fool” in front of their students. For some

teachers, this situation may be intolerable. As one

teacher said:

You can’t have trouble or be messing with the

machine in front of a class. It may be due to my

lack of confidence, but I have to be comfortable

with it if I’m going to use. . . My computer phobia, I’m actually over that. I’m not afraid of using the machine anymore, like I was, but I am

afraid of how they [the students] might react.14

For other teachers, the greater need is understanding what the technologies can do.

Many teachers have not had the opportunity to

observe and learn about the wide range of educational uses to which technology can be put—particularly various ways it can be incorporated into

different curricular areas. For example, evidence

collected by OTA suggests that some nontechnology-using teachers, while they endorse the

importance of student access to computers and

other technologies, don’t see why technology

should be used in their classrooms or what resources technology can offer them as they try to

meet their instructional goals. One high school

teacher, who did not use the computer he had been

given for his class of gifted and talented students,

explained, “It didn’t do anything I couldn’t do easier and cheaper on the blackboard.”15 In that same

high school, a home economics teacher stated, “If

I could see a really good use for a computer I

would use one. . .but I have yet to think of anything I could do on a computer that I can’t do by

myself just as well.”16

Teachers who want to use technology also

may find that educating themselves enough to

be able to use a particular piece of hardware or

software can require considerable amounts of

extra time and effort.

17 One teacher, who described himself as a technology “want-to-be,”

said, “It is just prohibitive time-wise to go through

and read through everything, to figure out how to

do everything, every time I want to do something

new.”18 Furthermore, finding and integrating

software into the existing curriculum can be difficult without a fairly comprehensive knowledge of

available software.

13 National Education Association, Status of the American Public School Teacher, 1990-91 (Washington, DC: 1992).

14 Keith F. Allum, “Technological Innovation in a High School Mathematics Department: A Structural and Cultural Analysis,” unpublished

Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, June 1991, p. 185.

15 Schofield, op. cit., footnote 10, ch. 4.

16 Ibid.

17 Susan A. Zammit, “Factors Facilitating or Hindering the Use of Computers in Schools,” Educational Research, vol. 34, No. 1, spring

1992, pp. 57-66; Barbara Means et al., Using Technology To Support Education Reform (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, September 1993).

18 Griffith, op. cit., footnote 2, p. 57.
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resouces | 135

Teachers may also need more knowledge

about how to organize and effectively manage

their students in technology-based environments. Some teachers have just one or two computers in a classroom, and are not sure how to use

them well when only few students at a time can

work on the computer. One teacher described the

problem of managing a classroom of students with

limited technology this way:

It is hard enough to figure out how you are going to allow 25 students access to the computer

and equal time.. .That’s a huge task, and if you

don’t really know the benefits and the advantages and the disadvantages and all the things

that whatever system you have and whatever

software you have can offer, the management is

just such a nightmare that you turnoff the whole

thing.19

Even when teachers have more equipment

orchestrating its use often requires knowledge

about how to really teach with it or how to organize learning activities to make optimal use

of the technology. For example, one French

teacher had to learn how to structure her classes

differently once she got technology; eventually

she learned how to rotate her students through

workstations that included a station with computers for drill and practice and a station with tape recorders for oral language practice:

It was a 9th-grade class, and most of the

kids. . have already worked in a class where a

number of things are going on at a time, so it

didn’t bother them at all. It drove me crazy, but I

could see it was benefiting them. I felt tom. I

wanted to be with this [student]. I wanted to be

with that group. It was just a question of convincing my soul that when there is noise and everybody is doing something different, learning

is taking place. It’s difficult for me.20

19 Ibid., p. 54.

20 Schofield, op. cit., footnote 10, ch. 4.

Teachers who want to integrate technology into their

classrooms need to bear in mind the time and effort required

to preview and select appropriate software materials.

Availability of Training

How much actual training or coursework about

technology and its educational uses have teachers

had? Available data suggest that most teachers

have had very little. In one survey, less than half of

the American schools reported that an introductory computer course is available (either in the district or at a local college) for their teachers.21 This

pattern was particularly pronounced among teachers in middle schools, where only 27 percent of

schools reported the availability of such a course

compared with 51 percent of high schools and 43

percent of elementary schools.22

As regards video, a different set of data found

that fewer than one-fourth of teachers reported

having had training in the instructional uses of

video or television. Fewer than one teacher in 20

reported having received formal training over the

past three years in such topics as evaluating video

21 Ronald E. Anderson (ed.), Computers in American Schools 1992: An Overview, IEA Computers in Education Study, (Minneapolis: MN,

1993), pp. 52-53.

22 Ibid.
136 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

NOTE: District Computer technology coordinators were asked to estimate the amount of their total computer budgets spent in the above

three categories, N = 3,927.

SOURCE: Market Data Retrieval, Education and Technology, 1993: A

Survey of the K-72 Mar/ret (Shelton, CT: 1993), p. 11.

programming or curriculum coordination using

instructional television (ITV) materials.23 As

noted above, however, this is an area where teachers feel more comfortable, and less in need of

training.

Data on expenditures for educational

technology indicate that far more resources

have been allocated to hardware and software

than to training or technical support. For example, in 1992-93, a national survey asked district

technology coordinators to estimate how much of

their total district computer budgets fell into each

of these three categories. This survey found that

approximately 55 percent of all technology spending goes to hardware, while software spending accounts for another 30 percent (see figure 4-l).

Training accounted for only 15 percent. Noting

that a higher portion of technology budgets is now

devoted to software, the authors suggest:

At one point in time, districts expected that

teachers would create software and budgeted no

dollars toward software purchasing. That has

changed dramatically over the past 10 years. If

any problem remains, it is found in the percentage of overall budgets devoted to computer

training. 24

These national patterns are reflected in an evaluation study of a major Educational Technology

Initiative in Utah that provided schools across the

state with money for technology. In the third year

of the initiative (1992-93), the average Utah elementary school received $15,365 and spent 68

percent on hardware, 20 percent on software, 6

percent on repairs, and 6 percent on training. With

its budget of $31,369, the average Utah secondary

school allocated 75 percent to hardware, 15 percent to software, 6 percent to repairs, and 4 percent

to training.25 Data from the evaluation indicated

that inservice training, though limited, had an important effect-teachers who received inservice

training were more likely to use computer

technology than teachers who did not receive

training. Furthermore, teachers receiving training

were more likely to use computers to stimulate

higher-order thinking and creativity. Overall,

however, the evaluators of the Utah project concluded that the current allocation of funding to inservice training was not sufficient to realize the

potential of the state’s considerable investment in

hardware. 26

As states such as Utah gain more experience

with technology implementation, more are be23 Andrew L. Russell and Thomas R. Curtin, Study of School Uses of Television and Video: 1990-91 School Year (Arlington, VA: Corporation for Public Broadcasting, February 1993). 24 Market Data Retrieval, Education and Technology, 1993: A Survey of the K-12 Market (Shelton, CT: MDR, 1993), p. 11.

25 John R. Mergendoller et al., The Utah Educational Technology Initiative: Evaluation Update (Novato, CA: Beryl Buck Institute for

Education, January 1994), p. 11.

26 John R. Mergendoller et al., Instructional Utilization, Teacher Training and Implementation of Utah’s Educational Technology Initiative

in School Districts and Colleges (Novato, CA: Beryl Buck Institute for Education, June 1992).
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources | 137

coming convinced of the importance of investing

substantially in technology training, especially in

the early years of the technology adoption process. For example, Florida has revised its policy toward technology training. For the 1993-94 school

year, the Florida legislature allocated $55 million

for educational technology and $8.65 million for

educational software. The appropriation required

that schools applying for these technology funds

set aside at least 30 percent of the money for training.27 The Texas Education Agency recently recommended that districts allocate a substantial

portion of their technology funds for staff development, suggesting that districts just getting

started allocate 30 percent of their technology

funds to hardware, 30 percent to software, 30 percent to staff development, and 10 percent to maintenance.28 While Washington State does not

require inservice training in technology, the state

spends about 40 percent of its $4.5 million

technology budget on teacher training activities

(see box 4-2).29

One of the barriers to increasing technology

training for teachers is the many competing

priorities for limited staff development time.30

This makes scheduling technology training difficult. Districts have multiple instructional goals,

approaches, and philosophies they want teachers

to learn about and use. In one district, for example,

where the integration of “whole language”31

teaching into the curriculum is the current educational priority, training not directly related to this

goal is discouraged because it takes time that the

central administration wants teachers to use for

implementation of the whole language techniques.32

Nature of Training

The kind of technology training provided is as important to teachers as the availability of training.

Some teachers observe that the content of training

they receive is inadequate; there seems to be a focus on basic training in the mechanics of operating

the machines, with little training about integrating

technology into various subjects or learning to use

it as a pedagogical tool. One observational study

of computer use in a high school found that:

One of the characteristics of the training

teachers were most likely to complain about was

its restricted technical focus. Specifically,

teachers tended to be critical of the fact that the

training often focused primarily on issues such

as how to operate the computer without giving

them much advice or assistance with two fundamental issues. . .what software was available to

assist in accomplishing their educational objectives and how to organize the class to make efficient and effective use of students’ time when

there were a small number of computers in the

classroom.33

Poorly timed or piecemeal training can also be

a problem. Sometimes training is provided before

the hardware or software arrives or before teachers

know what equipment they will be using. One

teacher described her school’s policy in this way:

Technology acquisition seems to have been

done very piecemeal. We acquired certain

pieces of equipment. We acquired certain kinds

of software, whether someone donated it or we

purchased it or the librarian wanted it or the

computer specialist wanted it. . .It’s difficult

enough to sort of initiate getting training on a

certain kind of equipment and then. . .the next

27 “A Technology-Ready State,” Electronic Learning, vol. 13, No. 2, October 1993, p. 58.

28 Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 3, p. 6.

29 R. Anderson, “State Technology Activities Related to Teachers,” Office of Technology Assessment contractor report, Nov. 14, 1994.

30 See, e.g., Jonathan W. Gallishaw, “The Integration of Technology into Education: A Study of Schools in Southeastern Massachusetts,”

thesis submitted to the graduate school of Bridgewater State College, May 1994.

31 Whole language is an approach to teaching reading in which students learn words in context rather than by phonetics.

32 Griffith, op. cit., footnote 2, pp. 25-26.

33 Schofield, op. cit., footnote 10, ch. 4.
138 Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

A recent OTA-sponsored telephone survey and review of state literature found that states rarely mandate inservice training in technology for teachers. Only Alabama and the District of Columbia require any

inservice training in computers or technology for all teachers, In Alabama, five days of general teacher

training are required per year; some of these inservice days must include some training about technology,

but local districts can decide how much. Alabama also requires additional training for personnel who will

serve as computer assistants and computer education teachers. Alabama has several state Department of

Education staff assigned to assist schools with their technology training and followup, including technical

assistance at school sites. The District of Columbia’s recertification process requires that each teacher

complete five credit hours of technology instruction (60 hours) every five years. The District’s central training center has a small staff of persons who not only assist in the technology training but work with the

schools on technology problems throughout the year.

Until this year, Texas required a minimum of 20 hours of inservice training per year for all teachers, in a

range of areas. A recent change in legislation now allows local districts to set their own standards, Texas

funds the majority of the teacher technology training in the state through 20 regional service centers. Mississippi is developing a new state educational technology plan that is projected to include a specific requirement for inservice technology training.

While most states do not mandate technology training for teachers, some support training in other ways

by “strongly” recommending training, providing offsite resources, or encouraging local districts to provide

funding for training. For example, Vermont strongly recommends that districts provide training for teachers

in “all forms of educational technology. ” Florida established technology centers at universities and other

sites to provide resources, training, and curriculum development services.

Montana has established 15 regional training centers, interconnected by a state telecommunications

network, the Montana Educational Technology Network (METNET). METNET facilitates the sharing of teaching resources among the centers through bulletin board systems that feature curriculum guides, lesson

plans, and cooperative learning projects.

SOURCE: Ronald E. Anderson, “State Technology Activities Related to Teachers, ” Off Ice of Technology Assessment contractor report, Nov. 14, 1994.

year might come and you are faced with new I went to an all-day training session. ..1

equipment, something you are not really famil- didn’t even know the basics of computers. . .At

iar with. 34 one point they were talking about a menu. I

It is also a challenge to structure training for started wiping my glasses. ..1 kept cleaning my

teachers with widely varying experience with and glasses looking for the word menu. Then I got

knowledge about technology. Finding oneself in a upset, started running to the bathroom like a

child because I don’t know what is going on

training session that is too complicated or ad- here. Finally I raised my hand timidly. [I said] “I

vanced can be especially frustrating and discour- don’t see anything that looks like food. . .“ It

aging for the novice technology user, as a school was overwhelming for me. ..1 was not computer

librarian described: literate. 35

34 Griffith, op. cit., footnote 2, pp. 52-53.

35 Schofield, op. cit., footnote 10, ch. 4.
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources | 139

■ Onsite Support and Assistance

Teachers’ Perceptions

Typically, formal training sessions in the uses and

mechanics of educational technologies provide

only the basic knowledge that gives teachers an

impetus to further experiment. Beyond this,

teachers consistently report that having a person at

the school site who can help them makes all the

difference in the likelihood of their going further

with technology-someone who is knowledgeable about technology and can help them with

questions or problems. For example, when asked

what one factor would help her decide whether

and how to use a computer, one teacher replied:

If I could have a few hours one-to-one with a

really competent teacher that has used it—just

let me ask questions [about] what I’m afraid of

about a computer, what I don’t understand.36

The inevitable technical and logistical problems that arise with technology are one reason

many teachers feel the need for onsite assistance. These include such problems as machines

that won’t work as promised, restricted access to

locked closets filled with equipment, media carts

that must be scheduled and shared among many

classrooms, equipment that remains broken for

weeks or even months because no one knows how

to fix it and repair requests take weeks or months

to process. For example, one teacher who had to

coordinate computer use with others in her grade,

said that she would rather not have the computer

than to “scuffle around the school” looking for it.

It had become a “pain,” rather than an asset to the

classroom. 37

Problems with scheduling shared resources

such as computers in a lab can also create frustration.38 For example, one elementary school teacher reported that all teachers at her school are

scheduled to use the computer lab twice a week for

Technical support is important in schools, but teachers also

need informal, onsite assistance with tasks such as setting up

equipment in class or trouble-shooting problems with

hardware or software.

half an hour at a time. Some teachers purposefully

miss the time slots: “You’re not supposed to, but

people do, because it is a pain.” According to this

teacher, the scheduled time slots are too short to

accomplish anything, the lab itself is poorly organized, and “some of that stuff up there is so old. . .

and there are always a couple of computers broken.”39

Even experienced technology-using teachers

can find themselves preoccupied with troubleshooting hardware and software problems, rather

than assisting students in their learning activities.

The following notes made by a researcher observing a high school lab illustrate the trials that can

arise; in this case, three teachers, all fairly knowledgeable, were trying to help a half-dozen or so

students who liked to use the computer lab during

their lunch time:

The students. . continue to have a lot of very

nitty-gritty problems. Kathy can’t get the printer

going. . .She’s scowling and says in an annoyed

tone of voice, “Please help me.” Mr. East sug36 Ibid., p. 28.

37 Griffith, op. cit., footnote 2.

38 Zammit, op. cit., footnote 17.

39 Griffith, op. cit., footnote 2, p. 42
140 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

gests several things, and after they try out four or

five different approaches they finally get the paper to print out. Ms. Prentiss has been working

with Sharon on word processing. . .For the last

10 minutes cries like, “I don’t believe it” and

“Oh, no. Not again!” have been emanating from

both of them. . .She can’t get [a second] printer

to work. . .At this point Mark calls to Ms. Prentiss, “I need help. . .” Ms. Prentiss puts her head

down on the desk briefly. She looks at me with

what appears to be a mixture of mock and real

despair and trudges over to Mark. [Later in the

same period] Dan is trying to use a printer which

Mr. East thought he had fixed. Dan’s essay

comes out quadruple spaced. In addition, every

single word is underlined. Ms. Prentiss looks at

it and breaks into almost hysterical laughter.

Dan looks annoyed. Ms. Prentiss says, “I’m

sorry, this is just too much—too, too much!. . .”

Mr. Adams and Mr. East are still working on the

second malfunctioning printer. Mr. Adams says,

“You know I have a trick. What I do with my

[home] computer is just turn it on its side and hit

it. Maybe that will work here. . .” They turn it on

its side and give it a whack as one of them holds

the tension on the paper feed. The machine begins to work.40

As the above examples suggest, a great deal of

what teachers need to know about technology cannot wait for a scheduled training session. As do

most individuals dealing with new technologies,

teachers also need informal assistance—often

with a kind of immediacy that does not lend itself

to afterschool telephone calls. This kind of assistance might include help setting up equipment or

trouble-shooting hardware and software problems

in the classroom—the more “nuts and bolts” kind

of technical support.

However, as discussed in the next section,

teachers also need pedagogical support such as

advice on choosing relevant software and integrating it into a specific lesson, suggestions for

ways the technology can be used to meet particular curricular goals, or ideas about how to organize the whole class to use four computer

workstations or a single computer with a modem. Some schools attempt to overcome these

barriers by having a person onsite who has responsibility for technology coordination within the

building.

Availability of Onsite Computer Support 41

OTA finds that onsite technology support personnel for assisting teachers are limited in most

schools. The percentage of schools that assign a

full-time nonteaching position to coordinate

teachers’ and students’ computer use did not

change at all between 1989 and 1992 and remains

very small. In 1992, as in 1989, only 6 percent of

elementary schools and 3 percent of secondary

schools employed a full-time school-level computer coordinator who did not also have teaching

responsibilities. In nearly three-fifths of all

schools, there was no one in the school who had

any portion of their workweek officially allocated

to coordinating or supervising the computer program. In about one-fifth of these schools, one person, usually a regular teacher or the school media

specialist, has at least half of the job officially defined in terms of computer coordination responsibilities.

In those schools where there is a “major” computer coordinator, how do they report spending

their time?42 As a group, the “major” computer

coordinators report spending an average of 38

hours per week on tasks associated with computer

coordination. But working with teachers to use

40 Schofield, op. cit., footnote 10, ch. 4.

41 Data in this section are from the 1992 International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievements (IEA) Computers in

Education Study as described in Henry J. Becker, “Analysis and Trends of School Use of New Information Technologies,” Office of Technology Assessment contractor report, March 1994. For further description of the IEA study and its findings, see ch. 3 and app. B.

42 For this analysis, “major computer coordinators” includes two groups—“official computer coordinators,” those whose official job descriptions included at least half-time computer coordination duties, and those who reported spending at least 20 hours per week on the tasks of a

coordinator, even though their “official” job description required less.
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources | 141

computers is a very small part of their job, taking

up an average of only 3.6 hours per week, or less

than 10 percent of their total computer coordination time.43 Most of their coordination time is

spent teaching or supervising students who are using computers in computer education classes or in

other subjects. Hardware and software maintenance occupies a larger percentage of time for this

group, on average, than working with teachers.

Thus, OTA finds that even schools with an onsite coordinator do not provide teachers with

very much school-based assistance with computers.

Onsite Support for Instructional

Television and Video44

Although two-thirds of schools have a person designated as a coordinator of instructional television

or video, it is very rare for this to be a full-time

position. In all but 3 percent of schools surveyed

in 1990-91, that person had other duties; most

often he or she was the school librarian, or else

was a teacher, computer coordinator, or administrator.

Whatever their other responsibilities, ITV

coordinators performed a variety of support functions. As reported by the school principals, these

included recording programs for teachers’ later

use (in 81 percent of all schools), distributing

teacher guides to programs (82 percent), assisting

with equipment (90 percent), training teachers to

use video in their teaching (56 percent), coordinating previews and screenings (53 percent), and

helping to produce instructional TV and video

materials (35 percent). Mirroring the fact that video is used more in secondary schools than elementary schools, ITV coordinators at the secondary

level seemed to have more varied responsibilities

than those in elementary schools.

❚ Systemic Factors Influencing

Technology Use

In the last several decades, researchers have begun

to understand some of the processes involved in

bringing about change in schools. Effective implementation of new practices or innovations in

schools is influenced by many factors; these determine the extent to which new educational practices are adopted and maintained over time.

Schools are organizations with many different

players and constituencies. Some school cultures

promote and encourage innovation, others do not.

Teachers are only one part of this complex system

that includes district administrators, principals,

parents, students, local communities, and governmental agencies.45

Some educators think that training and onsite

assistance are the primary ingredients necessary to

facilitate widespread technology use among

teachers. While these ingredients are important, OTA finds they are not sufficient to assure

that technology will be explored and used by

the majority of teachers in a school or district.

Other factors that affect whether teachers use

technology resources include policies that encourage teacher experimentation and collaboration,

the presence of incentives for teacher use of technology, administrative leadership about technology, and public understanding and endorsement of

the importance of technology as a learning and

teaching tool. Two of the most critical among

these are:

43 The “official” computer coordinators (that is, those with job definitions where computer coordination responsibilities constitute at least

one-half of their job) spend somewhat more time in teacher training, but even they average only five hours per week in that activity. 44 Data in this section are drawn from Andrew L. Russell and Thomas R. Curtin, “Study of School Uses of Television and Video: 1990-91

School Year,” Corporation for Public Broadcasting, February 1993, as described in Henry J. Becker, Office of Technology Assessment contractor report, March 1994. For further description of the CPB survey and its findings, see ch. 3 and app. B.

45 See, e.g., Michael G. Fullan, op. cit., footnote 6; William A. Firestone and H. Dickson Corbett, “Planned Organizational Change,” in

Norman J. Boyan (ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (New York: Longman, 1988); David K. Cohen, “Educational

Technology and School Organization,” in Raymond S. Nickerson and Philip P. Zodhiates, Technology in Education: Look Toward 2020 (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988).
142 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

 having a vision and plan for using technology

to meet instructional and professional goals,

and

 evaluation and assessment policies that encourage technology use.

Clarity of Goals: Articulating an

Educational Rationale for Technology Use

As explained in chapter 2, teachers who are experienced technology users can cite many reasons

for using technology in their classrooms. Less experienced users, however, sometimes give rather

vague rationales for adopting technology—for example, “because students need to be exposed to

technology; it’s the future”—reasons that do not

offer a vision of how technology might be used or

a clear directive as to what a teacher might need to

do differently.

It is not only teachers that may lack a clear understanding of what technology can offer them,

however. Responding to external pressures to

“modernize,” some schools and districts have acquired technology without a clear goal or educational rationale for its use.46 For example, a

computer lab might symbolize to parents and the

public that a school is well-equipped to prepare

children for the world of the future, even if the

computers are never turned on. As one teacher

said:

[Having a computer lab is] something you

can brag about to parents. . .We’re in direct

competition with private schools and Mr. Miller,

the vice-principals, and the counselors romance

the parents at the beginning of 9th grade. “You

sure want to send your students here. . .Let me

show you what’s going on. . .” They [visit] the

room downstairs showing them the marvelous

new machines. . .which many private schools

simply cannot afford.47

Furthermore, many school systems have not

begun to explore the ways that technology can

help them function better or differently as institutions and workplaces. Few teachers have been

encouraged to view new technologies as professional tools that can help them do their jobs

better, more efficiently, or in new ways. For

many teachers, the technology that has most revolutionized their working life has been the copying

machine; not only has the drudgery of the ditto

machine and preparing masters been eliminated,

but copying substantially broadens the range of

materials a teacher can easily make available to

students. Yet, some teachers report that access to

and use of copying machines is restricted or

cumbersome in their school buildings—for example, there may be long lines at machines during

precious times when teachers are not in charge of

their students or budgetary restrictions on the

amount of paper teachers are allowed to use.

When so many schools do not encourage teachers

to use even the most basic labor-saving tools, it is

not surprising to find that teachers are not supported in using more advanced technologies.

Compatible Assessment and

Evaluation Systems

Ultimately, teachers will evaluate themselves and

be evaluated by others based on the performance

of their students. Teachers may be reluctant to experiment with new ways of teaching or new technological tools unless they are reasonably sure

results will be reflected in improved student test

scores.48 Seldom can such an assurance be made,

because traditional standardized tests may not

46 Means et al., op. cit., footnote 17.

47 Janet W. Schofield and David Verban, “Barriers and Incentives to Computer Usage in Teaching,” Technical Report No. 1, Learning Research and Development Center, September 1988, pp. 30-31.

48 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions, OTA-SET-519 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1992).
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources | 143

be particularly good measures of the kinds of

learning fostered by innovative uses of some

technologies. 49 This problem was illustrated by

the experience of a California school that pur-

- chased computers for all its students and teachers,

as well as videodisc players and television production equipment. These technologies were used

for challenging projects, such as producing a television news show, that required students to work

together and engage in planning and solving

problems.

When test scores on the Iowa Test of Basic

Skills for the first year of this project failed to

show any increases, disillusionment set in. The

computers were removed from students’ desks or

even sold and a new school board, stressing a

“back-to-basics” approach, was selected. All this

happened in spite of the fact that the new approach

had hardly been in place long enough to reasonably be expected to show a strong impact and that

the Iowa tests are not an appropriate measure of

the ability to work cooperatively or to plan complex projects.50

The evaluation and assessment system by

which teachers are judged can be either an incentive or disincentive for technology use by teachers. When decisions regarding promotions or

tenure take technology use and expertise into account, teachers are encouraged to experiment and

work in this area. Furthermore, if teachers are expected to use technology as a tool in their own development, this sends strong signals to the

profession. For example, teachers seeking national “Master Teacher” certification from the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards must

fulfill a number of requirements to apply for the

certification, including using technology to videotape their own classroom instruction and going

to an assessment center to evaluate other teachers’

videotapes of instructional practices.51

High school teachers develop their own projects as part of a

TERC LabNet workshop, where they learn how to implement

project-based investigations in their classrooms.

However, evaluating teachers on how often or

how well they use technology in their teaching can

have drawbacks, especially if, for example, the

principal is not well versed in the various ways

teachers can use technology effectively. Moreover, teachers may feel it is unfair to evaluate them

if they have not received training and support in

technology use. For example, one teacher who

shared a computer among three classrooms admitted to her principal during her end-of-the-year

evaluation that she did not use the computer

much. She cited the logistical struggles associated

49 Means, op. cit., footnote 17; Joan L. Herman “Evaluating the Effects of Technology in School Reform” in B. Means (ed.), Technology

and Education Reform: The Reality Behind The Promise (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994).

50 Means, op. cit., footnmote 17, p. 88.

51 Lynda Richardson, "First 81 Teachers Qualify for National Certification,” The New York Times, Jan. 6, 1995, pp. A-1, 16.
144 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

with sharing the computer and the problems stemming from a lack of any computer experience or

training. This teacher was marked down on her

evaluation form for not using the computer, and

her overall rating was lowered from “outstanding”

to “good.” The teacher felt quite angry about this,

stating, “If she wants me to use it, then she needs

to train me and she needs to have a computer available in my room.”52

APPROACHES TO ENHANCE

TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION

❚ Overview

There are many schools that have thriving

technology efforts, and many teachers who are using technology adeptly. The experiences of these

places and people offer examples of strategies, pitfalls, and lessons for others that are beginning the

process of integrating technology into teaching

and learning.

Through case studies, a workshop, site visits,

and literature reviews, OTA has examined the experience of schools, districts, and states where the

adoption of technology has been made a priority.53 Many of these places were “early adopters”

and have several years of experience with the

process of technology diffusion. How have they

gone about infusing technology into classrooms?

What resources, such as training, onsite support,

planning, and more, have these places provided

teachers to help them learn about technology and

understand how it might help them meet their

educational goals? What incentives have these

sites offered teachers to enlist their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment? What other conditions

are necessary to assure that technology is used

effectively?

Schools and districts have undertaken different

strategies to get technologies used more widely in

their educational programs. These approaches

share certain characteristics and they are not

mutually exclusive; most schools combine more

than one approach. The choice of approach will

vary depending on the educational goals a site

hopes to achieve with its technology and existing

technological and human resources at the site.

There are not a great deal of independent data on

the effectiveness of these different strategies or

which ones work best for different goals or in various kinds of schools. In describing these strategies, OTA offers examples of approaches that

districts and schools say have worked for them.

Behind each technology implementation strategy lies a set of decisions about how best to allocate scarce technology resources. Each place has

made decisions about how to invest in and distribute hardware and software—not only which

technology to buy, but whether to concentrate re52 Griffith, op. cit., footnote 2, p. 60.

53 In addition to the works directly cited, the next two sections also draw on the following: Arkansas Department of Education, IMPAC

Phase I Research and Phase II Programs: Instructional Microcomputer Project for Arkansas Classrooms (Little Rock, AK: 1992); California

Department of Education, Building the Future: K-12 Network Technology Planning Guide (Sacramento, CA: 1994); Central Kitsap School

District, Strategy 2020: Creating a Culture for Change (Silverdale, WA: 1991); Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, Moving Ahead with a Vision

of Instructional Technology Use (Chapel Hill, NC: spring 1991); J.D. Ellis, “Teacher Development in Advanced Educational Technology,”

Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 1, No. 1, 1992, pp. 49-65; M. Fullan, M.B. Miles, and S.E. Anderson, Strategies for Implementing Microcomputers in Schools: The Ontario Case (Toronto: Ministry of Education of Ontario, 1988); D.S. Hurst, “Teaching Technology

to Teachers,” Educational Leadership, vol. 51, No. 7, April 1994; S. Milton et al., Microcomputers and Other Educational Technology in the

Florida Public Schools: Impact, Access, Implementation and Policy Issues (Tallahassee, FL: Center for Policy Studies in Education, June

1989); S.E. Persky, “What Contributes to Teacher Development in Technology?” Educational Technology, vol. 30, No. 4, 1990, pp. 34-38; D.

Paul, “An Integration/Inservice Model That Works,” T.H.E. Journal, vol. 21, No. 9, April 1994, pp. 60-62; J.D. Russell, D. Sorge, and D. Brickner, “Improving Technology Implementation in Grades 5-12 with the ASSURE Model,” T.H.E. Journal, vol. 21, No. 9, April 1994, pp. 66-70;

J.H. Sandholtz, C. Ringstaff, and D.C. Dwyer, Teaching in High-Tech Environments: Classroom Management Revisited, First-Fourth Year

Findings, Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Report #10 (Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer, Inc., 1990); L. Schrum, “Tales from the Trenches:

Educators’ Perspective on Technology Implementation,” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 1, No. 4, 1993, pp. 409-421; P.A.

Sturdivant, “Technology Training. . . Some Lessons Can Be Learned,” Educational Technology, vol. 29, No. 3, 1989, pp. 31-35.
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources | 145

sources to make some sites “technology rich” or

spread the technology more thinly across many

more sites. For example, some states and districts

have created model technology schools, described

- more fully below, choosing to invest heavily in a

limited number of “technology-rich” sites. Even

within a building, there can be different models of

implementation: distributing technology resources evenly among classes, as opposed to placing all the technology in a lab or other central

location or targeting placement in certain classrooms, grades, or curricular departments.

Schools and districts must also determine how

to allocate human resource investments to assure

that the technology will be used effectively in

school buildings. Most of the strategies described

below make significant investments in three elements of teacher support: appropriate and timely

training; expertise to support and help teachers;

and time for teachers to learn, “mess around” with

technology, and work with colleagues. Some sites

have chosen to develop a few “master teachers” at

a site who are then responsible for teaching and

training their colleagues, referred to as the “trainthe-trainers” strategy. Other sites choose to invest

more in providing an onsite expert, such as

technology coordinator, who can support teachers

and keep the school moving forward on incorporating new technologies. Still others choose to distribute the expertise by providing a critical mass

of teachers at one site with technology tools and

opportunities to learn, experiment, and adapt the

technology to their own instructional needs. Additionally, giving every teacher a computer, training

school and district administrators and establishing technology resource centers are implementation strategies, often used in combination with

these other approaches. Each of these strategies is

described in the section below.

■ Training the Trainers

A common strategy used to train teachers in many

different topic areas is the “train-the-trainers” apIn the “train-the-trainers” model, teachers are selected for

extensive technology training in specific applications so they

can then return to their schools and train other teachers to

implement those technologies.

preach. In this model, selected teachers—those

who are most enthusiastic and motivated to learn

about a particular topic—are given intensive

training. These teachers return to their buildings

where they demonstrate and provide onsite training in the new techniques to other teachers. Teacher-trainers can share new knowledge with other

teachers in any number of ways, including oneon-one peer tutoring or school-sponsored workshops on release days or in the summer. An

advantage of this model is that teacher-trainers

can continue to be available to other staff after the

formal training has ended.

This train-the-trainers model has been used to

support school improvement and change for a variety of curricular and pedagogical goals in the

past, and has also been adopted in some places to

facilitate the integration of technology into classrooms. For example, in 1984-85 the Jefferson

County (Kentucky) School District launched a

major four-year plan, called the New Kid in

School Project.54 A 32-unit networked computer

lab was installed in each of the district’s 87 elementary schools and five teachers from each

school were chosen to participate in a 60-hour

training program at a central district site. These

54 Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 3.
146 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

teachers were then expected to train other teachers

in their schools. The district offered participating

teachers release time, stipends, and inservice credit for their training activities. Jefferson County

used the same training approach when it implemented major technology initiatives in its middle

and high schools. An independent evaluation of

the New Kid in School Project, six years after its

inception, concluded that the trained teachers had

emerged as instructional leaders in their schools

and took key roles in managing and guiding

technology use.

The idea of training more than one person from

a site seemed to be a key ingredient for the project’s success. As one superintendent said, “The

change process follows an old notion, that two

people in a building can support each other and encourage the change to take hold.”55 However,

training teachers in groups is not the only factor

required for success.

Another factor critical to the success of many

train-the-trainers projects is the availability of

support and resources for the teacher-trainers once

they return to their buildings. If these trained

teachers are expected to share their knowledge

with colleagues, they must be given time and administrative support. Furthermore, research suggests that there are personal characteristics that

affect success; effective onsite technology leaders

need interpersonal and organizational skills, as

well as technical knowledge, in order to interest

and motivate colleagues less inclined toward using new technology.56

An extension of the basic train-the-trainers

model is being used at Webster Elementary

School, a model technology school in St. Augustine, Florida. When their technology program began in 1989, the school held training sessions for

all staff two afternoons a week, from 2:45 p.m. to

3:30 p.m., as part of the normal workday. As

teachers began to feel comfortable with the

technology and show enthusiasm, planners offered them the opportunity to become an expert in

a particular piece of hardware or software. Those

who were interested were given extra time to learn

about the technology, more one-on-one training,

and opportunities to attend technology conferences. A central list identifying these “experts”

was posted in the building, and when other teachers had problems with a particular piece of hardware or software, they could consult the resident

expert. According to the principal, teachers have

developed pride in their new skills and have become quite self-sufficient. Technology use within

the building no longer depends on outside facilitators or a single onsite expert. The principal notes

with pride, “Our teacher experts do the training.”57

❚ Providing Appropriate Technology

Resource Personnel

Several models have been used to supply the continuing specialized technology support that teachers find so valuable. These include providing

temporary onsite support from commercial vendors or the school or district, or continuing support provided onsite by the school or the district.

At the beginning of a technology initiative,

when a school is implementing a new technology

plan or making a significant investment in hardware, bringing in a facilitator or resource person

from outside of the school may be an important

component of that plan. Research on implementa55 Ibid., pp. 7.4.

56 For example, see Neal B. Strudler, “The Role of School-Based Technology Coordinators as Change Agents in Elementary School Programs: A Follow-Up Study,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, Apr.

5, 1994; Matthew B. Miles, E.R. Saxl, and A. Lieberman, “What Skills Do Educational ‘Change Agents’ Need? An Empirical View,” Curriculum Inquiry, vo1. 8, No. 2, 1988, pp. 157-193.

57 Cathy Hutchins and Roger Coffee, “Teacher Experts: Empowering Staff Through Technology,” paper presented at the meeting of the

National Association of Elementary Principals, Orlando, FL, Mar. 8, 1994, p. 2.
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources | 147

tion of innovations in schools has consistently

shown that onsite assistance contributes to effective implementation of new ideas.58 For example,

if a commercial vendor is supplying a large

amount of software and hardware to a site, its

package will often include a resource person,

employed by the vendor, who spends a designated

amount of time at the site training teachers and

helping to “work out the glitches” with the

technology. Alternatively the district or school

may commit funds for a district employee or

teacher at the school to facilitate the technology

implementation for an initial year or two. Often

this strategy assumes that the facilitators will

“work themselves out of a job” after the initial implementation phase.

Some evidence suggests, however, that it may

be difficult for onsite technology facilitators to

phase themselves out completely. A researcher

who visited three Oregon schools to observe the

computer programs at two different points in time,

seven years apart reported:

During the initial study, all of the [computer]

coordinators projected that they would work

themselves out of their jobs in anywhere from

two to five years. Implicit in this goal was the

idea that as teachers became comfortable with

computers and various software programs, they

would eventually use them in their teaching and

no longer rely upon the help of a coordinator.

While this is a laudable goal to work toward, in

retrospect, it underestimated complexity of

educational change with technology and the

amount of sustained effort that it would require

of teachers. . .

Three factors. . .contributed to the difficulty

that coordinators found as they attempted to

“work themselves out of their jobs”: the rapid

pace of technological change as it pertains to

schools, the concerns of teachers that appear to

affect their adoption of technology-based innovations, and the need for coordinating the

“nuts and bolts” of educational computing.59

Regarding the ongoing concerns of teachers,

the researcher wrote:

When will technology become a high enough

priority for a majority of teachers so that they

pursue it as a regular part of their professional

responsibilities? Data gathered indicate that we

are still in an awkward transition period in

which the benefits of teaching and learning with

technology do not necessarily outweigh the

costs. While teachers are increasingly citing the

benefits that students derive from computer use,

they must weigh the costs in terms of their time

and the difficulties of managing to find appropriate software and then get adequate computer access for their students. It follows that as

the quantity and quality of technology-based applications increase in the schools, more teachers

will make technology a high priority. Meanwhile, the support provided by an effective coordinator serves to “tip the scales” for teachers

weighing the costs and benefits of technology

use.60

Jefferson County (Kentucky) provides an example of a districtwide attempt to provide a

centralized resource pool of experts who advise

and train teachers.61 This very large urban district

(96,000 students, 5,000 teachers, 153 schools) has

been expanding and refining a major technology

initiative begun in 1984. The District’s Computer

Education Support Unit, now staffed by 22

people, has primary responsibility for countywide

technology training and support. In addition, the

support unit has many other responsibilities,

including helping schools determine their technology needs, integrating technology into the cur58 Firestone and Corbett, op. cit., footnote 45.

59 Strudler, op. cit., footnote 56, p. 18.

60 Ibid., p. 19.

61 Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 3.
148 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

riculum, and overseeing implementation of the

state technology guidelines. To provide technical

support, the support unit maintains a “help desk”

that any county public school employee can call

with a question; the help desk receives 20 to 30

questions a day. Support unit staff have prepared

50 independent inservice units on topics that

range from basic computer operation, to software

selection and use, to integrating video into

instruction. The unit has several training rooms

set up with appropriate equipment, where inservice workshops for teachers are held. Twelve

Computer Inservice Teachers are employed by the

support unit to provide direct support to teachers

and schools (see box 4-3). This is a coveted position; last year the unit received 60 applications for

two positions. In 1993, the support unit cost

approximately $916,000 for staff operation—a

tiny fraction (0.2 percent) of the district’s $500

million budget.62

❚ Model Technology Schools

and Classrooms

A number of states and districts have set up model

technology schools, that is, regular schools in

which a special emphasis is placed on developing

student skills with and through the use of technology. By creating technology-rich environments

and enlisting the involvement of those teachers

and administrators who are most enthusiastic,

model technology sites can “pave the way” for

other schools to follow and can yield lessons to

guide later technology investments. These sites

can also serve as living laboratories that others can

visit and learn from.

Monterey Model Technology Schools

(MMTS) Project is one such example—a partnership between the Monterey Peninsula Unified

School District and the California Department of

Education.63 The MMTS project represents one

of six projects funded by the California Department of Education “to develop and validate a wide

range of technology-based instructional and administrative programs, practices and planning

procedures to be disseminated to other schools

throughout California.”64 Although there are 24

schools in the Monterey Peninsula Unified School

District, only four (two elementary, one middle,

and one high school) are Model Technology

Schools. The four schools were selected not on the

basis of their readiness to adopt technology, but on

two other criteria—schools had to be located in a

community where the demographics of the student body mirrored the state as a whole, and the

schools participating had to provide a continuum

(i.e., the elementary schools fed into a participating middle school and then the participating high

school).

The project was funded by the state, and all

teachers in the participating schools—whose interest in and familiarity with technology varied

greatly—were asked to commit themselves to the

project.65 It was recognized that teachers embrace

instructional technology use at different rates. By

bringing together the technologically naive and

fearful with the proficient and adventurous, it is

possible to build a climate of mutual support and a

culture of school technology use. It was anticipated that this process was more likely to be ex62 Overall, Jefferson County Schools spent about 1 percent of the yearly budget on technology purchases, installation, upkeep, and support.

Ibid.

63 Ibid.

64 J.D. Cradler et al., Monterey Model Technology Schools: Cumulative Research and Evaluation Report, 1987-1992 (as cited in Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 3, p. 6.4).

65 Those who did not want to work in a school endorsing substantial technology use were given the opportunity to transfer to other schools in

the district, but none did. Some teachers chose not to participate during the first year of the project; some of these teachers and some others later

transferred to other schools or retired.
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources 149

In Jefferson County, Kentucky, 12 computer inservice teachers (CITs) work directly with the teachers in

the districts’ 153 schools. Each CIT is currently assigned to 16 schools, a challenging load in the opinion of

many. Typical duties include:

■

■

●

■

■

■

●

talking on the phone or in person with school technology coordinators to schedule teacher training

workshops or ensure that the pace of the school’s technology spending is on track;

trouble-shooting software and hardware problems;

ordering equipment for schools through the district’s procurement service;

working with individual teachers to integrate technology into their instruction;

working with the school technology committee and the technology coordinator to review school technology needs and prepare a technology plan;

presenting three-hour afterschool workshops for the teachers in their assigned schools; and

presenting all-day workshops on a particular computer topic such as Hypercard or using spreadsheets

in history classes.

With so many different demands, CITs have found that they must rely on each other for expertise and

support. CITs carry a Powerbook with an internal modem. This allows them to access the Computer Support Unit e-mail system, and leave and receive messages for each other or their supervisors at any time.

Although the expertise of each CIT is somewhat different, they share a core knowledge about feasible ways

to integrate technology into instruction. As one CIT put it:

We start with curriculum first, We ask teachers, “What do you want to do?” Then we Iook to see how technology can

accomplish it. But it always comes back to the curriculum first. Do you really need the technology, or have you just

been sold a line?

The CITs respect the teachers they work with and appreciate the human dimension to technology infusion. As one teacher told us:

Computer Resource people are not insulting when they talk with you. And the attention and support they give you

is just incredible. They don’t tell you what to do, they invite you to do it. They just put this little bug in your ear and walk

away. “You know, ” they say, “You really should try telecommunications. Take a look at this World Classroom program....” and then you think, “Hmmm. This does look interesting. .“ The Computer Inservice Teachers set the

stage and the environment, and then I drive myself to learn it.

Another teacher talked about the informal process of technology infusion that occurs within a school:

First the Computer lnservice Teachers help you. And then you finally get it down and it spreads. It’s exciting Other

teachers see you using technology. All you got to do is show what your kids are doing to another teacher. They see that

the kids are so excited and Iearning things and they want to do it in their class. So they learn it, and the teacher next

door comes down and says, ‘(Now Cindy’s kids are using computers; I want mine to use them too. When are you going

to show me how to do it?”

SOURCE: John R. Mergendoller et al , “Case Studies of Exemplary Approaches to Training Teachers to Use Technology, ” Off Ice of

Technology Assessment contractor report, September 1994, pp. 18-19.

portable to other schools than selecting a school First-year training centered on “Technology

where all teachers are “ready” to use technology. Awareness Days” focused around the subject

Originally funded in 1987, the first five years areas of language arts, mathematics, and science,

were focused on developing technology imple- to provide a general overview of what could be acmentation projects and training, with dissemina- complished with educational technology. Gradution activities targeted for year six onward. ally, what began as a technology training program
150 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

matics Courses, Using Laptops for Process

At Monterey Model Technology Schools, teachers produce a

video for dissemination to other schools as part of the

district's teacher training.

evolved into instructional mentoring, changing

the focus from broad curriculum areas and operating skills to an emphasis on targeted student outcomes and behaviors. At this point, MMTS

developed the Classroom Intervention Plan (CIP),

which became the centerpiece of the MMTS

technology infusion model. Each teacher or teacher team develops a CIP outlining the curriculum

emphasis (and its relationship to their school’s

planning goals and those of the California curriculum framework), the desired and measurable end

results; the necessary hardware, materials, and

staff development; the evaluation plan; products

and procedures for dissemination; and a budget

(including substitute time). In addition to hosting

scheduled visits by interested teachers and administrators, the Model Technology Schools provide

three types of training and dissemination activities to teachers from Monterey and other districts

in California:

1.

—

Technology Demonstration Centers. Teachers who are well-trained veterans of the MMTS

program hold a day-long session in which they

demonstrate their knowledge for a group of 2 to

12 teachers. Topics include such things as InfoTrek and Telecommunications, Logo in Mathe2.

3.

Writing, and Using Video- and Camcorders

across the Curriculum.

Technology Training Seminars.More extensive two-day hands-on training workshops are

offered to teachers on six different technology

configurations: Telecommunications, OneComputer Classroom, Laptops and Process

Writing, Multimedia, Video, Instructional

Television. Teams of at least two teachers from

the same school must attend together to facilitate support when they return. In addition to

spending considerable time on hands-on exploration of hardware and courseware, participating teachers develop an individual project to

use in their own classrooms.

Teacher Productions. The MMTS teachers

have produced several documents, discs, and

videos showcasing the projects they have implemented in their classrooms. These are based

on the CIPS described above. Selected project

descriptions and productions in the MMTS

products catalog are shown in box 4-4.

On a smaller scale, some schools or districts

have chosen to start with model technology classrooms instead of schools. The Integrated Technology Classrooms (ITC), begun in 1987 in

Bellevue, Washington, are one such example.66

Under a pilot program in two elementary classrooms, teachers who had demonstrated enthusiasm for using computers were given a range of

instructional technologies. The theory was that

concentrating technology expenditures in a single

classroom would demonstrate the value of

technologies.

The program has been very popular and successful in drawing in other teachers. The number

of ITC classrooms has grown from two in 1988 to

more than 60 today. The ITC teachers, each in a

different school, have worked with colleagues in

their buildings to model technology use and help

teach others about it.

66 Mersendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 3.
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources 151

The following are examples of handbooks, software, and videos produced by Monterey Model Technology School teachers to illustrate technology activities they have used in their classrooms.

Minds in Motion

A series of learning activities for the elementary classroom using LogoWriterTM and Lego® logo kits in

cooperative learning groups.

Integrating Technology into the California Writing Project

This guide stands as a roadmap for teachers who wish to enhance the writing process through the use

of instructional television, video, and computer technology.

Into the Eye of the Atom

This physical science unit has been developed to assist students in visualizing and conceptualizing

structure of atoms and molecules using laser, video, and computer technology.

Database of Dietary Choice

A guide to creative uses of databases and spreadsheets in the home economics curriculum.

The Whole CAKE: Computers Assisting Kids in Education

the

A team of elementary teachers developed this integrated, technology-based instructional model to help

students improve their oral and written expression, increase exposure to quality literature, develop good

handwriting skills, and improve the quality of television viewing.

Lit Vid Kits

This model was developed as a means of creating motivating language arts experiences in a school-tohome format for elementary students. Its focus is on English language acquisition and non-English-speaking parent education. It includes reading, listening, viewing, speaking, and writing activities related to thematic units in literature and science (available in English or Spanish).

An Integrated Approach to Geometry Using Manipulative, Robotics, and Computers

This collection of classroom learning activities was developed to meet the needs of middle school students facing difficulties in mastering geometric concepts.

Echoes

This kit provides teachers with a model for developing units that intensify student interest in civics and

economics and enhance cooperation in teamwork settings.

ARTT

This resource outlines planning, building and management of video libraries to enhance the instructional

process in a secondary arts program.

SOURCE. California Model Technology Schools Project-Monterey, 1995.
152 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

❚ Giving Every Teacher a Computer

Although this strategy is still quite rare and experimental, some schools and districts are giving

each teacher a computer to use as a personal and

professional productivity tool. As discussed in

chapter 2, computers can help teachers carry out

many aspects of their job, such as keeping records,

updating lesson plans, and constructing tests. The

rationale is that as teachers begin to see direct

benefits from technology, in terms of saving time

or expediting routine tasks, they will become

more motivated to learn about computers. And as

teachers gain confidence with and understanding

of computers and related technologies in their

own work, they may begin to experiment with using technologies with their students. While some

training is still important in this strategy, the real

learning is believed to come from giving teachers

unlimited access to the technology (and potentially more time on the equipment), new motivation

for learning to use it, and a community of peers

who are trying to master the same tools. Because

teachers do much of their planning and paper work

at home, some sites allow teachers to take their

computers home routinely or keep them there;

others provide laptop computers they can carry

back and forth.

One innovative program that uses this strategy,

and is sponsored by the Indiana Department of

Education, is called A Computer for Every Teacher (CET). Begun in 1990, CET made competitive

grants to four small schools on the basis of proposals. Participating schools had to assure that all

teachers and other professional staff in the school

would participate. Every teacher in the funded

schools received a computer and printer for use at

home or in school, as they saw fit. The program

aimed:

. . .to improve teacher productivity and enhance teacher professionalism with the longrange goal of improving student performance. It

is based on the belief that teachers are information-age professionals who should be using contemporary technology to accomplish their work.

By using such technology, their personal productivity will improve and, consequently, so

will their instructional efforts and impacts in the

classroom.67

CET program grants covered training that focused on basic computer functions and software

selected by each school. Training at all sites included basic elements of wordprocessing, graphics, spreadsheets, and databases; most teachers

were also taught how to use a gradebook program.

Participants viewed the requirement to involve all

professional staff as an important component of

the program; “everyone means teachers, administrators, and support staff, all working together on

the same tasks of mastering computers and software.”68

This formal, public commitment also gave leverage to the coordinators when it was time to

train the school staff. While there was some reluctance—and training did not turn around every

teacher—almost all teachers and administrators

learned how to accomplish some basic functions

on the computer. An outside evaluation of the

project two years after it had been implemented in

the four sites concluded that the program was

highly successful in meeting its goals and helped

teachers improve their productivity, enhance their

sense of professionalism, and increase individual

and institutional esteem.69 (See box 2-6 in chapter

2.)

Results of another experiment in Utah, the

“Lifestyle Change” Project, indicated that teachers are highly motivated by the opportunity to

have a computer of their own. Recognizing the

drawbacks of training teachers to use technology

that is only sporadically available to them, this

67 Saul Rockman, James Pershing, and William Ware, “Productivity, Professionalism, and Empowerment: Given a Computer for Every

Teacher,” report prepared for the Indiana State Department of Education, October 1992, p. 3.

68 Ibid., p. iv.

69 Ibid.
Chapter 4 HeIping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources | 153

project put a computer in the hands of all teachers

and administrators in Utah’s Morgan School District. To qualify for a computer, which could be

used at school or at home, teachers had to - complete a comprehensive program of training,

including a course introducing Macintosh hardware, a gradebook package, word processing,

graphics manipulation, a program for developing

classroom tests, Hypercard for software authoring, and a course on videodisc/CD-ROM. Teachers were also required to complete a portfolio of

computer-generated materials such as gradesheets, worksheets, Hypercard stacks, videodisc

lessons, and word-processed documents.

An outside evaluation of the Lifestyle Change

Project concluded:

Including principals in school-based technology training

means they will be informed and comfortable with the

technology, and more likely to provide leadership and support

for school wide technology use.

The “Lifestyles” Project of the Morgan

School District has succeeded in enlisting the

active involvement of 84 out of 86 potential participants. From the results of a written questionnaire, a series of interviews, onsite observations,

and an examination of individual assignments

completed, the Project receives high marks for

both involvement and attitude change. Along a

number of dimensions. . . this has the earmarks

of being a superior project.70

Training Administrators

Research on the adoption of innovations in

schools consistently points to the key role of administrative leaders in successful implementation. Involved and supportive superintendents are

central to districtwide reform efforts, and principals are key to implementation within the school

building?7l OTA has consistently found that

when administrators are informed about and

comfortable with technology, they become key

players in leading and supporting technology

integration activities in their schools.72 Some

technology implementation efforts are building

on these lessons by including principals or other

key administrative staff in training opportunities

offered to teachers.

One approaches to include principals in schoolbased teams chosen to receive intensive training

in technology use. For example, the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow Teacher Development Center

Project looks at the commitment of the principal

when selecting teacher teams for training. Not

only are principals encouraged to attend portions

of the training program with the teacher team, but

they also must commit to the following conditions: release time for teachers to attend project

training sessions, time for teachers to meet and

70 Nick Eastmond and Inhae Kim, "An Evaluation of the Project ‘A Lifestyle Change’ Final Report," unpublished manuscript, Apr. 9, 1992,

pp. 22-23.

71 Fullan, op. cit., footnote 6; Firestone and Corbett, op. cit., footnote 45.

72 See, U.S.Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On!: New Tools for Teaching and Learning, OTA SET-379 (Washington

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988); Linking for Learning: A New Course for Education, OTA-SET-430 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1989); Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 3; Griffith, op. cit., footnote 2.
154 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

plan each day, time for teachers to reflect on practice, and acknowledgment of the importance of

their teachers’ efforts to the rest of the staff.73

Since 1990, Indiana has sponsored a statewide

training program specifically for principals. In its

first two years, the Principals’ Technology Leadership Training Program served almost 400 Indiana principals.74 Over the course of a year, each

principal takes four days of professional training

with other principals at a central site. By scheduling sessions at different points in the year, the program built in time for principals to go back to their

schools, practice what they learned, and talk to

staff and better define what they needed and

wanted. In the workshops, principals learned

about a broad range of technology and software

available for classroom and office use and had a

chance for hands-on exploration of a large collection of equipment.

Participating principals have been very enthusiastic about the Technology Leadership Program.

In addition to reporting that they felt more confident and credible in dealing with technology, and

better able to use technology for administrative

tasks, participating principals said they were more

capable of creatively using capital project funds,

writing grants, or justifying expenditures to

school boards. After the training, many principals

conducted training for their teachers; others reported that they were better equipped to think

comprehensively about the technology in their

schools and how best to use it. Principals rated an

update session, held the following year, as very

valuable, and most principals endorsed the need

for some kind of ongoing “refresher programs.”

Although there are no systematic data on the effects of training principals, the Apple Classroom

of Tomorrow (ACOT) and Indiana examples demonstrate the feasibility and importance of enlisting

principals in the diffusion of technology in

schools.

❚ Establishing Technology

Resource Centers

Some states and districts have established technology resource centers where teachers can experiment with different hardware, try out software

programs before buying, consult experts, and receive training. For example, Calcasieu Parish

Schools in Lake Charles, Louisiana, established a

district “Tech Center” that offers training on different technologies, a satellite dish to receive or

record educational teleconferences, and online

computer access to a library of over 100 current

periodicals and other resources. The center remains open until 7 p.m., three nights a week, and

is open on Saturday mornings.75

Texas supports 20 Regional Education Service

Centers (RESC) that provide a wide range of services to school districts in their region on a variety

of educational issues, including technology.76 Although RESCs receive operating funds from

many different budgets, the Texas Education

Agency distributes $6 million a year to RESCs

specifically to support technology initiatives.

Each RESC has considerable flexibility in the way

funds are used but is expected to carry out the following activities, at a minimum: 1) maintaining a

Technology Preview Center where district personnel can “investigate and select technologies

appropriate to meet local needs;” 2) helping districts train teachers, administrators and other staff

in technology-related topics; 3) training first-year

73 Cathy Ringstaff, Keith Yocam, and David C. Dwyer, “ACOT Teacher Development Center Annual Progress Report: Year One,” unpublished manuscript, n.d.

74 S. Rockman and K.R. Sloan, “A Program That Works: Indiana’s Principals’ Technology Leadership Training Program,” report prepared

for the Indiana State Department of Education, San Francisco, CA, June 1993.

75 As described in Metropolitan Education Research Consortium (MERC) Research Brief #8, “Developing Exemplary Technology-Using

Teachers,” May 1994, MERC’s Work, vol. I, No. 2, 1994.

76 Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 3.
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources | 155

teachers in technology use; and 4) disseminating

material from the Texas Center for Educational

Technology. (See box 5-3 in chapter 5.)

A typical RESC has at least one training room

equipped with computers, all with connections to

TENET, the statewide computer network for

teachers. Some of the computers also have network connections to the Internet. (See box 3-4 in

chapter 3.) This room or an adjacent room generally serves as a Preview Center. RESCs purchase

software and hardware for the center, and several

software publishers provide copies of their products to each center at no charge. Most RESCs offer

a continuous series of workshops, seminars, and

training sessions on various topics related to

technology use in schools; teachers are the primary users of these staff development activities.

Larger RESCs have as many as five or six staff

who work full time in the technology area.

LESSONS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY

IMPLEMENTATION

Based on OTA-contracted case studies and site

visits, and a number of other research and evaluation studies, OTA has drawn some lessons about

how to foster effective use of technology by teachers in K-12 schools. Sites that have made technology a priority, such as those described above,

provide lessons about how to implement new

technologies, how to make decisions about acquisition and investment in technologies, and

what kinds of support can help teachers use

technology effectively. Leadership necessary to

infuse technology comes from many sources: the

state, the district, and the individual school (see

box 4-5). Ideally, all these work together to support the teacher’s efforts to learn about technology

and use it to meet classroom goals.

❚ Key Issues for Investing in Technology

Access

Several factors seem to be essential for making the

best use of hardware and software in schools. The

first condition is ready access to hardware and

software. Access cannot be assessed simply by

looking at the numbers—how much hardware and

software a school owns tells you little about its accessibility. To be accessible, technology must be

readily available for teachers to use when they

need it:

. . .not simply for uses that can be predicted

in advance and squeezed into a fixed time slot.

For example, teachers are far more likely to use

video for instruction when the choice and timing

are under their control. Similarly, teachers and

administrators are less likely to use telecommunications networks when they must go to a remote location to do so. Nor can students exploit

the full power of word processing if they must

wait for their daily or weekly scheduled time in a

lab.77

Ready access to equipment is also a precondition for teacher training. It is extremely frustrating

for teachers to learn to use technology in a workshop, then return to a classroom that does not have

it. Some have experimented with postworkshop

“Try and Buy” programs that supply teachers with

necessary equipment for four to six weeks or so, to

enable them to become more familiar with a

technology before the school decides whether it

wants to buy it. Schools are trying to increase

teacher access by letting them take equipment

home.

Access also requires keeping hardware and

software in up-to-date working order. For schools

to incorporate technology into their program in a

meaningful, long-term way, they must recognize

77 Jane L. David, “Realizing the Promise of Technology: A Policy Perspective,” in B. Means (ed.), op. cit., footnote 49, p. 178.
156 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

The State of New Jersey provides an interesting example of the planning process involved in bringing

technology into K-1 2 schools, and how that process has evolved over time.

In 1986, the New Jersey Department of Education developed Education/ Technology in New Jersey: A

Plan for Action, which outlined the department’s role in helping districts develop policies, practices, and programs to increase student learning through computers and other forms of educational technology. It was recognized that changes in technology would probably necessitate a new plan within a few years. In 1991 New

Jersey Commissioner of Education John Ellis initiated a process for developing a statewide long-range plan

for educational technology, an idea reinforced by the Quality Education Commission of New Jersey. In February 1992, the Department of Education formed a 60-member task force composed of individuals representing

school districts, higher education, business and industry, research laboratories, museums, libraries, government and community agencies, and other major educational stakeholders. The task force produced the second version of Education/ Technology in New Jersey: A P/an for Action, completed in 1993.

The vision outlined in the 1993 plan is a bold one: “All New Jersey students will be able to use the tools of

educational technology effectively, holding in their own hands the means to shape their own destinies.’” The

outcomes envisioned in the plan include the following: student access to learning technologies, high-quality

professional development and training for educators, multimedia workstations for all teachers, online access

for administrators to gather and report data, school facility retrofitting to integrate technology throughout

school operations, and equitable funding to each school district through a technology entitlement that provides funding on a per pupil basis each year to districts with an approved technology plan.

The overall plan has four broad “action plans” that were slated to be fully in place by 1997. These action

plans are:

■

■

■

■

■

■

●

Building Educational Leadership: “To establish coalitions of key stakeholders” that will build on the

state’s human, capital, and corporate resources and provide vision, leadership, and support to implement local technology plans.

Preparing Educators for New Roles: “To provide educators with ongoing, accessible educational

technology preservlce and inservice professional development opportunities that prepare them for new

roles as facilitators of the learning process and improves instruction and learning. ”

Modernizing Learning Environments “To provide leadership with financial and legislative support to

restructure the educational environment in school facilities” by constructing a voice, video, and data

communication network in each school.

Developing Networks and Technology Infrastructure “To provide vision, leadership, and support in

the construction of statewide voice, video and data networks” to deliver timely resources and integrate

data management among districts, other agencies, and the Department of Education. Networks will be

governed by a coordinated organization with representation from public schools, libraries, vocationaltechnical centers, community colleges, four-year colleges or universities, government, and industry.

The second action plan, dealing with professional development, has five primary objectives:

Establish a network for professional development with collaboration of K-12 education, higher education, and the private sector.

Provide statewide support for ongoing, accessible staff development opportunities to integrate educational technology into Instruction.

Provide resources to prepare educators for new roles, including the establishment of educational

technology training and support centers.

1 New Jersey Department of Education, Educational Technology in New Jersey A Plan for Action (Trenton, NJ April 1993), p I
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources | 157

● Collaborate with higher education institutions and classroom practitioners to develop and provide

educational technology preservice opportunities.

● Prepare educators to use technology to acquire more detailed knowledge about student performance.

The implementation of the overall plan has been contingent on appropriations provided by the state

legislature, Five funding recommendations were proposed for the state legislature:

appropriate $50 per pupil for every full-time K-12 student in New Jersey public schools—roughly $60

million—and renew annually to keep the technology current;

appropriate a one-time investment of approximately $8 million to fund development of a statewide fiberoptic telecommunications network capable of carrying voice, video, and data transmissions;

provide an annual $1 billion appropriation to provide financial incentives, such as low-interest loans, to

districts for construction and retrofitting projects to support technology infusion;

create a “megasystem” for data management to streamline administrative tasks and increase communication between districts, agencies, and the state, at an estimated cost of $30 million over three years;

and

appropriate funds for technology modeling incentives to develop and demonstrate exemplary uses of

educational technology, at a cost of $5 million the first year, $10 million the second, and $15 million the third.

The State Board of Education was encouraged to take a number of actions, including:

requiring student performance proficiencies with the new and emerging technologies,

requiring provisions for new and emerging technologies in new construction and retrofitting plans, and

requiring staff training in technology be included with all technology purchases made by districts.

Recommendations were also made to the State Department of Education:

create a clearinghouse of educational technology resources, accessible to the entire education community,

provide technical assistance for the effective use of technology in the instructional process, and

provide leadership in constructing and developing a statewide network and interagency data management system.

Local Education Agencies (districts) were encouraged to:

develop and implement a multiyear technology plan;

designate a technology coordinator for the district;

designate funds for the purchase and maintenance of technology, and for professional development in

technology use; and

develop, approve, and implement a board policy on the infusion of technology into the curriculum and

school operation.

Despite the extensive planning, assignment of responsibilities and attention to detail, political realities

have made it difficult to carry out the plan as envisioned. The major barriers have been fiscal constraints

and changing political administrations, which has meant re-submitting proposals many times over and subsequently losing valuable time. Two years ago, budget constraints led to a reduction in the staff of the state

Educational Technologies Office from 11 to two. Governor Christine Todd Whitman’s austerity program has

also trimmed the budgets of most state agencies considerably. Nevertheless, the Educational Technologies

Office has been able to maintain its efforts on a limited budget, and this year was granted a $500,000

appropriation with which to begin implementation of the technology plan.

SOURCE: Julia Stapleton, Education Technology Coordinator, New Jersey Department of Education, Educational Technology in New

Jersey: A Plan for Action (Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Education, April 1993).
158 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

that there will be considerable costs. Technology

must be repaired, upgraded, and replaced. In addition, seemingly small but ongoing costs—paper,

printer ribbons, discs—have been known to cripple some technology initiatives. Schools must

not view technology as a one-time investment

but must budget for maintenance, upgrading,

and replacement costs.

Instructional Vision

A second factor related to equipment that schools

should consider is the suitability of particular

technologies. Available technology must be

suited to the educational goals for which it is intended. Investments should not be made in

technology for its own sake, but because it facilitates or extends instruction. This requires that a

well-defined instructional vision should precede the technological one; teacher involvement in defining this vision is essential.

Most successful districts and schools have

spent considerable time and effort planning for

technology infusion before purchasing and distributing equipment. Often states or districts require individual schools or classrooms to develop

a technology plan. The planning process requires

people to think through the reasons for the

technology before they buy it. It also helps to assure that sound educational reasons guide the

technology decisions, instead of technology driving the educational process. Furthermore, the

planning process brings people together and requires them to consider technological and instructional priorities. Although the resulting written

plan affords a useful guide, it should be seen as a

starting point, subject to revision over time. Nonetheless, it is the process itself that animates individuals, focuses their attention on instructional

goals and technology’s role in meeting them, and

supports cultural changes in technology use.

Plans should not be ironclad; they should make

it possible to revise or adapt as the implementation

process proceeds. Lessons can be learned, and

some parts of programs can be imported or

changed. Sites have learned that they need to be

flexible and encourage experimentation and sharing. They have found that they have to expect to

change and update their plans as the program

evolves, as teachers gain expertise, and as

technologies and applications advance.

Sustainabilty

Programs have found that it is extremely important to think about continuation of the

technology program from the beginning. Although seed money can get things started, a successful program will need to think about how

technology use can be built into the continuing

culture of the school. Research on organizational

change has suggested that for innovations to be

built into the organization on a regular and permanent basis, adjustments must be made in at least

five ways:

 new practices must be codified as rules;

 curriculum must be revised to accommodate

the innovation;

 training programs must be established for newcomers to the district;

 evaluation procedures have to reflect the new

practice; and

 project-related activities must be supported as

line items in the regular district budget.78

❚ Key Issues for Investing

in the Human Resources

Once a site has accessible technology suited to its

particular purposes, what else is needed? Perhaps

the most central lesson from successful implementation sites is that those who wish to invest in

technology should also plan to invest substantially in human resources. For every investment in

78 M. Huberman and M.B. Miles, Innovation Up Close: How School Improvement Works (New York: Plenum, 1984); Firestone and Corbett,

op. cit., footnote 45, p. 331.
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources | 159

hardware or software made, there should be a substantial investment in human resources, through

expenditures for training, technical support,

maintenance, and time to learn to use the

technology.

Life cycle cost models from business and industry support the critical role of training and

support. These models suggest that hardware

and software reflect approximately 30 percent

of the total system cost over the technology’s

life cycle. Too often funding initiatives ignore

the entire set of funding components and focus

on hardware and software. And yet, experience

has shown that only by addressing the other

components, as well as the hardware and software, will the technology expenditures be successful. This is most particularly true of the staff

development cost component . . . Teachers need

extensive and on-going training not only in how

to use technology, but how to fully integrate it

into their curriculum, instruction and assessment practices.79

Redefining Training

Some of what teachers can do with technology can

be learned on their own through experimentation

and self-instruction. But there are other things that

teachers can learn best by attending a workshop or

watching an experienced teacher. A good staff development program will have opportunities for

both types of learning.

“Hands-on” training with technology is more

than a gimmick or motivator; it is a necessity.

Teachers must have the chance to make the computer (or camera or whatever) work and gain confidence in their own competence before trying the

same thing with their class. Moreover, the different types and applications of technology will require different amounts and kinds of training,

support, and mentoring. For example, learning to

use a telephone voice-mail system for communicating with parents and teachers is likely to require

less training than learning to create multimedia

In workshops, teachers have opportunities to explore

different technologies in ways that can be transferred to

the classroom.

lessons using Hypercard and a videodisc player.

There is no one generic course or workshop that

can effectively teach teachers all that they need to

know about technology.

There is abundant evidence that “one-shot” or

short duration training programs have little impact. Teachers need time to learn, plan, try things

out, reflect on their successes and failures, revise,

and try again. This takes time—months, if not

years.

Incentives like providing release time for

teachers or paying them for staff development can

increase the participation of teachers in good staff

development programs. But release time can be

problematic. Many teachers want to minimize the

amount of time they spend outside their classrooms (and find the job of preparing plans for substitutes a time-consuming task). Some sites have

tried to find creative and low-cost approaches to

release time, such as conducting inservice activities onsite and having a teacher from the building

as instructor (see box 4-6).

Staff development is most effective when it is

individualized. This means matching learning opportunities to the needs of specific teachers so they

can choose what they need to know, how they

79 Michael Radlick, A Cost Model: Implementing Technology in New York State Public Schools (Albany, NY: New York State Education

Department, November 1994), p. 11.
160 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

When teachers leave the classroom, they usually prepare lesson plans for the substitute teacher (sub)

who will take their place. Because the regular teachers are trying to guide a stranger into the instructional

routines that are second nature for them, the sub release lesson plans are often much more detailed and

take more time to prepare than a regular lesson plan. In the Monterey Model Technology Schools (MMTS),

this caused a problem: teachers didn’t want to take the time to be trained in technology use because each

time they left their class to visit other classes or attend training sessions, they had to labor over lesson

plans for their substitutes, But without the training, they couldn’t use the technology.

The MMTS staff sought a “turnkey” solution: a generic substitute teacher who could come into a class

with a minimum of preparation required of the teacher who was to be released. Since the project was about

technology, they thought it would be appropriate if the substitute provided technology-based learning experiences while their regular teacher was also becoming more proficient in technology use. Another concern was that of cost. If considerable substitute activity was to be central to the training model, the substitute service had to be cost-effective.

Thus was born the “SuperSub Service, ” a strategy that enabled MMTS staff to continue to individualize

the staff development assistance they provided while reducing the burden teachers experienced when preparing for a substitute. Briefly, this strategy:

■ provides for weekly release time for teachers during the work day (ranging from 45 to 270 minutes);

● removes the necessity for teachers to prepare lesson plans for the substitute teacher;

■ provides a technology-enhanced problem-solving, critical-thinking skill development lesson aligned

with the district curriculum for each SuperSub to deliver; and

■ provides the teacher with written feedback about the SuperSub’s lesson as well as a followup activity.

To maintain continuity and lower the cost, the SuperSub Service is staffed by four Monterey district

teachers and administrators who elected to take early retirement. All district teachers who elect to retire

before the mandatory retirement age are required to contribute 30 days of work to the district each year for

three years. By drawing on this network of early retirees, the MMTS Project did not exacerbate the existing

difficulty district schools have in finding qualified substitute teachers, and released the funds that would

have been spent on substitute teachers for other purposes.

SuperSubs are equipped with an Apple portable computer, a LCD projection device, a notebook of lesson plans and suggested followup activities, necessary supplies such as scissors and crayons, and a

letter the SuperSub can use to describe what went on while the regular teacher was away. A schedule of

SuperSub visit days is established at the beginning of the school year. The schedule lists both the days

SuperSubs are available and the staff development activities teachers can participate in on those days.

If the demand for SuperSubs is evidence of the program’s effectiveness, this approach to provide release time for teachers is an effective one. Between the second and third year of the program, use of SuperSubs doubled, while use of full-day regular substitutes and afterschool training sessions declined. Project funds originally allocated for full-day substitutes were reallocated to additional instructional materials or

attendance at technology conferences. Increasingly, teachers are using the SuperSub service as an opportunity to share their skills with their school colleagues or observe how their colleagues teach their classes.

Teachers appreciate that their own professional development activities can be scheduled within the school

day at a time they choose. They also like the continuity the SuperSub service provides—the same SuperSub returns several times over the course of the year and gets to know the students and the teachers,

making the substitute teacher experience a more positive one for everyone involved.

SOURCE John R Mergendoller et al , “Case Studies of Exemplary Approaches to Training Teachers to Use Technology, ” Office of

Technology Assessment contractor report, September 1994
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources | 161

wish to learn it, and the time frame in which they

will learn it. This matches the “just-in-time” training models increasingly adopted by business and

industry.

Followup support and coaching after the

initial learning experience are essential to effective staff development. Teachers cannot

“learn all” they tried at a training session, even if it

extends over several weeks. When they return to

the classroom, the unexpected inevitably happens. At this point, teachers need to be able to access technical assistance and support. Some sites

structure courses so that they meet periodically

through the year or for a month or two, rather than

one or two long days. Participants can try out new

skills, practice, then come back to class and discuss or refine their approaches. During teachers’

initial efforts to integrate technology into the

classroom, it helps a great deal to have support immediately and continuously available. Increasingly, schools are finding that electronic networks

linking participants with instructors and each other provides a resource for continuing support.

Technical and Pedagogical Assistance

Because districts, schools, and teachers vary

widely in their “technological readiness,” most

successful sites have found that they need to provide a variety of resources and supports such as

those described in this chapter. Some kind of

onsite technical support—someone to set up,

trouble-shoot and fix the machines—is usually

necessary.

However, sites are increasingly realizing that

it’s not just technical expertise that is required of

good support resource personnel. Some technology-using educators are arguing that a new kind of

professional is needed in schools—conversant in

the technical issues but also experienced and

knowledgeable about teaching methods, curriculum, students, and instructional design.

Although most sites have made significant

progress in helping teachers learn to use generic

tools such as word processing, graphics, and desktop publishing, many are struggling with how to

integrate technology into the curriculum. Supporting teachers in their efforts to integrate

technology throughout their teaching is central

if technology is to become a truly effective

educational resource, yet true integration is a

difficult, time-consuming, and resource-intensive endeavor. In many places technology is

treated as a content area separate from the basic

curricular areas. Students and teachers are expected to become skilled in using technological

tools. Yet few resources and expertise are available to help teachers put the technology to work in

delivering curriculum in traditional content areas,

such as English, math, or social studies. Learning

to use the hardware and master the software tools

is not enough; learning how to teach with

technology—harnessing the tools for instructional ends—is a much more complex and lengthy

process.

If the goal of using technology is to change how

teachers teach and how children learn (for example, adopting more cooperative learning or more

student projects), then teachers will need support

and training to learn new pedagogical methods as

well. More technology or more use of technology will not be sufficient to assure other innovations or reforms. As discussed above, teachers

and administrators also should have a shared

educational philosophy and a shared vision of

how technology can facilitate that philosophy.

To get going, many technology programs have

had to rely on a few particularly eager and dedicated teachers in a school. However, burnout can

also be a real problem for these teacher-innovators, who are actively exploring technology

resources, trying to keep up with new developments, and helping their colleagues. If a site truly

wants to encourage its expert teachers to help their

colleagues, these individuals could be compensated and recognized for their efforts.

Although enthusiastic individuals may help

spark technology efforts, experience suggests that

schools should not rely exclusively on a small

cadre of “gurus.” As a long-term strategy for

continued technology use, expertise should be

shared among multiple individuals at a single

site. It is easy for a school to fall back on a technol-
162 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

ogy guru who knows how to fix computers when

they don’t run and can suggest new strategies for

using technology. But technology gurus may

move to a new school, leaving the original school

without a resource. Training multiple individuals

increases the chances that expertise will remain.

Furthermore, students can be effectively

tapped as resources to help teachers with

technology. At some sites, teachers bring a student or two along to workshops or other learning

experiences. They are eager, available, and “free”

(see chapter 2). Some knowledgeable students become great resources for the teacher. However,

this requires a teacher comfortable with letting

some of the expertise reside with the student.

Incentives

Programs that seek to involve a large number

of teachers should identify incentives that encourage teachers to use technology. Many

teachers will not be motivated by the mere presence of more technology in their classrooms, but

they can be motivated by a concrete vision of how

it can help them meet their instructional goals. For

example, encouraging teachers to find their own

favorite uses of technology or develop specific

areas of expertise can be an effective long-term

strategy. As noted above, putting technology in

the hands of teachers can be a good motivator for

teachers. Some districts have given teachers computers as a “reward” for undertaking training.

Sites also have found that they may have to accept that some teachers will never really become

interested in using technology. An alternative approach is to focus on gaining the interest and acceptance of a critical mass of teachers. For

example, the technology coordinator in Bellevue,

Washington, described three types of teachers:

about 10 percent are the self-taught enthusiasts,

highly motivated, who will try anything; about 60

percent are those making “hesitant progress,” who

like to take the classes and want to participate in

technology in classrooms; and about 30 percent

are resistant, don’t take the class, or come only to

get specific help with a particular problem. To

reach this last group, Bellevue has encouraged

more onsite inservice activities, conducted by a

teacher in the building.80

Administrative and Community Backing

The role of the principal is crucial in promoting

school technology use. Similarly, for technology

to become diffused across a district, leadership by

the central administration, especially the superintendent, is critical. These findings are supported

by the organizational change research, which has

consistently found that change efforts do not

succeed without active administrative leadership, particularly by principals. Research has

shown that leaders perform four important tasks:

“(a) obtaining resources, (b) buffering the project

from outside interference, (c) encouraging staff,

and (d) adapting standard operating procedures to

the project.”81

Community support and understanding of

the goals of technology use are also critical.

Lessons from experienced sites indicate that without community support and buy-in, many new

ideas fail to take hold in schools. Teachers and

school administrators can educate and convince

the community of the necessity and importance of

their particular educational vision. As one noted

researcher writes:

An essential partner in any kind of educational regimen is the community, represented by

many individuals ranging from respected elders

to powerful business people and officials

elected at the local and the national levels. In the

United States today, probably the most important agents of change in the community are the

parents, in their dual roles as advocates for their

children and citizens of the society. . .If the

80 Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 3.

81 Firestone and Corbett, op. cit., footnote 45, p. 330.
Chapter 4 Helping Teachers Learn About and Use Technology Resources | 163

community fails to support the desires and standards of school people, the educators are destined to fail.82

❚ Conclusions About the

Process of Implementation

If there is a single overarching lesson about the

process involved in these efforts it is that effective

technology implementation takes more time

and effort than many anticipate when first undertaking technology initiatives. Based on the

experience of sites visited for this report, and reports in the literature, it appears that five years

may be an appropriate time frame for large-scale

technology infusion. Change is not sudden and

dramatic; it takes hard work on the part of many

people over time to see the benefits of these endeavors.

None of the schools or districts portrayed here

has experienced a smooth or uncomplicated process of technology training and implementation.

Changes have been continually necessary to overcome unforeseen obstacles, such as staff reassignments, delays in equipment delivery, gaps

between technology knowledge and utilization, or

budget cuts, or to capitalize on unexpected success. State, district, and school-technology staff

have continually revised their technology implementation plans based on evaluation results or unexpected events.

Some sites have found that small efforts that focus on one educational need or goal can be an effective way to get started using technology. For

example, technology implementation in the Monterey Model Technology Schools was instituted

one classroom at a time, based on the teacher’s

Classroom Intervention Plan. Similarly, at Webster Elementary School in St. Augustine, Florida,

teachers with expertise in a particular application

became the role models for their colleagues. By

staying small and focused, specific goals can be

addressed and successful outcomes are more likely. Initial success engenders enthusiasm, interest,

and confidence, which then begets more success.

Evidence clearly indicates that when conditions are right—resources, time, and support are

high—exciting things happen in technology-rich

school environments. A key issue today is how to

disseminate broadly the lessons of certain

schools. How can the technology tools and knowledge be shared with schools whose resources are

not as rich? Or when teachers are not as enthusiastic, energetic, or motivated? Who can help to support states and districts in promoting and

disseminating successful strategies (see chapters

1 and 6)? Future efforts should focus on better and

more comprehensive dissemination strategies and

on ways to seed more projects in more challenging

school environments.

82 Howard Gardner, The Unschooled Mind (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1991), p. 255.
Technology

 and the

 Preparation of

 New Teachers

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

 The need to prepare new teachers to use technology effectively

is beginning to receive more attention in state certification

standards for teachers, in accreditation standards for colleges

of education (COEs), and in various efforts to reform and upgrade teacher education. State policies and leadership still vary

widely, however, as does the extent of attention to technology

in teacher preparation programs. Moreover, there has been

little incentive to link reforms in colleges of education with reform of K-12 schools.

 Technology is not central to the teacher preparation experience

in most colleges of education. Consequently, most new teachers graduate from teacher preparation institutions with limited

knowledge of the ways technology can be used in their professional practice.

 Most technology instruction in colleges of education is teaching about technology as a separate subject, not teaching with

technology across the curriculum. The majority of teacher

education faculty do not model technology use to accomplish

objectives in the courses they teach, nor do they teach students

how to use information technologies for instruction. Seldom

are students asked to create lessons using technologies or practice teaching with technological tools.

 Placing student teachers with technology-using teachers in

technology-rich environments can provide valuable apprenticeships and can extend the quality and quantity of “hands-on”

technology experience for many teacher candidates. Many

K-12 schools have better technology facilities, and more experienced technology-using staff than do colleges of educa- | 165
166 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

tion; however, technology is not always considered as a factor for student placements. Furthermore, schools where students do practice

teaching may not be located near the colleges

of education, increasing the difficulty of placing teacher education candidates in classrooms

with the teachers who best model effective

technology use.

 Video can extend the range of student observation into classrooms with the best teachers,

wherever they are located. Whether live broadcasts from a classroom or tapes, they can provide teacher education students with models of

effective teaching and the opportunity for reflection on what constitutes good teaching.

Video can also document case studies and record observations for teacher education students to discuss and reflect upon in greater

detail after a lesson has been presented.

 College of education administrators—especially deans—are key players in any effort to

improve teacher preparation programs. Yet

they are often constrained by the fact that colleges and universities have not provided the financial support necessary for supplying COEs

with the state-of-the-art equipment needed for

preparing their graduates. Furthermore, as in

the K-12 schools, investments by COEs in

hardware and software are rarely matched with

those for faculty training and support.

 Models of change exist and can provide lessons

for those seeking to build a bridge between reform of K-12 education and reform of teacher

education, using technology as a resource for

change and as a solution to some common

problems in teacher preparation. However, the

diversified nature of teacher education makes

dissemination of these models difficult without

federal leadership and support.

 Technology can forge stronger connections

among student teachers, mentor teachers in

classrooms, and university faculty, whether

through lab schools, professional development

schools, or traditional student placement activities. Students can connect to mentoring and

information resources over great distances, expanding opportunities for apprenticeships.

 Electronic networks can provide a safety net for

communication, knowledge, and experience

for student teachers in the field, as well as for

new teachers launching their careers. The loneliness and anxiety of the first teaching experiences can be mitigated through contact with

professors and peers via electronic networks.

 If coverage of information technologies is to

break out of the isolated role it plays today and

become an integral part of the teacher education

curriculum, several things must happen. K-12

and university educators must work together to

integrate technology into curriculum and classroom practice; teacher educators and K-12 staff

must receive considerable technology training

and support; models must be developed with

technology supporting specific content areas;

and teacher education faculty incentives must

be revised to encourage greater use and integration of technology for instruction.

INTRODUCTION

There are approximately 1,300 institutes of higher

education preparing future teachers in this country. In the 1990-91 school year, nearly 100,000

students graduated with a bachelor’s degree in

teacher education in the United States.1 In the next

decade, the nation’s schools will need to hire

about two million teachers.2 (See box 5-1.)

Ideally these new teachers should be able to use

a range of technological tools to provide effective

instruction and help their students become comfortable with and knowledgeable about technology. The most direct and cost-effective way to

1 National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 1993, U.S. Department of Education, OERI, NCES 93-292 (Washington, DC: October 1993), p. 250.

2 Ibid.
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 167

The number of teachers needed in our nation’s schools is greatly affected by population changes

such as those caused by birth or immigration rates. Projections indicate that the school-aged population is growing. As a result, if current policies such as pupil-teacher ratios remain the same, schools will

need about 3,3 million teachers by 2003—1.4 million more than are currently employed. Furthermore,

the amount of teacher turnover, 1 which accounts for the largest proportion of the demand for new

teachers, is projected to increase each year between 1993 and 2000. Much of this IS due to increasing

retirement rates as the teacher workforce ages. 2 Even retirement rates, however, are not predictable.

The teaching force is unbalanced with respect to age and experience. Younger teachers—those under 35—are a smaller portion of the teaching force than at any time in the last 25 years, and half of all

teachers are over 42, making them eligible to retire at age 55—within 13 years. An important supplyand-demand question is how soon these retirements will occur, and thus when replacement will be

needed. Current retirement patterns show a strong tendency for teachers to stay until 62 or 65. If this is

the case, then demand for new teachers will increase more slowly. Budget problems in states could

make early retirement offers very attractive—in fact, epidemic. Replacing older teachers with younger

teachers significantly reduces education costs, even with somewhat increased retirement costs 3

What about newly qualified teachers? How many of them go into teaching and for what reasons?

About 32 percent of newly qualified teachers who were teaching in 1987 reported that they became

teachers because they enjoyed working with children, 30 percent because they found teaching satisfying, and 28 percent because they had always wanted to be a teacher. However, despite their training,

28 percent of those newly qualified for teaching did not apply for a teaching job.4 An examination of all

1985-86 bachelor’s degree recipients who were newly qualified teachers suggests that 58 percent were

employed as teachers the year after they graduated, 31 percent were employed in jobs other than

teaching, and 11 percent were not employed.5

1 Defined as the number of teachers leaving current positions.

2 National Center for Education Statistics, projections of education statistics tO 2003 (Washington, DC December 1992), pp.

72-76.

3 National Research Council, Teacher Supply Demand, and Clarify (Washington, DC. 1992), pp. 275-276

4 National Center for Education Statistics, American Teachers: Profile of a Profession (Washington, DC May 1993), p. 125

5 Ibid., p. 27.

educate teachers about technology is through the

preservice education they receive in colleges of

education or other institutions.

What is the role of technology in current teacher preparation programs? To what extent do states,

COES, and national bodies for reforming teacher

education recognize the potential and importance

of technology? How do the COES that are leaders

in technology approach preparation? This chapter

seeks to address these questions.

HISTORY AND CURRENT CHALLENGES

OF PREPARING TEACHERS

One of the most important tasks of society is to ensure that each successive generation acquires the

knowledge, technologies, skills, and customs essential to maintain that society. For over a century,

the primary responsibility for carrying out this

task has rested with the institution of the Ameri-
168 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

can public school—and more specifically with the

American school teacher.3

The history of teacher preparation has been one

of changing expectations. In the 17th and 18th

century teachers—like doctors and lawyers—had

no formal educational requirements as prerequisites for practice. Those who taught elementary

subjects were expected to know how to read,

write, and do basic arithmetic so they could teach

these skills to their charges. The most highly educated were those who taught in the private secondary schools, a group made up predominantly of

clergy. During colonial times, teacher quality was

variable; some teachers were barely literate while

others possessed a college degree. The importance

of religious orthodoxy was one noteworthy

constant. Few considered teaching their primary

career or goal in life.4

In the first decades of the 19th century, the

“common school” was established in New England. Common schools created a tradition of

education that was free, supported by taxes, and

universally available to all students. With the

surge in students attending common schools, it

became clear that a formal, institutionalized approach to preparing teachers was necessary.

Although the first documented school for the

training of teachers in the United States opened

under private auspices in Concord, Vermont, in

1823,5 it was the development of “normal

schools” by Horace Mann in 1839 that promised

to fill the glaring shortage of qualified teachers

and to define teacher competence. Mann’s vision

aimed for “a new kind of school, a new kind of

profession, the principle of taxpayer support and a

new vocation for women.”6 With these innovations, the Lexington Normal School opened in

July 1839.

Although growing numbers of 19th century

teachers attended normal schools, others took

part-time or short courses, and some continued to

have little or no formal preparation for teaching.

In the Midwest and West, the line between normal

schools and post-elementary schooling blurred, as

the normal school became a place where parents

sent their children for a higher education, a sort of

academy or high school rather than an institution

for training teachers. As normal schools evolved

into the model for general secondary schooling in

the Midwest and West, their contributions to

teacher training grew uneven.

Later, when normal schools evolved into teachers’ colleges and then into colleges of education

within larger institutions of higher education, differences of opinion emerged about whether the

colleges’ main goal should be the preparation of

teachers or education theory and research. It might

be said that normal schools evolved from singlegoal institutions to lower-level institutions within

the higher educational hierarchy. As one educator

observed, “Thus, the normal school developed

into a pale imitation of the university, doing what

the university does, namely research, less well

than the university, and not wishing to do well

what it historically did—prepare teachers.”7

Even after normal schools, and then teachers’

colleges, had become widespread, a sizable pro3 See, e.g., James Bosco, “Schooling and Learning in an Information Society,” OTA contractor report, Washington, DC, November 1994.

4 Wayne J. Urban, “Historical Studies of Teacher Education,” in W. Robert Houston et al. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1990), p. 60. See also L.A. Cremin, American Education: The Colonial Experience 1607-1783 (New York,

NY: Harper & Row, 1970).

5 Richard J. Altenbaugh and Kathleen Underwood, “The Evolution of Normal Schools,” in John I. Goodlad et al., Places Where Teachers

Are Taught (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990), p. 137.

6 Ibid., p. 138.

7 Urban, op. cit., footnote 4. See also Cremin, op. cit., footnote 4.
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers

portion of teachers still lacked much formal training well into the 20th century; as recently as 1940,

less than 50 percent of the teachers in the United

States held a bachelor’s degree.8

The education of educators has obviously

reached higher ground in recent decades; today,

almost all teachers (99 percent) have at least a

bachelor’s degree, and almost half (46 percent)

have a master’s degree or higher.9 Nevertheless,

other factors bedevil teacher preparation programs, including misconceptions about teaching

as a profession; misinformed perceptions of the

intellectual capabilities of teachers; and negative

stereotypes of women and minorities, who traditionally make up a large part of the teaching

force.10

Teacher education programs today must address countless areas-usually within a time

frame of three to four years, at best. Teacher

education graduates not only need to be skilled in

content, methods, cognitive development, assessment practices, pedagogical theory, education history, technology, and classroom management, but

they may also need to know about drug education,

AIDS, environmental issues, social and family issues, and whatever else the public decides schools

should handle. Although, ideally, “the mission for

teacher education should arise out of the mission

for schooling,” the problem is that the mission of

schooling is itself unclear, indeed, schools in general operate under “fragmented goals.”1l

Schools have a difficult task keeping up with

changes in what society asks of them. For colleges of education to anticipate these redefiniTechnology may present an extra burden to some colleges of

education, but many find it essential to a strong teacher

education program.

tions in their teacher preparation programs is

a daunting task.

REFORM IN TEACHER EDUCATION

The way that new teachers are prepared is often

under public scrutiny-in the media and press,12

as well as by educators themselves. Many colleges

of education across the country have tried to implement reforms that address public concerns, yet

8 Richard I. Arends, "Connecting the University to School," in Bruce Joyce (ed.), Changing School Culture Through Staff Development

(Washington DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1990), p. 118. 9 Natioal Center for Ecucation Statistics, Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1990-91, OERI, NCES 93-146

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, July 1993), pp. 39,42. 1O Judith E. Lanier, "Choices for the Twenty-First Century: Will Universities Strengthen or Close Schools of Education?’’ vol. LXXIII, No.

4, Phi Kappa Phi Journal, fall 1993. 11 John I. Goodlad, Technos, vol. 2, No. 3, fall 1993, p. 5.

12 See, e.g., Thomas L. DeLoughry, "EDUCOM conference Focuses on Ways To Improve Teaching,” Chronicle of Higher Education, vol.

XLI, No. 11, Nov. 9, 1994, p. A21. Also, David L. Clark and Terry A. Astute, “Redirecting Reform” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 75, No. 7, pp.

513-520.

| 169
170 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

the skepticism persists: some think undergraduate

programs produce classroom teachers with limited expertise in the subjects they are expected to

teach, while graduate schools prepare specialists

who spend little time in classrooms; others find

the form and format of teaching in colleges of

education antithetical to “real” learning, with

those who prepare classroom teachers modeling

the “chalk and talk” lecture teaching style. Many

observe that there is never enough time for students to be exposed to good teaching or for student

teaching under the watchful eye of a competent

supervising teacher, nor enough top-notch teachers in model classrooms close enough to the college of education to provide enough successful

student teaching placements.

In November 1994, the National Commission

on Teaching and America’s Future began an

18-month exploration of the profession. It bemoaned “shortfalls” and “woeful neglect of teaching” while addressing new approaches to the

problems teachers face amid “challenging new

education demands.” The commission plans to

“identify successful strategies to resolve teacher

shortages, especially in urban areas and in math

and science, as alternatives to hiring unprepared

teachers.”13

Unprepared teachers are only part of the problem. The interaction between K-12 schools and

teacher education programs is an important, generally overlooked variable. In the words of one

educator,

If schools are to be good, the general and professional education of those who teach in them

must also be good. If teacher education is to be

good, the schools in which future teachers receive a significant part of their preparation must

also be good.14

Colleges of education, state departments of

education, and professional associations have

tried many approaches over time to standardize,

improve, and professionalize teacher preparation.

For example, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) has developed a “Continuum of Teacher Preparation” that

includes quality-assurance measures in three

phases—preservice, extended clinical preparation

and assessment, and continuing professional development. The continuum depends upon cooperation and coordination with the state education

authorities, school districts, and other professional organizations, such as the National Board for

Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).15

Additional reform efforts involve developing new

models of interaction between COEs and K-12,

improvements in teacher certification and licensure procedures, and changes in the accreditation

of schools and colleges of education. Technology

can play a role in all these efforts.

❚ Rallying Calls for Teacher

Education Reform

The release of the report A Nation at Risk16 a decade ago brought public awareness of the quality of

American schools to a new high; nevertheless,

colleges of education and their professors were

neither leaders of the charge to reform, nor considered key elements in implementing change. Two

major reports released in the late 1980s began to

change this trend. The reports of the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy17 and the

13 The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future was created through funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the

Carnegie Corporation to establish “a national blueprint to determine how teachers in all communities can be supported and prepared to meet the

needs of the 21st century classroom.”

14 John I. Goodlad, “The National Network for Educational Renewal,” Phi Delta Kappan, April 1994, p. 632.

15 Arthur E. Wise, Director, National Association for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, personal communication, Nov. 9, 1994.

16 National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983).

17 Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (Washington, DC: 1986).
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 171

Holmes Group18 addressed improvements in the

preparation of new teachers as a key link to educational reform. In addition, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)

and the Association for Teacher Education made

efforts to codify knowledge needed by new

teachers.19

In its 1986 report, A Nation Prepared: Teachers

for the 21st Century,

20 the Carnegie Forum’s Task

Force on Teaching as a Profession—made up of

business and government leaders and union and

school officials—called for sweeping changes in

education policy. Among the eight recommendations, two were specific to the preparation of new

teachers: 1) require a bachelors’ degree in the arts

and sciences as a prerequisite for the professional

study of teaching; and 2) develop a new professional curriculum in graduate schools of education leading to a Master in Teaching degree, based

on systematic knowledge of teaching, internships,

and residencies in the school.21

Another influence for reform has been the

Holmes Group,22 a coalition of deans from the

graduate schools of education at research universities that, in 1983, began a study of ways to reform teacher education and the teaching

profession. Their 1986 report, Tomorrow’s Teachers,

23 developed a common agenda that included

eliminating the undergraduate education major,

strengthening and revising both the undergraduate

curriculum and graduate professional training of

teachers, creating new professional examinations

for entry into the profession, and connecting

higher education institutions to schools, through

the development of professional development

schools. Professional development schools are

places where both teachers and university faculty

can systematically inquire into and take part in

teaching practice to improve it.

The Holmes Group’s agenda has not met with

universal acceptance. Many educators have decried the exclusivity of the organization; other

educators were concerned about the creation of

one specific model of teacher preparation, especially one that required—as the Holmes Group’s

did—a four-year liberal arts major followed by a

fifth year of graduate study in education. Another

sticking point has focused on problems associated

with the content, cohesiveness, and quality of

instruction prospective teachers receive in the colleges of arts and sciences. Some have been concerned that the fifth-year model the Holmes Group

advocates may not provide enough time for potential teachers to take all the requisite courses, observe teachers, participate in internships, and

develop teaching skills in their subject matter

specialties.

The group’s most recent report24 reiterates the

value of professional development schools and

emphasizes the need to make COEs accountable

to their profession and to the public. In addition,

the new report says Holmes plans to create alliances with other organizations, such as AACTE

18 Holmes Group, Tomorrow’s Teachers: A Report of the Holmes Group (East Lansing, MI: 1986).

19 M.C. Reynolds (ed.), Knowledge Base for the Beginning Teacher (Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, 1989); W.R. Houston (ed.), Handbook

of Research on Teacher Education (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1990).

20 Carnegie, op. cit., footnote 17.

21 Ibid., p. 3.

22 Starting as an informal consortium of 17 education deans, the group took both name and mission from Henry Holmes, Dean of Harvard

Graduate School of Education, who in 1927 suggested, “America has yet to be persuaded that the training of teachers is a highly significant part

of the making of the nation.” Lynn Olson, “An Overview of the Holmes Group,” Phi Delta Kappan, April 1987, p. 691. Today the group includes deans of more than 80 education schools in research institutions.

23 Holmes Group, op. cit., footnote 18.

24 Holmes Group, Tomorrow’s Schools of Education (East Lansing, MI: 1995).
172 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

and national teachers’ unions, to support reform

efforts in teacher preparation.25

❚ Certification and Licensure

of New Teachers

The education systems being challenged by current reforms are based on a legacy begun in the

19th century, when many states took over the

functions of examining and credentialing new

teachers. Typically, the state departments of

education controlled public normal schools (and

later teachers’ colleges), and certification became

a question of completing the course of instruction

offered by these institutions. Today, state requirements for teachers are created by state legislatures.

However, because public school teachers are

employed by local boards of education (on the recommendation of the superintendent of a district),

and these boards are made up of lay people, it

might be said that the public is involved in employing teachers. Thus there is a divided responsibility—among the public sector, universities and

colleges, and public schools—for what should be

the basis of teaching.

In other professions—medicine, law, engineering, architecture—states have delegated the

responsibility for licensing to autonomous standards boards composed of practitioners who establish the standards and processes of the

profession for the nation. Teaching does not follow this model.26 Instead, each state sets its own

licensure or certification process for educators27

and issues different types of certificates. In some

cases, state departments of education determine

qualifications to teach based on a requisite number of courses. State approval generally comes

from reviewing specific teacher education programs on a program-by-program basis, resulting

in hundreds of sets of standards for teacher preparation with varying levels of quality. “The generally minimal state-prescribed criteria remain

subject to local and state political influences, economic conditions within the state, and historical

conditions which make change difficult.”28

In general, there is a standard teaching license

or certificate. Each state sets its own standards that

individuals must meet by completing an approved

teacher education program and fulfilling state or

district continuing professional development requirements. (Half the states require students to

take a state or national test prior to admittance to a

teacher education program. See table 5-1.) States

issue both provisional and permanent credentials.

A provisional certificate means a teacher is adequately prepared for initial employment but must

meet some additional conditions of further

coursework or experience (or both) before receiving a permanent certificate. There are also emergency teaching certificates, usually issued on a

yearly basis, for those who are not yet qualified to

teach but who are needed in areas of shortages.

Emergency certificates are also used for candidates who lack formal qualifications but whom a

district wants to hire for special skills or other

reasons.

25 Ann Bradley, “Holmes Group Urges Overhaul of Ed. Schools,” Education Week, vol. XIV, No. 19, Feb. 1, 1995, pp. 1, 8.

26 Gail Huffman-Joley, “State Standards Boards Will Create a Stronger Profession,” Quality Teaching, NCATE Newsletter, vol. 3, issue 1,

fall 1993, p. 6.

27 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Teacher Education Policy in the States: A 50-State Survey of Legislative and

Administrative Action (Washington, DC: spring 1994), p. vii. While the terms license and certificate are often used interchangeably, the Office

of Technology Assessment uses the following terminology adopted by the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education for its survey of teacher education policy: “A license is the official recognition by a state government agency that an individual has met state-mandated

requirements and is therefore approved to practice as a duly licensed educator in that state. A certificate is a credential awarded by the profession

in recognition of advanced skills or achievement. Some states use the term ‘certificate’ to describe what is more commonly referred to as a

license. A credential refers to either a license or certificate.”

28 George M. Dennison, “National Standards in Teacher Preparation: A Commitment to Quality,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Dec. 2,

1992, p. A-40.
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 173

Not all teachers today are prepared for their

jobs. The National Commission on Teaching and

America’s Future suggests that, among the more

than 200,000 teachers newly hired each year, one

in four (50,000) are not fully prepared for their

jobs. In the country’s largest school district, New

York City, more than half (57 percent) of the 4,500

teachers hired in 1992 were unlicensed. In fact,

more than 15 percent of all schools and 23 percent

of central city schools nationwide had vacancies

in 1991 they could not fill with a qualified

teacher.29

Alternative Certification

Alternative certification programs vary by state

and are designed for nontraditional students taking accelerated preparation for teaching. Often,

these programs are aimed at encouraging people

with special skills or experience (such as retired

military personnel) to go into teaching as a midcareer change. Many of those entering the profession through alternative preparation programs

begin with emergency certification until they

meet the full requirements of their teaching area.

After a period of expansion, the number of

states offering alternative certification programs

decreased from 43 in November 1993 to 36 in

May 1994.30 Some states have more than one alternative program for licensure; others have

dropped alternative programs due to funding difficulties or lack of support from prospective students, school districts, or institutions of higher

education. However, approximately 200 of the

more than 500 colleges of education accredited by

the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher

Education still offer alternative certification programs.31

Some critics assert that alternative certification

candidates lack sufficient pedagogical understanding, which is difficult to acquire after one begins teaching.32 This is likely to become an even

greater concern as standards for teacher education

programs in general are raised.33 Moreover, given

the high attrition rate of beginning teachers in general, there is concern that those entering teaching

without a strong base of pedagogical skills and experience may be particularly ill-prepared to handle troublesome settings.

Alternative certification does not automatically imply hiring outside the teaching profession, as

some critics contend. It also provides a way to

bring in qualified teachers from other states. For

example, Oklahoma—in adopting the Master

Teacher certification that has been developed by

the National Board for Professional Teaching

Standards—will waive its state certification for

certified teachers from other states who pass the

NBPTS certification assessments. NBPTS is developing advanced standards and assessments for

teacher performance that encompass various components such as portfolios, certification center assessment activities, and essay examinations

designed to demonstrate teacher knowledge and

skill. Teachers who meet these standards will be

designated as “Master Teachers.”34 In fact, this

kind of flexibility for teachers who want to move

29 Linda Darling-Hammond, “The Current Status of Teaching and Teacher Development in the United States,” background paper for the

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, New York, NY, November 1994.

30 AACTE, op. cit., footnote 27, p. v.

31 Wise, op. cit., footnote 15.

32 See, e.g., Jonathan Schorr, “Class Action,” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 75, No. 4, December 1993, pp. 315-318.

33 James B. Stedman, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, “Teachers: Issues for the 101st Congress,” Feb. 23, 1990, p. 21.

34 See, e.g., Arthur E. Wise, “Professionalization and Standards: A Unified System of Quality Assurance,” Education Week, June 1, 1994;

and “The Coming Revolution in Teacher Licensure: Redefining Teacher Preparation,” Action in Teacher Education, vol. XVI, No. 2, summer

1994, pp. 1-13. See also, Lynda Richardson, “First 81 Teachers Qualify for National Certification,” New York Times, Jan. 6, 1995, p. A-1.
174 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

University/college of

State or Minimum grade education entrance Other state

State national testsb point average standards requirements d

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Floridae

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansasf

Kentucky

Louisiana g

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

—
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 175

University/college of

State or Minimum grade education entrance Other state

State national testsb point average standards requirements d

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

a American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Teacher Education Policy in the States, A 50-State Survey of Legislative and Administrative

Actions (Washington, DC. AACTE, 1994)

b For example, National Teachers Exam, Pre-Professional Skills Test, PRAXIS, California Basic Skills Test.

c Standards set by individual Institutions of Higher Education (lHE)/Schools and Colleges of Education.

d For example, interviews, other demonstrations of basic skills competencies, course requirements.

e Up to 10 percent of an IHE’s admission may be to individuals who do not meet standards

f Standards are for regents restitutions only

g Up to 10 percent of an IHE’s admission may be to individuals who do not meet standards, but candidates will have to meet standards for Iicensure

h State requires candidates to take the Pre-Professional Skills Test, but scores are not used for screening purposes. The low-scoring candidates are

targeted for assistance.

i Minimum GPA requirement applies only to graduate program candidates, there is no minimum GPA requirement for undergraduate candidates

between states is one alternative measure NBPTS

is encouraging nationwide.35

Technology and Certification

The importance of technology in teacher certification is gaining momentum. A recent survey

under contract to the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) found that at least 18 states require training in computers or technology for all

teachers seeking certification.36 Although that

figure is far from a majority, it represents an increase over just a few years ago: in 1987 only 12

states had such a requirement for certification of

all teachers.37

States take various approaches to technology

certification requirements. For example, California requires a one-semester course, New Jersey

and Texas require a three-credit course, and Kansas and Wyoming require a one-unit course.

Washington state law specifies that all teachers

must have general knowledge of instructional

uses of the computer and other technological developments. In Michigan, recent legislation mandated that teachers have “a working knowledge of

35 Joanna Richardson, “States Offer Incentives to Teachers Seeking National Board Certification,” Education Week, Sept. 7, 1994.

36 Ronald E. Anderson. “State Technology Activities Related to Teachers,” OTA contractor report, November 1994.

37 In addition to the 12 states that required computer-related courses for all teacher certification in 1987, six states had such requirements for

teachers in certain subject areas (business, computer, or media education). U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On! New

Tools for Teaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1988), p. 209.
176 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Technology is becoming more important for teacher

certification. Eighteen states currently require training

in computers or technology for all teachers seeking

certification.

modern technology and use of computers” and

that the university that graduates the teacher candidate “demonstrate [this knowledge] to the satisfaction of the school or district before an

individual may engage in student teaching.”38

And since 1985, Idaho teachers have been required to “develop skills to use computer technology,” including word processing, database

management, and general instructional use. Idaho

and Wisconsin, according to the survey, follow the

preservice guidelines for technology training developed by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and approved by

NCATE, the national professional accreditation

body (see box 5-2).

Technology is also receiving heightened attention in some alternative certification programs. In

Florida, an alternative preparation program connects institutions of higher education and local

public or private schools with individuals from

the military and business who have degrees in specific content areas needed by the schools. In this

field-based preservice program, candidate practitioners work in classrooms as contracted fret-year

teachers under the supervision of the teacher educators from the College of Education at the University of South Florida. A school-based team

assists and evaluates the candidate’s performance

throughout the year. Technology proficiency is

imperative in this model, since candidates are

trained on and expected to use Florida’s Information Resource Network (FIRN), a statewide teacher network, to communicate with each other and

with the Alternative Teacher Preparation program

office. Candidates use lesson plans distributed

over FIRN and can take courses while off campus

via distance learning.39

■ Accreditation of Colleges of Education

One of the major issues in the professionalization

of teaching and teacher education is the accreditation of schools and colleges of education. Unlike

those who practice law, medicine, social work, engineering, architecture, or other professions,

teachers do not have to graduate from an institution accredited by the profession. In fact, today

less than half the schools of education are professionally accredited.

There are two accrediting tracks for colleges of

education: state standards boards and the National

Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

State standards boards have been created over the

last 20 years, and now exist in 11 states.@ Some

are appointed by the governor, and a few report to

the legislature. Some have complete responsibility for establishing standards and implementation

procedures for licensure, while others have only

38 See State of Michigan 87th Legislature, Enrolled House Bill No. 5121, sec. 1531b, Dec. 31, 1993.

39 Molly Drake, University of south Florida, personal communication, December l994. The University, located in Tampa, currently serves

seven Florida school districts with its Alternative Teacher Preparation program. See also, Eric Schmitt, "Peace Dividend: Troops Turn to Teaching:" New York Times, Nov. 30, 1994, pp. B-1, 12.

40 Wise, op. cit., footnote 15.
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 177

The Accreditation Committee of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) in 1992

developed a set of “Curriculum Guidelines for the Accreditation of Educational Computing and Technology

tion.

1.

2.

3.

4,

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Programs, ” which was approved by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher EducaThe basic guidelines suggest that all teachers should be able to:

Demonstrate the ability to operate a computer system in order to successfully use software.

Evaluate and use computers and related technologies to support the instructional process.

Apply instructional principles, research, and appropriate assessment practices to the use of computers and related technologies.

Explore, evaluate, and use computer/technology-based materials, including applications, educational

software, and documentation.

Demonstrate knowledge of uses of computers for problem solving, data collection, information management, communications, presentations, and decisionmaking.

Design and develop student learning activities that integrate computing and technology for a variety

of student grouping strategies and for diverse student populations.

Evaluate, select, and integrate computer/technology-based instruction in the curriculum of one’s subject area(s) and/or grade level.

Demonstrate knowledge of uses of multimedia, hypermedia, and telecommunications to support

Instruction.

Demonstrate skill in using productivity tools for professional and personal use, including word processing, database, spreadsheet, and print/graphics utilities.

Demonstrate knowledge of equity, ethical, legal, and human issues of computing and technology as

they relate to society and model appropriate behaviors.

Identify resources for staying current in applications of computing and related technologies in

education.

Use computer-based technologies to access information to enhance personal and professional

productivity.

Apply computers and related technologies to facilitate emerging roles of the learner and the educator.

SOURCE: Excerpt from goals established by the International Society for the Accreditation of Technology in Education, Accreditation

Committee, Eugene, OR 1992.

partial responsibility.

41 Most are autonomous and NCATE was created about 40 years ago, and its

determine the credentials, licenses, standards, as- mission today is to establish and help support a

sessments, and examinations for entry and ad- quality system for preparing future teachers

vancement in the profession. In most cases, the throughout schools of education. The reorganizaboards also approve specific college or university tion of NCATE in 1986, with its subsequent adopteacher education programs. tion of a set of standards for teacher education in

41 AACTE, op.cit., footnote 27, p. vi.
178 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

1988, has been another key force in teacher education reform. Until this restructuring, the organization accredited individual teacher education

programs, a task which duplicated in many ways

the state’s function.42 This might explain why colleges of education have found requirements for

state program approval and NCATE accreditation

to be duplicative, although both are voluntary.

There are other concerns with duplication, as

well. Institutions must sometimes undergo multiple reviews to satisfy different kinds of requirements, including university system requirements,

subject-specific curriculum guidelines in the 17

associations recognized by NCATE, and guidelines for programs such as math and English developed by the National Association of State

Directors of Teacher Education and Certification

(NASDTEC).43 To minimize this potential for

overlap, NCATE so far has entered into partnerships with 33 states to cooperate in their review of

institutions.44 For example, Florida has agreed

that its state teacher education institutions need

only undergo a single review rather than three different reviews by the state board, the university,

and NCATE.45

NCATE’s role as the national professional accreditation body has not been without controversy. As one educator asserts, “NCATE demands

high standards but has no mechanism to really assist institutions in making the changes needed.”46

Although many suggest that accreditation is important to assure the public that institutions have

met high standards and provide a philosophical

and intellectual foundation for teacher education,

only 521—or 41 percent—of the 1,279 stateapproved teacher education institutions have

sought and received NCATE approval.47 (As of

September 1994, 41 additional institutions are

candidates, awaiting an accreditation visit.48)

Furthermore, the National Board for Professional

Teaching Standards (NBPTS) does not require

that candidates for its advanced professional certification (“Master Teachers”) be graduates of accredited teacher preparation programs. However,

NBPTS and NCATE are working together “to ensure that standards for accreditation and standards

for advanced certification are compatible and congruent.”49

In revising standards in 1988 to reduce duplication, clarify language, and emphasize areas of importance, NCATE also placed a new emphasis on

technology. The NCATE standard “Pedagogical

Studies for Initial Teacher Preparation” suggests

that professional studies for all teachers include

knowledge about and appropriate experiences

with eight areas, one of which is educational computing, including the use of computer and related

technologies in instruction, assessment, and professional productivity. Under the standards for

quality of instruction for teacher education faculty, a new indicator was added stating that “instruc42 Ted Sanders, “A State Superintendent Looks at National Accreditation,” Phi Delta Kappan, October 1993, pp. 165-170.

43 See also the “1992 NASDTEC Outcome-Based Standards and Portfolio Assessment,” a set of standards that serve as a resource for states

considering, developing, or implementing outcome-based approaches for teacher education and certification.

44 Jane Liebbrand, NCATE Director of Communications, personal communication, Sept. 23, 1994. See also, Karen Diegmueller, “NCATE

Analysis of Education Schools To Help Forge Partnerships with States,” Education Week, Mar. 24, 1993, p. 27.

45 Wilmer S. Cody, “National Accreditation—An Effective Use of Resources,” Quality Teaching, NCATE Newsletter, vol. 1, Issue 2, winter

1992, p. 1.

46 Allen Glenn, Dean, College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle, personal communication, Jan. 6, 1995.

47 Diegmueller, op. cit., footnote 44.

48 Liebbrand, op. cit., footnote 44.

49 Ibid.
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 179

tion reflects knowledge and use of various

instructional strategies and technologies.”50

Qualifications for professional education faculty

also must include “faculty modeling the integration of computers and technology in their fields of

specialization.” Finally, there is a standard to ensure that facilities, equipment and budgetary resources in the colleges of education are sufficient

to fulfill its mission and offer quality programs.

One indicator states that “facilities and equipment

support education communication and instructional technology needs, including computers,

and they are functional, and well maintained.”51

In addition, NCATE endorsed the curriculum

guidelines for educational and computing technology programs developed by ISTE (see box

5-2).

Another organization acting as a catalyst to reform and improve the standards of teachers is the

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

The CCSSO’s task force on licensing standards,

called the Interstate New Teachers Assessment

and Support Consortium (INTASC), is working to

develop common licensing standards for new

teachers, from the perspective of the state departments of education. INTASC has worked with 22

states over the last three years to develop model

standards that require teachers to demonstrate

knowledge and skills; the new standards are intended to replace the current teacher preparation

program approval system with a system based on

achievement.52 Both the CCSSO and NBPTS are

also National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education constituents, so the platform is being

set for shared expectations for teacher education

reform.

In addition, the National Association of State

Directors of Teacher Education and Certification

has published a set of model standards as resources for states considering outcome-based approaches to teacher education and certification. It

is a first step in developing essential national

standards for obtaining the initial professional

teaching certificate and entering the teaching profession. In the future, NASDTEC plans to work

with states to develop instruments, tasks, and materials for evaluating whether prospective teachers have the skills, attitudes, and knowledge for

teaching. NASDTEC also plans to develop tools

such as multimedia professional development

systems and portfolio assessment models for demonstrating competence in teaching with technology.

Technology is also central to the NASDTEC

outcomes, both as a separate subject area and integrated with content areas across the curriculum.

For example, one standard states that “the beginning (high school) teacher during planning, delivery, and analysis activities correlates, integrates,

and applies computer-supported learning, production, and management systems in classroom

teaching,” in order “to broaden student knowledge

about technology, to deliver direct instruction to

all students at different levels and paces, to use

technology as a motivation for higher order learning, and to produce computer assisted solutions to

real-world problems.”53

❚ K-12 Reforms, Colleges of Education,

and Technology

Reform efforts that link colleges of education and

K-12 schools are not commonplace, but such collaborations are vital if the current teacher workforce and future teachers are expected to be able to

approach teaching and learning in an effective,

cohesive manner. Typically, K-12 reform and col50 The International Society for Technology in Education recommended NCATE’s adoption of this standard. Margaret Kelly, California

State University, San Marcos, personal communication, Sept. 13, 1994.

51 National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, “NCATE Standards” (Washington, DC: 1994).

52 Arthur E. Wise, “Professionalization and Standards: A ‘Unified System of Quality Assurance,’” Education Week, June 1, 1994, p. 48.

53 NASDTEC Standards Committee, “NASDTEC Outcome Based Standards” (draft), March 1993, p. 19.
180 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

At Mississippi State University elementary teachers from

around the state are trained to use multimedia computer

equipment for a new 8th-grade course called Computer

Discovery that helps students understand how computers

are used in different careers.

leges of education reform are viewed as separate

issues.54 Indeed, “during the past 100 years or so

of focusing on school reform, very little attention

has been paid to the role of reforming teacher

education.” 55

This situation is no different when it comes to

technology education and implementation. COE

faculty rarely work with other agencies, such

as school districts or state education agencies,

on projects related to technology integration,

according to data from the survey conducted

for OTA.56 Likewise, many teacher education

faculty are not aware of all the technology requirements for teacher certification in their states.

Often at the state and federal level there is little

understanding of what this alignment between

COEs and K-12 requires. Nevertheless, some collaborative partnerships among universities,

schools, districts, regional education agencies,

and state education agencies have shown great

promise. For example, the University of Virginia

teamed up with the Virginia state education

agency to create Virginia’s Public Education Network. California State University’s telecommunications system spawned a collaborative,

statewide K-12 staff development project, the

California Technology Project, supporting free

K-12 telecommunications and preservice teacher

links.57 Faculty at the University of Central Florida and the University of South Florida have been

very active in technology training and development projects in collaboration with the Florida

state education agency. And the Texas Education

Agency’s grant program supports technology-rich

professional development schools (see box 5-3).

At the University of Washington, three reform

efforts-the Center for Educational Renewal, the

Institute for Educational Inquiry, and the National

Network for Educational Renewal—are jointly

creating an agenda for the simultaneous renewal

of pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools and

the education of educators. Twenty-five universities and 100 school districts are linked by the National Network as part of this undertaking, and the

Institute supports work at the educational settings

involved in the network.

The renewal of teacher education requires the

availability of schools that are in the process of

renewing. Schools that are renewing are as indispensable to good teacher education as teaching hospitals are to good medical education.58

54 John. I. Goodlad, Teachers for Our Nation's Schools (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1990).

55 Goodlad, op. cit., footnote 14.

56 Jerry Willis et al., “Information Technology in Teacher Education: Surveys of the Current Status," OTA contractor report, March 1994.

57 Kelly, op. cit., footnote 50.

58 Goodlad, op. cit., footnote 14.
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 181

Indeed, in the 19 institutions of higher education

in the state of Washington, teacher education students are placed in schools the very first quarter of

their teacher education programs. At the University of Washington, 60 hours of school-based experience is required to be considered for admission

to the teacher education program.59

The professional development school movement60 is a similar example of a K-12 and university collaboration. Institutions such as the

University of Utah and the University of Houston

have forged relationships with public schools to

increase opportunities for teacher education students to observe and practice technology integration. Both Utah and Houston have discovered,

however, that university faculty and K-12 teachers

require considerable staff development and ongoing support to make the connections. Unless university policies (e.g., tenure, promotion, and merit

salary increases) are changed to reward COE faculty for undertaking collaborative projects with

K-12, there is little incentive for faculty to invest

the substantial time and effort required for working closely with schools.

Increased COE collaboration with K-12 must

be balanced against the additional drain on the

limited technology and support resources available in colleges of education. As discussed in the

section below, these COE technology resources

are limited.

TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHER EDUCATION

Among the many demands on schools and colleges of education today, preparing teachers to use

technology may seem like an additional burden.

However, as noted above, states and professional

organizations are increasingly recommending or

requiring that all new teachers be competent in the

uses of technology. Moreover, emerging evidence suggests that technology can make several positive contributions to the overall

preservice experience.

For example, OTA case studies of four colleges

of education where technology is an integral part

of the preservice programs found technology being used in a number of ways to enhance the overall teacher preparation experience.61 Technology

can capture the reality of the classroom: a videotape of a teacher conducting an actual class can

“anchor” preservice students to the complex and

real-life interactions of students and teachers.

Technology can facilitate access to and communication with additional resources, such as experts

in the field or informational databases on CDROM available to teacher education students and

faculty on the same network. Technology can also

support and enhance traditional approaches to

teacher-developed curriculum materials and

instructional practices. While these kinds of programs demonstrate the possibilities, the underlying question remains: how well do most

colleges of education prepare new teachers to use

technology?

❚ Preparing New Teachers

To Use Technology

A Role for Colleges of Arts and Science

Teachers teach as they have been taught. Since

most teacher education students receive much

of their content instruction in the colleges of

arts and sciences, it is important that effective

teaching—including teaching with technology—is modeled in the other parts of the university preparation of prospective teachers. This is

particularly important as states cut back the number of education courses a prospective teacher can

59 Glenn, op. cit., footnote 44.

60 See, e.g., Linda Darling-Hammond (ed.), Professional Development Schools: Schools for Developing a Profession (New York, NY:

Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1994); also, Joanna Richardson, “NCATE To Develop Standards for Training Schools,” Education Week, vol. XIV, No. 19, Feb. 1, 1995, p. 3.

61 John R. Mergendoller et al., “Case Studies of Exemplary Approaches to Training Teachers to Use Technology,” OTA contractor report,

September 1994.
182 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Attending faculty meetings; participating in PTA meetings; going on field trips; observing and assisting in the library in the nurses clinic and counselor’s office, and sitting in on parent conferences. No, it's

not a day in a teacher’s life. It’s a semester in the life of preservice teacher candidates fulfilling an internship in Texas.

For example, at the Center for Professional Development and Technology (CPDT) at Stephen F. Austin University’s School of Education, instead of three-and-a-half years of university coursework and a

semester of student teaching, preservice teacher candidates must spend a semester as an intern-observing, learning, and taking university classes at a school site—prior to becoming student teachers.

The teacher candidates are involved in all aspects of school activity They tutor individual students,

teach in small groups, make bulletin boards, use computerized grade books, shadow mentor teachers

in various assignments, and attend inservice training programs.

In a typical internship at a middle school, for example, teacher candidates spend an eight-hour day

at the school two days a week, from the first bell in the morning until one in the afternoon, they are

teacher interns working with a mentor teacher. Later in the day, they become university students again,

taking methods courses taught by university faculty on-site at the middle school. During the rest of the

week, the students return to the university to take regular classes, including a course using computers

purchased with CPDT funds. The students get computer experience in their school sites, too, using

technology (also funded with CPDT monies) in the mentor teachers’ classrooms.

Often, this school-based experience is enough for students to decide whether or not they really want

to become teachers. For the teachers in the school, the experience is also an education. As one teachers says, “The old student teachers would just take courses and come straight into the classroom, with

no buffer zone. Now . . . we have student teachers who have seen what a school is about. ” Teacher

education faculty benefit, as well, since “the fact that university faculty are no longer teaching [only] on

the university campus, and what they say will be validated in the classroom the next day, keeps everyone on their toes. ”

In Texas, the time students spend in K-12 classrooms before they receive their teaching degrees is

uniquely styled, in large part, because of efforts by the Texas Education Agency to reform teacher

education. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) is a unit of the Texas state government, with extensive

responsibilities for K-1 2 education and a serious commitment to technology use. The TEA oversees the

certification of teachers and allocation of state funds to 1,050 local school districts with more than 6,000

schools. The TEA also supports 20 Regional Education Service Centers that provide direct services to

the districts in their region (see chapter 4).

Since the 1970s, when personal computers became affordable, there has been interest at TEA in the

use of technology in schools. The 1988 publication of TEA’s “Long-Range Plan for Technology” makes a

case for technology as one means of improving education in the state. Among the plan’s initiatives that

required action on the part of the state’s legislature was a call for the Texas legislature to appropriate

$50 per year per public school pupil for technology, with annual increases. The legislature actually appropriated $30 per year per pupil in 1992-93, and the figure has not been increased; however, it

amounts to a commitment by the state of $113 million annually for technology.1

1 The only significant restriction IS the requirement that districts spend at least 75 percent of the money on “instruction, ” as opposed to hardware TEA encourages districts to spend 30 percent of their technology allocations on staff development, but thus is a

recommendation, not a requirement
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 183

This history of support for technology in schools has evolved into support for better use of technology in

the preparation of new teachers It became clear that if K-12 students have technology access and experience, so, too, should the new teachers who are entering the classroom. The evolution to preservice support,

however, has come about on a winding road. In 1987, the Texas legislature eliminated the undergraduate

degree in educatihon and required that all students preparing to be teachers have a content major. The legislation also limited the number of courses a student could be required to take in education to 18 semester

hours—12 credit hours of professional coursework and six credit hours for student teaching. Also in the

1980s, TEA developed (with legislative support) alternative certification programs, so college graduates

who had no teacher education courses could become certified to teach while working as teachers.

By the end of the 1980s, it was obvious that both the 18-hour rule and alternative certification were not

the optimal solutions. Alternative certification programs amounted to a sink-or-swim situation for the new

teachers, and teacher education programs, while shorter, still emphasized lecture-based courses removed from the classrooms. Furthermore, there was concern that new teachers were not being prepared

to use technology.

Ultimately, TEA developed an alternative to traditional university-based teacher education and alternative certification, and in 1991 legislation was passed authorizing funding for Centers for Professional Development and Technology. Approximately $34 million has been invested to support the restructuring of

new teacher education programs through CPDTs. For the past three years, planning grants were awarded

to teacher education programs in public and private colleges and universities to develop plans for reforming teacher education, CPDTs, like the one described in the above scenario, have an emphasis on integrating technology throughout the preservice curriculum and inservice staff development plan. This led to

the creation of professional development schools—that is, sites within the K-12 setting that theoretically

afford preservice students the best of both worlds, learning about teaching as teacher candidates and

gaining important teaching experience in real school settings.

The responsibility for effectively Integrating technology into the new teacher education programs rests

not with TEA but with the programs. So far, 17 collaborative have been funded for CPDTs, This number

includes 50 percent of the educator preparation programs in Texas. Quantitative data indicate students

going through a CPDT program score higher on the state-administered ExCept exam.2 The support of the

state education agency and the state’s legislature for technology as a primary emphasis in teacher

education reform provide a valuable example for other states to consider.

2 The ExCept exam is required both in subject specialty and the general component prior to receiving certification to teach in

Texas,

SOURCE John Mergendoller et al , “Exemplary Approaches to Training Teachers To Use Technology, ” OTA contractor report, September 1994, pp. 9,1-930
184 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Overall, teacher education Programs in the United States do

not prepare graduates to use technologyas a teaching tool,

and recent graduates of teacher education programs say

they do not feel wall prepared to use teachnology in the

classroom.

take, and as they move to abolish the undergraduate degree in education.

A recent survey at the University of Southern

California indicates that-across all areas-“only

a small percentage of college courses and classes

use technology to enhance or supplement instruction.” 62 According to the study, roughly one college course in six uses computer labs, and only

one in 10 uses computer-based simulations and

software. The survey also reports that research

universities are more likely than other types of

62 The Heller Report, vol. 6, No. 3, January 1995, p. 1,7.

63 Ibid.

institutions of higher education to consider resources such as the Internet to be important for access to content that otherwise might not be

available for classroom instruction.63

Technology Preparation in

Colleges of Education

Even if the courses prospective teachers take in

the general studies programs do not necessarily

model technology use, it is appropriate that

schools and colleges of education do so. However,

anecdotal evidence, surveys conducted for

OTA, 64 and a number of other sources65 suggest

that this is not so. OTA finds that overall teacher education programs in the United States do

not prepare graduates to use technology as a

teaching tool. For example, although the majority

of colleges of education surveyed offer a course in

information technology (educational computing,

educational media, or instructional technology),

only slightly more than half require that their students take such a course.66

For most types of technology,67 faculty who responded to the OTA contractor survey reported

very low levels of use in the COE classroom, and

recent graduates reported even lower levels of exposure to technology. In addition, the majority of

teacher education faculty surveyed do not model

technology use, do not use information technology to accomplish the objectives in the courses they

teach, and do not teach students how to use

technology for instructional purposes.

64 Much of this section comes from Jerry Willis et al., "Information Technology in Teacher Education: Surveys of the Current Status," OT

contractor report, March 1994.

65 See, e.g., R.E. Schumaker and P.G. Hossain, "Computer Use in Education: Faculty Perception and Use of a Computer Learning Center,”

Journal of Computer Based Instruction, vol. 17, No. 3,1990, pp. 87-90; and J. Fratianni, R. Decker, and B. Koven-Baum “Technology: Are

Future Teachers Being Prepared for the 21st Century?’’ Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 15-23. 66 Likewise, a separate study of teacher education programs in Michigfan found that 95 percent offered some type of training in information

 technology for teacher education students--but not necessarily a couse--and that 40 percent required information technology training of students in the teacher education programs. L. Carr, D. Novak, and C. Berger, “Integrating Technology into Preservice Education: Determining the

Necessary Resources,’’ Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 20-24. 67 See definition of technology as used in chapter 2 of this report.
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 185

When the OTA contractor survey asked recent

graduates how well their teacher education program prepared them to use technology in their

teaching, the majority responded that they did not

feel they were prepared. As one respondent said,

“Training is definitely needed in teacher education programs on things such as Hypercard, multimedia, CD-ROM, etc. The class I had showed us

slides of what could be done, but we really gained

no understanding and received no training in these

areas.”68 One conclusion to be drawn is that

telling students about what is possible is not

enough; they must see technology used by their

instructors, observe uses of technological tools

in classrooms, and practice teaching with

technologies themselves if they are to use these

tools effectively in their own teaching. As a recent graduate stated, “most colleges and universities are using a broad base of computer

technology; however, they are not giving student

teachers enough background to use this in their

own classrooms.”69

In those COEs where technology is an integral

part of teacher preparation programs, anecdotal

evidence suggests that students will adopt the use

of educational technology in instruction if they

see faculty members modeling technology use.70

The low level of technology coverage in teacher education contrasts with the way that other professional preparation programs address relevant

technologies. For example, few health care professionals complete their training and enter practice without an understanding of the technologies

used in their specialty. Few business college graduates complete their degrees without experience

using the computer-based tools of their business

specialties. Of course, professions such as these

often require graduate study, so students in those

programs may have more extensive exposure to

the school’s resources, including technologies.

Most teachers only need to complete an undergraduate program to teach, and the data reported

here suggest that most new teachers graduate with

limited experiences or understanding of the ways

technologies can be used in their professional

practice—the classroom.

Methods of Teaching With and

About Technology

Coverage of technology in teacher education can

be divided roughly into three types: 1) discussion/

demonstration, 2) technology practice, and 3)

professional practice. A faculty member conducting a science teaching methods course might, for

example, discuss how computer-based simulations could be used in a high school science class.

The instructor might even demonstrate a few simulations for the class using a large monitor or projection panel. This occasionally occurs in teacher

education, but it is rare.

The next level of engagement with technology

involves hands-on technology practice. In the science methods course, for example, the instructor

might take the students to a teacher education

computer lab and have them install science simulations into the computer and examine how they

work.

At the third and most critical level of engagement, professional practice, students in the science methods class might see simulations being

used in a high school chemistry or physics class.

They might visit a classroom, view a classroom

via a television connection, or watch it from a videodisc or videotape. At the level of professional

practice, these students would also practice teaching with technology. In the methods course, they

might create lesson plans that include technology

and practice in teaching exercises. Later, in student teaching, they would observe teachers using

technology and then teach with technology themselves.

68 Willis et al., op cit., footnote 64, p. 121.

69 Ibid.

70 Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 61.
186 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

The opportunity for preservice teachers to practice teaching with technology is not common in colleges of education. However,

Trina Dendy (right) conducted a distance-learning course for high school students as part ofher student teaching experience.

Here, students in Corinth, Mississippi, receive the lesson (lefr), which she broadcast from West Point, miles away

In the contractor survey of recent graduates, 40

percent said education faculty used technology in

the courses they completed; specifically, more

than 60 percent said they had been taught with or

taught to use some form of technology. However,

an analysis of this is revealing: the areas that were

most often reported as “taught about” were drilland-practice applications and word processing.

While half of recent graduates surveyed reported being prepared to teach with drill and

practice, tutorials, games, and writing and

publishing centers, less than one in 10 felt they

could use such formats as multimedia packages, electronic presentations, collaborations

over networks, or problem-solving software.

Rarely were teacher education students asked to

develop material or create lessons with technology.

When technology topics are included, they

are more often discussed, read about or demonstrated than modeled, used, or incorporated

into lessons created by students. When considering the integration of technology into specific

content areas, the survey suggests that the majority of faculty did not require students to use

technology, to develop materials, orccreate lessons

using technology. Only the videocassette recorder

was used by more than 20 percent of teacher

education faculty, and only word processing was

cited by more than 10 percent of faculty as a basis

for creating lessons. Part of the reason technology

is not used more by faculty, according to one survey respondent, may be that “until we train [COE]

teachers and provide teachers with equipment, the

teachers are not going to do much with students.” 71

Student Teaching and Technology

Technology does not appear to play a significant role in student teaching assignments. Even

in preservice programs where technology is prev-
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 187

alent and integrated in an exemplary way, one of

the consistent problems identified in the survey

and the OTA case studies was the lack of student

teaching placements in technology-rich classrooms with teachers who know how to exploit the

possibilities afforded by technology. Often, the

preservice teachers knew more about technology

use—in general, not specifically for education—

than the practicing teachers supervising them.72

❚ Barriers to Technology Use in

Colleges of Education

Barriers to more integrated use of technology in

COEs are similar to those in K-12 institutions.

When asked to rank a list of 19 potential barriers,

COE faculty gave the highest rankings to time,

limited resources, faculty comfort level and attitudes, and little institutional encouragement for

technology use. However, COE faculty do not

generally see either complexity or reliability of

equipment as major barriers to wider use of

technology, and they see themselves as competent

to use technology.73

Access to Resources

The data from the OTA survey suggest that a typical college of education is more likely to be a

“have not” than a “have” when it comes to many

types of educational technology. This is a serious

barrier, since access to resources is an essential

element of any effort to increase both teaching

with and teaching about information technology.

Hardware and software resources are a problem

in many programs. One suggestion—although

only part of the solution—is a massive infusion of

equipment through grants from computer companies (see box 5-4), the federal government, or

states. However, funds for the acquisition of upto-date hardware and software have been difficult

for COEs to secure. As noted in chapter 6, federal

support for technology in COEs has been limited.74The problem is also one of “pecking order”

within a university. As one educator pointed out,

“Colleges of education are often at the very bottom of their universities’ priority lists for equipment funding, despite the fact that, in many

instances, the college of education might generate

the largest number of student credit hours (and

therefore revenue) for the university.”75

Information collected through the OTA case

studies of four teacher preparation programs suggests that many colleges of education have so little

equipment that any effort to increase technology

presence in coursework would overwhelm existing resources. In addition, there is a tendency in

education to think of technology as just another

capital cost, to be amortized over 10 or 15 years.

Given the rapid pace of technological innovations—and the reality that new software releases

most likely will not run on machines more than

four or five years old—this assumption is incorrect. Technology is not a one-time expense. As

hardware and network installations become more

technically complex, they need more attention

and maintenance—costs that the COEs must consider and create long-term plans to handle.76

COEs, like K-12 schools, need to plan for how

technology will be distributed and used before

mandating its use. Trying to successfully implement hardware and software without a plan outlining the needs and functions to be addressed by that

technology places the cart ahead of the horse. For

example, buying 20 computers with built-in CDROM drives does little to define what will be done

with them or how they could be deployed in a

teacher education program. The machines could

72 Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 61.

73 Willis et al., op. cit., footnote 64.

74 In contrast, for example, teacher education programs in the United Kingdom were recently invited to write proposals for how they would

use computer-controlled CD-ROM equipment; the proposals were evaluated by the government’s education authority and most were funded.

75 Paul Resta, “Preservice Education,” The Electronic School (Alexandria, VA: NSBA, September 1993), p. A28.

76 Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 61.
188 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Working from a belief that improving technology use in K-12 education required improving the way

new teachers learn to use technology, in 1989 IBM initiated the Teacher Preparation with Technology

Grant Program. The program’s primary goal was to help integrate technology into the curricula of teacher preparation programs nationwide, and secondarily, to introduce more K-12 teachers, present and

future, to MS-DOS-based computer technology.

The effort was substantial: based on proposals submitted to IBM, a total of $30 million was donated

(in hardware, software, cash, and training) to 144 teacher preparation institutions across the country.

Each site received virtually the same equipment to establish a networked IBM Iab.1 An evaluation of the

program reported that, over a three-year period (1990-93), approximately 52,000 preservice teachers

have been trained on the equipment in the labs.2

One commonly voiced concern about such integration efforts in colleges of education is whether the

necessary levels of technical and other support are sufficient to enable a critical mass of college of

education faculty--+ specially those who are not currently technology advocates—to become technology users, The IBM evaluation study found that nearly two-thirds of the teacher preparation faculty involved in the projects were trained to use the equipment; however, less than half received this training

as a result of the grant program.3

In their grant applications, most sites proposed using the equipment for training preservice and inservice teachers and developing curriculum materials for integrating technology in instruction; however,

arrangements on how this was to be done was left to the grantees. Ultimately, the open-ended nature of

the grants proved to be a problem for many sites. While they received a great deal of technology, the

training and support given to sites was more technical “nuts and bolts” for getting the labs up and running rather than in training the teachers to effectively integrate technology in their classrooms. The evaluation reported, “sites felt that additional training for faculty was necessary” and suggested that supplemental funding should have been targeted for this training. During the grant award process, as one

site pointed out, IBM could have “forced the colleges of education to provide . release time, or other

perks as compensation for learning the technology. IBM had the clout to require this, they just didn’t

know it. ”4

1 Most sites received 10 to 15 IBM Model 25 or Model 30 workstations, a PS/2 Model 80 file server, two printers, networking hardware and software, IBM courseware, a $5,000 cash grant, training for two project staff in Atlanta, and technical support

2 Gary G Bitter and Brandt W. Pryor, The National Study of IBM’s Teacher Preparation with Technology Grant Program, Arizona

State University, Technology Based Learning and Research (Tempe, AZ Arizona State University, 1994), p. 13

3 Ibid , p. 11.

4 Ibid,, p. 21,

be placed in a lab where teacher education stu- they might need fewer computers with CD-ROM

dents learn word processing. Or, three or four capabilities and more videodisc players with bar

could be put in each of the college classrooms code readers. Another alternative would be to put

where methods courses (e.g., science, reading/ the computers in the classrooms of cooperating

language arts, mathematics, art, social studies) are teachers in the schools—those who had been entaught. However, if several of the science educa- couraged and supported based on a plan identifytion faculty want to begin teaching students how ing their technology needs—as they supervise

to use videodisc-based packages that supplement student teachers.

or replace textbooks in some science classrooms,
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 189

The IBM program evaluation found that about two-thirds of respondents noted positive changes in

the teacher preparation faculty’s attitudes toward the computer lab. For example, one site responded

that, “The easy access to the network encouraged the faculty to try to integrate [the] technology into

their classes and helped them see the value of a computer network in the learning and teaching process,” 5 A total of 367 courses—both required and electives—were developed or revised to incorporate

the computer technology.6

Also, over half the sites reported that they included local schools as part of their projects, most often

through involvement with inservice teachers, bringing children to the site lab, and through activities conducted as a part of the preservice program. Several sites maintain that much of their implementation success was due to the participation of and interaction with the local schools. As one site reported, “Participating in the schools gave [technology integration] a reality that was invaluable for the education faculty.

The school’s support of technology prods the university faculty and administration to do the same. ”7

Although educators at the IBM sites appreciated the good intentions shown by IBM, many were frustrated by difficulties in integrating the technology into teacher preparation curricula, suggesting lessons

for similar efforts. Some of the problems reported include technical or equipment difficulties, lack of

training and technical support, lack of resources, outdated hardware (most were 286 machines), and

marginal software. Some sites were able to resolve these problems, but many were not.

The IBM grant program evaluation suggests that an infusion of technology into a program IS not sufficient to produce change. The open-ended nature of the grant program was a detriment to success for

many of the sites. Sites were allowed near total discretion on how they integrated the grant into their

teacher preparation programs; many sites were frustrated by a lack of guidance and support Recommendations made to IBM by the grantees suggest that more direction was needed. “[IBM should] have

a clear set of expectations of what the grant recipients are to do” and’ “have a reasonably well-developed game plan-don’t do this in a vacuum. ”

5 Ibid., p, 47.

6 The grant sites reported that 84 new courses were created and 283 existing courses were revised to incorporate the IBM

technology.

7 Bitter and Pryor, op. cit., footnote 2, p 7.

SOURCE. Gary G. Bitter and Brandt W. Pryor, The National Study of IBM's Teacher Preparation with Technology Grant Program

(Tempe, AZ Arizona State University, 1994).

Faculty Comfort Level, Attitudes,

and Training

Technology planning in the COE should involve a

wide range of faculty from the college. One problem, however, is that many faculty do not have the

knowledge needed to make informed decisions on

technology issues, according to the aforementioned survey. Furthermore, professional development for faculty tends to emphasize the

fundamentals of computing rather than the integration of technology into education. Like K- 12

educators, COE faculty need to understand ways

technology can enhance instruction in their specialty areas.

A potential barrier to technology use in COES

may be the attitudes of faculty. Although most

teacher education faculty believe that technology

is an important aspect of both K-12 education and

teacher education, many seem to view technology

as a separate type of content, rather than as some-
190 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

thing that should or could be integrated into a content area such as a math course or a social studies

methods class.77 It is not surprising that faculty

members agree technology is important while

simultaneously presuming it is a “topic” that

will be covered somewhere in the curricula other than in the courses they teach.

OTA’s data suggest most teacher education faculty concur that technology will play a critical role

in the future of both education and teacher education. That generally positive attitude, however,

does not translate into specific plans and actions

the individual faculty member implements. There

are several reasons for this dichotomy. While faculty say technology is important, many do not feel

comfortable using technology in the COE classroom. That is true even though the majority of faculty (86 percent in the OTA survey) use a

computer at home for many hours a week. Although they may have basic proficiency with

word processing, disk operating systems, and

spreadsheets, many are not as comfortable when it

comes to integrating computer technology into

instruction. In fact, most COE faculty in the OTA

survey report some anxiety in using technology

with their teaching applications, and almost all

(90 percent) consider the knowledge level and

confidence level of teacher educators to be barriers to wider use of information technology in

teacher education. Since the majority of teacher

education faculty completed graduate programs and taught in schools where technology

was not a major part of the educational environment, it is not surprising that they tend to

have limited experience with technologies for

instruction.

Teacher educators responding to the OTA survey reported that they need help in integrating

technology experiences into the courses they

teach. A major effort to infuse technology into

teacher education would include workshops,

seminars, publications, and support materials developed specifically for various areas of teacher

education.

Another attitudinal barrier among many teacher education faculty is a tendency to separate information technology from other components of

the program such as subject matter content and

professional practice skills. A methods instructor,

for example, who is teaching cooperative learning

strategies, may view information technology as a

topic competing for time in his or her curriculum

rather than as an integral part of effective cooperative learning strategies in the classroom. The tendency to isolate information technology, to put it

in a separate “technology ghetto” in the teacher

education curriculum, may be a major impediment to integration across the curriculum. The

problem is comparable to teaching writing: are

writing skills to be taught only by the English faculty, or is it something all instructors should take

into consideration?

Another factor that influences faculty comfort

level with technology is the perceived match between technological applications and the theoretical perspective of the faculty member. Some uses

of technology in teacher education, such as drilland-practice software, are based on a behavioral

model, while others, such as interactive, multimedia models, are based on a cognitive or constructivist theory. Staff development and support

efforts should take theoretical perspective into account and work with faculty within their preferred

theoretical mode, unless an additional goal is to

change underlying theory as well as encourage

technology use. Researchers suggest both actions—increasing technology use and changing

pedagogical theory—can happen hand-in-hand.78

Staff and Institutional Support

Faculty in colleges of education, like K-12 educators, feel they need more staff support for technology; however, unlike those in K-12 settings, they

77 Willis et al., op. cit., footnote 64.

78 Barbara Means (ed.), Technology and Education Reform (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994).
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 191

are more likely to have some technical support

staff available in their institutions. Half the faculty

responding to the OTA survey said their college

had a full-time computer lab manager, and over

one-third said a full-time technician was available. Unlike K-12 schools, additional support in

COEs can be provided by graduate students who

are comfortable with technology.

Another potentially important barrier to

technology use in COEs is lack of institutional

support for technology use by faculty. Although

the incentive system in institutions of higher

education is different than in K-12 schools, these

rewards (e.g., tenure, merit pay, or promotions) do

not encourage COE faculty to develop curricular

innovations, software, or other information

technology applications. As one respondent said,

At a major university, rewards come only to

those who do research and writing. No time is

available to retool (learn the necessary skills)

and restructure classes accordingly. It’s an exciting time in the development of more advanced

instructional technology. Released time for

hands-on information immersion would be exciting. 79

Only one-third of the faculty responding to the

OTA survey said there were rewards for investing

time in developing technology-based instructional materials or educational software instead of

conducting more traditional research activities.

About 40 percent of the faculty felt that the generally low level of interest demonstrated by colleges

or institutional leadership was an important problem; only one in four did not see it as a barrier.

It seems that, in general, the use of computerrelated technology as a teaching and learning medium is employed much less in teacher education

than would be expected, given what is being

taught about its value to education in technologyrelated teacher education courses. The opportuniFinding enough student teaching placements with

enthusiastic, expert technology-using teachers is a challenge

for many colleges of education, but it is a key to preparing a

generation of teachers who are fearless with technology

ty for preservice teachers to experience models of

computer-supported instruction before they try to

manage it themselves is seldom available, suggesting the lack of synergy between computer

education specialists and mainstream teacher

education faculty.80

MODELS OF CHANGE:

LESSONS FOR THE FIELD81

What the survey data do not tell are the stories of

COES where changes have occurred and continue

to take place, creating models for the field. There

are colleges of education where technological

tools are being implemented in ways that overcome some of the barriers of access, attitudes,

training, and support discussed earlier in this

chapter. These institutions, where technology

support has been an intrinsic part of the vision of

the teacher education program, share certain characteristics, including a required course that

teaches students how to use technology, exposure

to technology -rich K-12 classroom environments,

80 Betty Collis,"A Reflection on the Relationship Between Technology and Teacher Educatin: Synergy or Separate Entities?’’ Journal of

Information Technology for Teacher Education, vol. 3, No. 1,1994, pp. 7-23. 81 The information in this section is excerpted, in large part, from Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 61.
192 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

and strategies that make technology transparent

and intuitive to use.82 In these institutions a number of factors come together: institutional leadership, which translates into funding support and

permission for faculty to explore new areas; collegial support of changes; and close interaction with

the K-12 community the COEs are meant to serve.

Even in colleges of education that might serve

as implementation “models” for others—where

basic operational knowledge of computer and

educational technologies is acknowledged as important for students and faculty alike—this emphasis alone is not the vision driving the schools’

technology training and support. Instead, what

drives the use of technology is a vision of how

educational technologies can solve instructional

problems and provide curricular and administrative opportunities that could not be achieved as efficiently or powerfully otherwise. In such

instances—including the four colleges of education highlighted below—technology is not embraced “because it’s there,” but because it is

perceived to do important things better, more interestingly, or in entirely new ways.

❚ University of Virginia,

Curry School of Education

The elementary school computer lab is crowded

with 4th-grade students and their “teachers”—preservice education students from the

Curry School of Education at the University of

Virginia (UVA). Pairs of eyes focus on computer

screens as elementary and university students

work together to explore the possibilities of the

software program KidPix. Movement is confined

to wrists and fingers. Mouses click softly. Conversations are serious and focused. After struggling a while, a UVA student asks his 4th-grade

partner if they should ask for help. “Yeah, it’s

time,” comes the unenthusiastic reply. They lean

over to the 4th-grader sitting next to them. “How

can we save this under another name?” they ask.

“We want to use it as a starting point for another

drawing.” The neighboring 4th-grader reaches

over, takes possession of the mouse, and demonstrates how to solve the problem.

At the University of Virginia’s Curry School of

Education, technology has been identified as one

of the major strands within the teacher education

program, and it is interwoven throughout the

courses students complete as they work toward

their degree. As part of this agenda, technology

partnerships have been established with local

schools to provide interesting and challenging

field experiences for teacher education students,

and simultaneously, to enrich the technological

expertise of K-12 teachers. In addition, a statewide telecommunications system has been integrated with the teacher preparation course

sequence and with the daily work of practicing

teachers.

At its basic level, technology in the teacher

education program at the Curry School involves

three approaches to integration. First, the Curry

School requires students to either take self-contained computer courses or demonstrate competencies in specific areas covered in those courses.

Second, the college encourages the methods faculty to incorporate educational technologies into

methods courses so students will have the opportunity to observe and practice teaching methods

involving technology use. And finally, the school

funds student teaching placements with teachers

who use technology in their daily work.

There are, of course, challenges to these approaches. Computer courses do not address individual curriculum areas and can perpetuate the

sense that technology is a separate topic, isolated

from instruction. Expecting methods instructors

to include technology in their courses raises questions of technological interest and expertise

among those faculty. And finding enough student

teaching placements where teachers are enthusiastic and frequent technology users is difficult.

82 Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 61.
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 193

The Curry School addresses these challenges

through a schoolwide culture of technology use.

This is reflected in several key factors, including

support from the top by the dean, developing the

technology expertise of faculty to serve as role

models and provide support for their colleagues,

creating technology-focused field experiences,

and maintaining communications through a statewide telecommunications network.

The Dean’s Role

The dean’s support of educational technology infusion into the Curry School and the teacher

education program is one of the reasons why

Curry has developed a solid reputation for integrating technology and teacher education. When

asked about the technology focus, given all of the

ways one could support a teacher education program, the dean said he recognized “the power of

technology to improve teaching.”

Technology could enable teachers to make a difference, and I felt we had to help those learning

to be teachers to become competent technology

users. I also saw, from a practical point of view,

that you had to get ahead of the curve and stay

ahead of the curve if you were going to distinguish yourself as an institution. This meant we

had to make an early and substantial investment

in technology if it was going to make a difference. Also, technology is very exciting! Teacher

education is kind of a stodgy discipline, and I

thought technology would liven it up. Finally, I

thought that making technology available to

Curry School students would raise the status of

teacher education. Our students would be getting something Arts and Sciences students

didn’t. When we got our first IBM classroom

installed, faculty from the engineering school

across the street came over to admire it. They

didn’t have anything like it!83

The dean’s support of technology is more than

rhetorical; technology integration is funded from

the budget of the Curry School, and discretionary

funds make possible small grants to individual

faculty members or departments for technology

purchases so that any faculty member who says he

or she needs a computer gets one. Furthermore,

the dean and other staff have been aggressive in

competing for technology funds available to all of

the schools within the university. The Curry

School has received more than $2 million in funding from IBM, Apple, the National Science

Foundation, and local telecommunications companies.

Developing Role Models for

Faculty Technology Expertise

Using key faculty as role models for others is an

important element in integrating technology

across the college of education. At Curry, much of

the initiative began with a faculty member84 who

was originally a member of the communications

science program. His interest in and advocacy of

computers and other educational technology have

been critical in creating an educational climate

that encourages Curry School teachers to experiment with educational technology and explore

how technology can further their instructional and

professional goals. His approach is one of patience, and his time frame long-term:

You need to think in a five- to 15-year time

frame. It takes that long. You have to work with

one faculty member at a time. You keep coming

around and find something they’re really interested in. Everybody is not ready to swallow

technology in exactly the same way at the same

time. People are very reasonable; they will use

technology if it makes sense to them.

83 James Cooper was Dean of the Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, at the time of the OTA case study; he resigned from this

position to return to teaching at the end of the 1993-94 school year. Information taken from personal communication, Feb. 3, 1994, Charlottesville, VA. Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 61.

84 Glen L. Bull, Professor of Instructional Technology, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia.
194 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

You have to remember that technology has layers. There’s the technological, and that is what

everybody focuses on. But there’s also the social

and the institutional. Here you have to go one

person at a time. You can’t just have one or two

stars and leave everybody else behind. The minute you define supporting the stars as your mission, you are lost. It’s a nibbling away process.

The key is not to try to convince the faculty but

to let them hold their views. Make sure you include everybody—support both Mac and DOS

platforms.85

Currently about 20 percent of Curry School

faculty use some form of instructional technology

as a research focus, another 20 percent use it extensively in their teaching to access and display

information, and the remaining 60 percent limit

their technology use to word processing and other

personal productivity uses. One faculty member

has been given time to work with the less technologically proficient faculty on the instructional

uses of technology. A conference room with four

networked computers (Macintosh and MS-DOS)

has been set aside to provide for “walk-in” faculty

consulting and development. Although graduate

students have provided similar services in the

past, this is the first time a faculty member has

been assigned this role. While the arrangement is

now a pilot program, if successful, it may become

part of the Curry School’s faculty development

and support structure.

There is also an Educational Technology Committee, with one representative from each department in the Curry School. Now in its 10th year, the

committee meets twice a month in meetings open

to all faculty who wish to attend. The committee is

responsible for identifying the overall technological direction to be taken by the Curry School, but it

also serves as a technical and emotional support

group. One member explained, “When I need to

know something, when I need to know where to

go, I find out here.”

Technology Field Experiences

Over the last several years, the Curry School has

embarked on a number of pilot projects to enable

its students to use technology in their field experiences with K-12 teachers and students. For example, in the spring of 1993, an after-school

computer club was created to pair third-year

teacher education students with a socioeconomically and ethnically diverse group of 4th-grade

pupils at a local elementary school. The club—

which meets once a week in a computer lab at the

school—enables the elementary students and supervising lab teachers to gain computer skills and

build self-confidence, while the Curry School students acquire the practical experience working

one-on-one with students. When the club meetings conclude, the Curry students return to the

classroom and write reports to “their” students’

classroom teacher, make notes in a journal about

the tutoring experience, and plan activities for the

following week’s meeting.

Another pilot project is the Technology Infusion Program, pairing Curry School students with

practicing teachers. The Curry students take a

fifth-year course in instructional computing, surveying a range of instructional concepts. During

the first half of the semester—after learning about

a technology concept or software program—students try out “mini-projects” in a practicing teacher’s classroom. The focus of the class then shifts

from learning a skill to practicing it. Later, Curry

students work on a more elaborate project with the

teacher. Currently, to ensure success in the

Technology Infusion Program, the number of participating Curry School students is limited to 20 a

year.86 Part of the reason for this is that the Curry

85 Glen L. Bull, personal communication, Feb. 4, 1994, as cited in Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 61.

86 Although the overall enrollment at Curry is approximately 1,300 students, the majority of these are pursuing advanced degrees. The

teacher education program is a five-year program, with approximately 100 students each year entering the program in their sophomore year.
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 195

staff are aware that small-scale success generates a

momentum for expansion, and expansion can

often overwhelm resources allocated to a project.

As one professor says, “We’re guinea pigs—or,

better yet, canaries going down the mine. You

have to go in very small steps . . . build on what

has gone before.”87

Virginia’s PEN

The Virginia Public Education Network (Virginia’s PEN) directly serves Curry School students.

Virginia’s PEN is a distributed network that began

in the mid-1980s as Teacher-Link, a network connecting the teachers supervising Curry School student teachers, and the student teachers themselves

with the Curry School faculty.88 It also provided

participating public schools with access to the Internet. Today, the network is the literal and figurative backbone to educational telecommunications

in Virginia. As of 1994, Virginia’s PEN connected

2,000 public schools in 137 districts to the Internet, providing a seamless telecomputing network

that links (via a toll-free number) all Virginia

schools from kindergarten through graduate

school.

While Virginia’s PEN duplicates some communications and conferencing services often provided by commercial networks, such as America

Online, it also provides services designed specifically for K-12 teachers. The services are organized

by “pavilions,” and each pavilion has its own

moderated conference, projects, and listings of

instructional and staff development resources by

subject area. Students communicate with each

other, Curry School faculty and staff, and K-12

teachers to discuss projects and problems, and

present solutions. The result is an extended Jeffersonian academic village89 online, connecting

Curry students, K-12 teachers, and Curry faculty.

Lessons Learned90

A number of important lessons can be culled from

the experiences at the Curry School:

 Rather than mandating the use of educational technology, look for pockets of opportunity and exploit them. The culture of

technology use is built on a social foundation.

Helping individuals to work more effectively

by introducing them to appropriate technology

will secure their general support of technology

use and establish a critical mass of users. The

expectations of this critical mass will encourage the growth of a technology-using culture

within the school.

 Preparing preservice teachers and their professors to use technology takes a long time.

It is essential to maintain a realistic time frame

of at least three to five years.

 When introducing a technological innovation, go slow. Too slow is preferable to too fast.

New technology is inherently “buggy”; plan an

implementation schedule that allows enough

time to work out problems.

 Focus on the current experience and needs

of the individual technology user. Preservice

teachers and faculty vary in their technological

expertise and anxiety. Necessary training time

will vary. Adequate time must be provided to

support the technophobic as well as the

“techies.”

 Educational technology infusion needs to be

an interdepartmental endeavor. By involv87 Bull, op. cit., footnote 85.

88 Funding was provided by the Curry School, IBM Academic Information Systems, and the Centel telephone company. At the time it was

created, the network was known as Teacher-Link and, in addition to communications for teachers, it gave participating public schools access to

the Internet. By the end of the decade, the Virginia Department of Education agreed to institutionalize it statewide.

89 Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States, founder of the U.S. Patent Office and supporter of innovation, also founded and designed the University of Virginia to extend his own vision of an “academical village.”

90 These and the lessons learned in subsequent sections are based on the analysis of the OTA contractors’ observations and extensive discussions with the faculty at the various schools.
196 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

ing faculty from all program areas, and making

decisions about technology purchases an interdepartmental undertaking, turf wars over

technology can be minimized.

 Technology replacement and upgrade costs

should be included as a regular line item in

the operating budget. While special grants

can increase hardware and software, consistent

long-term support is needed.

❚ University of Wyoming,

College of Education

Wyoming has developed an impressive, well-articulated plan to enhance the technological capabilities of present and future teachers and the K-12

students they serve. In the late 1980s, the public

schools and the university developed a new model

for teacher education in which each sector would

play a role in educating students and teachers

about technology. The university’s college of

education would infuse technology experiences

throughout a redesigned teacher preparation program. The districts would provide placements for

aspiring teachers where they could receive handson experience and also be exposed to some classrooms that were not so “computer-rich.”

The support for Wyoming’s program stems

from the bottom-up manner in which the mandate

for technology was developed. School reform was

the vehicle for creating a plan that is designed to

meet the overall needs of education throughout

the state. Computer skills, specifically, were seen

as integral to children becoming productive citizens. There is a strong commitment to improve

the technological skills of teachers, both preservice and inservice, that is shared by individual

school districts, the state department of education,

and the University of Wyoming.

The College of Education at the University of

Wyoming is a pioneer in the use of several information technologies that have promise for extending the reach of a university and for

interconnecting school districts in useful ways.

These technologies include interactive compressed video, audio teleconferencing, and electronic mail on the Internet.

The University of Wyoming is the only fouryear teacher education institution in Wyoming—a

huge state with its population distributed in small

towns and rural pockets at great distances from

one another. As a result, outreach has always been

a priority for the university, and the college of

education in particular. Many inservice courses

are offered through extension, and there is a large

item in the school’s budget to cover the cost of car

and air transportation for faculty who teach these

courses. But extension teaching in a sparsely populated northern state is difficult for a number of

reasons. The distance problem is not only one of

transporting faculty to a distant site, but of having

sufficient students in any one location to justify

offering a course. In a given semester, there may

be only a few teachers or administrators in any one

town who need a particular course. In addition, for

five months of the year there are unpredictable and

often severe snowstorms that make travel treacherous and make it difficult to bring any group

together on a regular basis. Because of the challenges created by distance, technology has become a necessity, not an extra.

Linking Schools to the University with ICV

In 1990, when the governor announced the availability of monies from an education trust fund and

invited proposals, several educational groups

joined forces and responded. The university’s

School of Extended Studies, the College of

Education, the state Department of Education, and

a number of public school districts were all interested in two-way interactive video communication. The state Telecommunication Office

proposed the creation of a telephone network capable of supporting interactive compressed video

(ICV) by using the excess capacity of the existing

state Data Network Backbone. ICV is a form of

television transmission that requires less sophisticated equipment than typical broadcast television.

Unlike one-way broadcast television, ICV supports groups at two or more sites interacting with

one another. This technology would make it possible to overcome the long distances that separated the districts from the university and from
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 197

one another. It would facilitate both inservice

training of existing teachers and mentoring of

preservice teachers in their district placements.

Student teaching placements are part of Wyoming’s “Phase Program,” begun in 1992, in which

teacher education students pass through three

phases of increasingly intense clinical involvement in schools around the state. For students who

choose a career in teaching early in their undergraduate career, four out of eight semesters that

comprise their undergraduate degree program include placements in K-12 schools. Each phase has

clearly stated expectations for the technological

proficiencies students must exhibit at the end of

the phase. By the end of the program, each student

should meet the college’s new requirements for

technological competencies.

Together, the public schools and the university

developed a new model for teacher education in

which each plays a role in educating students and

teachers about technology. The districts provide

placements for aspiring teachers where they can

receive hands-on experience with some of the best

model programs and also be exposed to the realities of the less computer-rich classrooms. The

placements are in model schools, called Centers

for Teaching and Learning (CTLs). A CTL is a

school whose teachers and administrators have

engaged in a lengthy process of renewal, examining its mission and redefining its curriculum and

instructional approaches in ways that recognize

this mission. Each CTL has identified master

teachers to serve as mentors for university students assigned to the district. In addition, each district has identified Clinical Teachers, partially

paid by the university, who supervise college students when they are present in the district.

This model would not be possible without

technology. The interactive compressed video

system is used to maintain a regular connection

between the university and the district. Two or

three times a month, the university and district

hold electronic meetings where students give

progress reports on their experiences and respond

to teaching-learning issues posed by their university professors. District clinical teachers set the

context and facilitate student reporting.

Another use of ICV is to support school renewal efforts around the state. Under project VEIN

(Video Education Interactive Network), schooluniversity teams develop seminars and courses to

support various aspects of school restructuring

and curriculum improvement. Although still new,

ICV is being used experimentally in a variety of

applications. For example, faculty in the college

of education’s counselor education program have

set up a monthly “town meeting” where counselors in outlying districts can go online to share

ideas about different issues. A difficult issue for

Wyoming at present is trying to expand the ICV

network, since costs for installing the interactive

compressed video remain high.

The Role of a Laboratory School

Within a College of Education

Laboratory schools—common in the past—are

actual schools connected with colleges of education, where prospective teachers can gain much of

their teaching experience. However, many COEs

closed their lab schools in the 1950s and 1960s, in

part, because the students in lab schools were

traditionally the children of university faculty, and

many were concerned that teacher candidates

would not be exposed to a range of students in the

lab schools.

Since then, many COEs have developed

instead Professional Development Schools

(PDS)—a public school outside the university but

serving many of the same functions as previous

lab schools. Wyoming has both these institutions:

a series of Professional Development Schools that

play an important role in educating future teachers

about appropriate roles for technology, and a lab

school located in the same building as the college

of education. The lab school’s proximity to the

university and its technological advances combine to give it primacy among the professional development schools in Wyoming. There may be

other schools in Wyoming equally advanced technologically, but they are at a great distance from

the campus at Laramie. The Phase Plan is good for

immersing education students in real schools; the

ICV technology is promising for interconnecting
198 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

CTLs and the college of education; but the physical proximity of the PDS—coupled with the fact

that the school’s students can share resources with

the college—makes it an unusually rich resource

for learning about technology. Almost daily an

education student might be sitting next to a middle

school student who is using computers in interesting ways. When it comes to learning about

technology—a rapidly changing field—Wyoming has found its laboratory school to be a valuable resource.

Lessons Learned

At the University of Wyoming College of Education, a number of lessons are directly related to the

fact that Wyoming is in a unique geographic setting where vast distances and severe weather patterns often dictate schedules. There are general

lessons to be shared, however:

 Changes at the college of education that are

embedded in public school reform will more

likely have a long-standing impact on the

way teachers are prepared. Long-term

change has a better chance of surviving if it is

nurtured at the bottom and supported from the

top, rather than being mandated from the top.

 Informal learning communities can be

created that involve technology at all levels

and each level can assist the others to do

their best. In some cases, the K-12 students

themselves learn the technology and help their

teachers find ways to use it. Teacher education

students placed in these settings learn that all

expertise does not reside in the teacher, a valuable lesson.

 A lab school within a college of education or

a professional development school nearby

may be an extremely valuable—and convenient—resource for teacher education students. It can be a particularly useful testbed for

new uses of technology.

❚ University of Northern Iowa,

College of Education

At the University of Northern Iowa (UNI), a professional development/laboratory school has also

proved a unique asset, modeling technology use

and utilizing remote video to bring classroom exposure to teacher education students. As in Wyoming, the lab school at UNI is to teaching what a

research hospital is to a medical school. A recently

installed fiberoptic network connects the lab

school to the college of education, so faculty can

“ship” classroom video to methods classes. This is

part of a pilot project that allows video from any of

the 48 classrooms at the lab school to be sent to

classrooms in the college of education. Using a

portable control unit that can be wheeled into

classrooms, the model also relies on two professional-quality video cameras and several microphones in a classroom for transmission. (The

transmission is also videotaped so it can be used

later for anyone who misses it, or for reflection on

teaching practices.) The lab school has its own

technology committee that encourages diffusion

of technology throughout the school.

Two video classrooms at UNI are also used for

distance education courses. For example, if classroom teachers want to take additional classes so

they can be certified to teach students with disabilities, the course is offered in the video classrooms

with a UNI professor as part of the Iowa Communications Network (ICN). ICN is used by both

education and state agencies.

Technology and Student Teaching

The entire state of Iowa has a population of around

three million. The number of UNI students who

do classroom observations and student teaching is

far greater than the university’s local area (with a

population of about 100,000) can handle. With

over 700 students to place in student teaching each

year—and because many schools in Iowa are not

culturally diverse—UNI places students throughout the state, and in other states and countries.

There is, for example, a full-time UNI faculty

member in San Antonio, Texas, where (in the

spring of 1994) 28 UNI students did their student

teaching in the diverse, multicultural local

schools. Other UNI students have done student

teaching in Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and

Egypt.
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 199

To deal with hundreds of student teachers

spread across the state and nation, UNI has organized students into clusters, 10 of which are in

Iowa. The clusters are made up of all the student

teachers in a region along with a UNI faculty

member assigned to that region to support the students, the collaborating teachers, and other professionals, including the 85 members of the UNI

Teaching Associates Cadre (a group of master

teachers in Iowa schools who participate in collaborative projects including revising and improving

student teaching experiences). UNI also funds a

clinical supervisor for each of the centers in the

state. This is a half-time position for a local school

district employee, who works with the UNI faculty member assigned to the region, to supervise

student teachers.

With such a diverse and dispersed group participating in student teaching, communication and

coordination are major problems. To deal with

these problems, a UNI group created a teleconferencing system that allows students, faculty, and

cooperating teachers who have access to a personal computer and modem to exchange electronic

mail and participate in a wide range of electronic

conferences. The system has been in place for almost 10 years and staff and students have both felt

the benefits. Conferencing on “caucus” may take

the form of public discussion of items which anyone on the conference may read, or private messages. Participants with diverse perspectives are

able to contribute freely and at their own convenience to continuous discussions related to teacher education. Students, faculty, practitioners, and

administrators—though separated by hundreds of

miles—have an avenue for mutual problem solving and the exchange of ideas.

Prior to the electronic conferencing system, the

10 faculty coordinators met face-to-face on campus once a month to discuss matters relating to

teacher preparation. Now they are in almost daily

contact through the network. This has had multiple effects. First, it has increased the sense of connectedness for the faculty coordinators—both

among themselves and with campus colleagues.

Second, it has improved the productivity of the

monthly face-to-face meetings. With the regular

contact in between meetings, more work can be

accomplished so that face-to-face meetings concentrate on matters that can best be handled in that

medium. Further, the work of the group is enriched by the addition of the clinical supervisors

and the cadre members. The network helps forge

relationships between the academic and the practitioner, a connection vitally important for a college

of education.

The dean and a faculty member describe benefits of the electronic mail/conferencing system for

student teachers:

The student teaching experience is an intense

and crucial, formative experience. It is a time

when all the preparatory training and experience

is brought to bear in an actual classroom experience of significant duration. In a conventional

student teaching situation, the student teachers

have access to the cooperating teacher in whose

classroom this experience is taking place, the

supervising faculty member from the university,

and their peers in weekly face-to-face seminars.

The addition of the computer conferencing

networks to this experience accomplishes several important things. First, it expands the resource base for the student teacher. In addition to

the available resources mentioned above, the

student can now have access to faculty coordinators, clinical supervisors, and peers across the

state. Furthermore, the students may now have

access to resource people back on campus including professors in the content areas or methods areas, or library and media staff. We have

had student discussions taking place on the system with library resource people who were following the online discussions. On occasion, the

resource people would enter the discussion, noting that there was material available in the UNI

library for a problem the student seemed to be

having. The student would acknowledge that the

material would be helpful and the material was

mailed immediately on loan. Similar offers of

counsel from supervisors and peers represent

significant enhancement of resources during

this critical period.

Second, the student has an alternative and

supplementary communication medium. Given

peoples’ schedules and relative comfort levels

with face-to-face communication, this network
200 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

represents another way to connect with those

who can be of help during the student teaching

experience.91

Outreach is a large part of UNI’s daily operations, and the teleconferencing system is also used

for outreach activities in which school administrators around the state present problems or pose

questions for input from UNI faculty and other administrators.

Lessons Learned

A number of lessons have been learned from the

process at UNI:

 Institutional support and recognition from

the university leadership are important. At

UNI the central administration demonstrates in

many ways that teacher education is an honorable and valued part of the university’s academic mission. The often unspoken but understood

opinion of an institution’s leadership about

teacher education can facilitate—or hinder—

reform efforts. Institutional support can be nurtured and encouraged, especially with leadership

from a dean who supports technology.

 Major changes do not always require grants

or additional funds. Neither the university nor

the college of education are well endowed.

Most of what UNI has accomplished has been

done by reallocating existing funds. Over a period of seven years, UNI made many internal

adjustments in personnel, budget allocations,

and priorities to boost technology-related initiatives.

 Grassroots leadership across the college is

critical, too. Which technologies are supported

and how they are used was decided by college

of education faculty, department heads, and

program coordinators. The dean was a supporter, but the faculty took ownership of the

technologies in use.

 New faculty can be a significant factor in

supporting technology. Over the next decade

the majority of faculty in many colleges of

education will change through retirements or

resignations. As search committees are formed,

hiring faculty who use technology in the

courses they teach can be an effective way of increasing the percentage of faculty who integrate technology into teaching.

 Identify people with the talent and interest

to succeed in technology reforms. Do not

spread resources thinly, across people or across

areas of technology concentration; UNI, for example, has chosen to emphasize telecommunications, rather than cover all technologies.

 K-12 teachers can be a significant source of

leadership. Much of what UNI teacher education students see and learn about technology in

education comes from the innovative uses in

the lab school. Also, since about 90 percent of

the lab school faculty use technology in their

classrooms, they are another source of influence on traditional teacher education faculty.

 Do not push technology. UNI’s approach to

technology diffusion targets problem areas—

such as communicating with scattered student

teachers—and suggests ways technology can

improve the quality of instruction.

❚ Vanderbilt University, Peabody College

Teacher education students at Peabody College

use technology extensively as an integral part of

their professional preparation. Peabody’s approach to teacher education attempts to duplicate

the richness and complexities of a K-12 school

setting using a blend of video and computers, primarily through video case studies of teachers in

real classrooms. This approach brings to preservice teachers a clinical experience previously not

possible.

91 Mike Waggoner and Thomas Switzer (1991), as quoted by Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 61, p. 27.
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 201

A number of factors make Peabody’s approach

feasible. A relatively small number of enrolled

students—about 20 percent—are preparing to become classroom teachers, so the student-to-teacher ratio is low. Also, an onsite research and

development center, the Learning Technology

Center, has for a decade investigated complex

teaching and learning issues in K-12 education, so

the college has been influenced by the center’s

findings over the years. In addition, teaching is

highly valued by Vanderbilt’s leadership, with the

chancellor an outspoken advocate for the profession—as well as for technology.

Building Technology on a

Constructivist Learning Base92

Cognitive science is a highly respected specialty

at Vanderbilt. There are faculty groups pursuing

this in both the College of Arts and Science and

Peabody College. The long-standing interest in

the science of human learning has shaped much of

Peabody’s technological contributions. It seems

quite natural that themes of learning, teaching,

and technology permeate Peabody College. The

dean of Peabody summarized the college’s perspective in this way:

Our goal has been to find ways that advanced

technologies can capitalize on what cognitive

science has learned about knowledge and its acquisition, and the social process of learning, to

design environments that assist teachers and students in the transaction of the learning process.

This contrasts with the beliefs of some who have

assumed wrongly that learning is a singular activity and that technologies will transform

education by totally replacing teachers.93

For the last decade, Peabody College has been

developing innovative uses of technology to enhance learning. With deep roots in cognitive science and an interest in constructivist learning

principles, researchers at Peabody’s Learning

Technology Center developed a series of technological experiments to test a new approach to

learning. In the early 1980s, they were studying

that bane of 5th-grade math—the story problem.

Sensing that the problem for most students lay not

in their math skills but in the abstract quality of the

story problem itself, they sought to “anchor” the

problem in a rich story context. They caught the

attention of many educators when they put on videodisc portions of the popular Hollywood movie

Raiders of the Lost Ark and made the disc into an

experimental anchor for problem-solving instruction. Viewers were asked to solve problems such

as estimating the breadth of a pit-trap and the

height of a tomb door using only the information

that Indiana Jones, who stood next to the pit and

the door, was 6 feet tall.

Later, sensing the limitations for school-based

instruction of a made-for-entertainment video,

they began developing a special purpose adventure video that would support mathematics

instruction in the middle grades. Titled the Adventures of Jasper Woodbury, it contained (eventually) a number of real-world, compelling problems

that required problem-solving skills and math to

solve.

Other projects emerged built on the same anchored instruction philosophy. In time, various

faculty recognized the potential of the anchored

instruction approach for teaching college students

how to teach math. These insights fit nicely with

the growing recognition in the 1980s of the importance of case-based instruction to provide opportunities for novice teachers to confront the

complexities of instructional decisionmaking.

When, in the late 1980s, funding opportunities for

new teacher education materials became available

from several federal agencies (the National Science Foundation, the Fund for the Improvement

of Post-Secondary Education, and the U.S. Department of Education), a cadre of Peabody educa92 Constructivist learning refers to a view of learning in which students construct their own knowledge based on exploration, evaluation,

and revision of ideas, drawing on prior knowledge and understanding.

93 James Pellegrino, as cited in Mergendoller et al., op. cit., footnote 61, p. 53.
202 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

At Peabody College, Vanderbilt

University, "video cases" are used

by teacher education students to

view teachers in action in the

local schools. A videodisc

controlled by Hypercard software

allows the teacher education

students to watch any number of

video segments in any order. It is

also possible for the students to

stop the video at key points and

enter their own comments in en

electronic notebook, which is

collected and reviewed by the

college instructor.

tors applied for monies to extend the anchored

instruction approach to the training of future

teachers. Several of their products are centered on

technology.

Peabody lntegrated Media Approach

The Peabody Integrated Media Approach (PIMA)

extends the anchored instruction model by using

videotaped cases of real teaching, which are then

brought to the college classroom for viewing and

discussion as a way to build the clinical skills of

potential teachers. Although it is no substitute for

actual experience managing a classroom of children, PIMA is a valued contribution to the education students’ understanding of teaching practice

and also indirectly builds their computer skills. A

basic assumption of Peabody’s approach is that

teachers cannot be told how to practice professionally; in other words, readings and lectures

alone do not provide the full scope of what they

will face in the classroom.

Whether in reading and language arts or math

education class, teacher education students at Peabody do more than just watch a teacher in action;

JOHN E. HARWOOD, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY

they use video footage of classroom teacherswhich has been converted to videodisc and is controlled by computer—to analyze and discuss

teaching styles or strategies and comment on the

teacher’s performance. In the math education

class, for example, students use Hypercard to control the videodisc presentation, so they can jump

forward to a different part of the video or review a

segment already seen. Students can stop the video

at key points, enter comments in an electronic

notebook, and print out their comments. The notebooks are collected electronically at the end of the

class for the instructor to read.

Virtual Professional Development

For more than eight years, Peabody faculty have

been developing a variety of electronic supports

for teacher education, including electronic lecture

outlines with “buttons” accessing bibliographic

references, video illustrations or other information the instructor might want to use during a class

discussion, video-based cases for analysis,

instructional resources for preservice teachers

(sample lesson plans, activities materials, etc.),
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 203

miscellaneous class assignments, and so on.

These materials are organized in a virtual environment called the PPDS—Peabody Professional

Development School (see figure 5-1).

PPDS is a hypermedia map of a school that

links students to these different resources by calling for them in the appropriate place. For example, the resources are organized into “rooms” and

are accessed through icons, such as furniture or

objects in the rooms. Students “entering” the

PPDS sign in at the virtual office by logging onto

the system. The PPDS offers a variety of activities; for example, the Demonstration Classroom is

a “place” where preservice teachers can watch

assigned elementary school math and science

lessons or check the filing cabinet for more resources, written lesson plans, or additional information about the math involved.

Each time students use the PPDS they not only

access useful materials, but also become more familiar with the technology. More recently, education students have been creating and entering

materials into the PPDS resource files; previously

only Peabody faculty contributed materials. All

the data have been organized, indexed, and entered into the school’s integrated media database,

and it is now available for future teacher education

students. This type of activity provides opportunities for teacher-education students not only to become more facile with technology, but to develop

a sense that technology can be an integral part of

the teaching/learning process.

Lessons Learned

The Peabody approach to teacher education involves approximating the richness and complexities of the K-12 school using a blend of video and

computers. These “simulations” of the realities of

teaching practice are then brought to the college

classroom to build the clinical skills of would-be

teachers. PIMA brings to the education of preservice teachers a clinical experience heretofore not

possible. While not a substitute for actual experience managing a classroom of children, PIMA

makes a valuable contribution to students’ understanding of teaching practice while indirectly

building their computer skills. There are a number

of factors that make Peabody unique:

 The Learning Technology Center is clearly

a catalyst that shapes fundamental ideas on

the Peabody campus. LTC is largely self-supporting through funds generated by multiple

funded research projects,94 and it has become

a sort of Mecca for educators worldwide. Many

of the advances at the education school are directly related to advances at this research and

development center. The Peabody model provides strong support for research and development efforts in education, not just in the hard

sciences.

 Enhancing the technological skills of the nation’s teaching force—both preservice and

inservice—is not simply a matter of providing them with classes and workshops where

they can learn the well-accepted approaches to

technology use in classrooms. The developments at Peabody are a result of the technology

research and development efforts of the faculty

itself, and the faculty’s access to a rich array of

resources. 

 It is expensive to design and develop the video cases and related electronic materials

used by Peabody. These costs have been underwritten at Peabody by a combination of

funds from the college, Vanderbilt University,

business and industry, and various federal

sources.

 It is not clear how easily teacher-education

faculty at other institutions could adopt Peabody’s electronic resources “off the shelf”

and benefit from Peabody’s considerable experience in setting up their own integrated

media approach to teacher education. But

these resources (the video cases and related

94 Several federal programs have contributed to the Learning Technology Center’s research, including the National Science Foundation and

the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for Improvement of Post-Secondary Education.
204 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

To organize all the resources available to teacher education students, Peabody has created a virtual environment called the

Peabody Professional Development School. PPDS is a Hypermedia map of a school; each room represents different resources.

By clicking on the icon-for example, the conference room in this illustration-students have access to “conference’ resources,

such as a flip chart. By continuously clicking on the appropriate icons, students can browse and navigate their way through

PPDS to access materials that will help them achieve instructional goals.

SOURCE: Peabody College at Vanderbilt University.
Chapter 5 Technology and the Preparation of New Teachers | 205

“contents” of the Peabody Professional Development “School”) have characteristics that are

different from both college textbooks and

printed case studies used in business-school

education programs.

 The clinical approach to teaching entailed in

PIMA requires a lot more time and involvement from college instructors than the

traditional lecture/discussion formats that

characterize much of college teaching. To induce faculty at other institutions to adopt PIMA

may require additional incentives.

 Implementation of PIMA requires an expensive infrastructure—both a technological infrastructure (computer laboratories) and the

staff to keep it working.

CONCLUSIONS

These examples are promising, but they represent

a limited scope of the potential for improving

technology use within teacher education and,

more importantly, improving teacher education

overall with technology. As discussed earlier in

the chapter, there is no central source for collecting data, sharing experience, or evaluating the effectiveness of teacher education in general, and

certainly not for technology in teacher education

in particular. Although advances such as telecommunications networks offer resources, without a

road map there is no guarantee that the “information superhighway” will be used by teacher educators, K-12 educators, or their students, or that it

will open up new worlds for them. But several

conclusions can be drawn about the current status

and possible future directions of teacher preparation.

Reform of teacher education should accompany any significant reform in K-12 education.

However, this is a challenging task, given the general status of colleges of education in the university hierarchy, the exclusion of colleges of

education from much funding at the state and federal levels, and the overall lack of priority given

COEs in terms of funding or support for reform efforts. Enhanced resources for COEs that coincide

with each national push for K-12 reform may increase the likelihood of real changes at both

levels.

Furthermore, if technology is to break out of

the isolated role it plays today and become an integral part of the teacher education curriculum,

several things must happen. An integrated curriculum infused with information technology

requires that teacher education faculty and

cooperating K-12 teachers model effective

instructional technology use. This interaction

between K-12 schools and teacher education programs is an important, generally overlooked variable. It requires considerable training and support

for current K-12 educators and for teacher education faculty in all segments of the teacher preparation program. Like K-12 educators, teacher

education faculty need to see how information

technology supports and facilitates instruction in

their content or professional area.

Teacher education faculty need help integrating technology into the courses they teach.

Since the majority of teacher education faculty

completed graduate programs and taught in

schools where technology was not a major part of

the educational environment, it is not surprising

that they tend to have limited experience with

technologies for instruction. But simply telling

teacher education students about what is possible

is not enough; they must see technology used by

their instructors, observe uses of technological

tools in classrooms, and practice teaching with

technologies themselves if they are to use these

tools effectively in their own teaching once they

graduate.

Colleges of education have much to learn

from one another, and technology can be a

catalyst to make the necessary connections.

Teacher education programs need to provide considerable support, create and disseminate traditional and electronic resource materials, and

revise incentives within teacher education to encourage teaching that integrates technology in

instruction. A comprehensive strategy necessitates different instructional approaches in teacher

education, such as video cases of teachers using

technology in their classrooms, teaching lessons
206 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

and activities for education students involving the

use of technology, and supervising development

and teaching of technology-supported lessons in

cooperating schools. These approaches are not

easily accomplished—all are expensive and require changes in the skills, perspectives, and

attitudes of teacher education faculty and administration—but they are needed nonetheless.

College of education administrators are key

players in any effort to improve preparation

programs. Almost all of the universities considered exemplary in this area have deans and department chairs who see technology preparation as

critical. Conferences, workshops, and publications for education leaders would make COE administrators and non-technology oriented faculty

aware of needs and alternatives. Technology “gurus” in COEs should be encouraged to publish articles, make presentations, and offer workshops

tailored to the needs of the nonspecialist, to extend

their expertise to their less technology-oriented

colleagues.

Limited technology resources are an issue

for colleges of education. A reading instructor

who decides to change textbooks for an introductory reading methods course does not necessarily

set about to write his or her own textbook; he or

she has a choice of at least a hundred texts already

in print. If that same instructor decides to use Hypercard stacks or video cases of effective integration of technology in reading instruction, there are

very few choices. The instructors may indeed be

faced with the prospect of writing their own stack

or creating their own video, and the COE needs to

be prepared to support such innovation.

A few grant programs have targeted the creation of technology-supported materials for

teacher education, but more support is needed.

For example, the major video material for teacher

education developed at Vanderbilt University and

other institutions has been funded by federal,

state, and corporate grants.

In addition, a national clearinghouse or distribution center for such materials is needed. A

nonprofit clearinghouse that reviews submissions

and accepts them for distribution, duplicates

disks, or designs and produces supporting documentation and manuals would be a significant

contribution to reducing the barriers to greater use

of technology in teacher education. Many developers of such materials are not as concerned with

making a profit, as they are on seeing their materials distributed to other teacher educators. Resources such as the Internet offer possibilities for

broad dissemination of such materials.

Recognition of the importance of technology

in teacher certification is gaining momentum.

States take various and often mismatched approaches to certification and technology requirements. But guidelines do exist—such as those

developed by the International Society for

Technology in Education—and perhaps more

need to be developed to help states figure out what

teachers need to know about how to use technology effectively.

Colleges of education, states, and K-12

schools need to work together to develop a set

of shared expectations for joint reform efforts,

with a close eye to the role of technology in the

reform. COE faculty rarely work with other agencies—such as school districts or state education

agencies—on projects related to technology integration, in part, because K-12 reform and COE

reform are typically considered separate issues. In

fact, the two are directly related. New teachers

leave COEs and enter classrooms where they inevitably face a multitude of challenges. Perhaps,

as one educator suggests, the first step in terms of

technology knowledge ought to be to “make the

teachers fearless” in their attitude about technology.95

95 Lee Ehman, Professor of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, personal communication, June 27, 1994.
Technology

 and Teacher

Development:

 The Federal Role

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

 The federal government has played a limited role in technology-related teacher development compared with states, universities, and school districts. In addition, the federal investment

in technology-related teacher development has been less than

that for educational technology hardware and software.

 Even so, past federal programs have piloted innovative educational applications of technology for teachers by providing significant support for professional development for particular

groups of teachers, including mathematics, science, and special education teachers, and by providing funding for technology-related professional development in school districts that

could not have supported it on their own.

 From the 1950s through the 1970s, the federal government

funded several efforts to influence teacher training in technology-related areas; key programs included National Science

Foundation teacher institutes, programs to improve teacher

training and materials for children with disabilities, programs

to familiarize teachers with instructional media and educational television, and initiatives to reform teacher preparation or

spur innovation in K-12 education. These programs hold lessons for future federal policy.

 The federal role in technology-related teacher development

has grown considerably since 1988 as a result of several new

and expanded programs for math and science education and

educational technology development. Federal actions in 1994

have created new opportunities for federal leadership in overall

policies for education technology and in technology-related

professional development. Key initiatives include the creation

of an Office of Educational Technology in the U.S. Department | 207
208 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

of Education, the state technology planning

grants and other provisions of Goals 2000:

Educate America Act, the expanded Dwight D.

Eisenhower Professional Development program, the Title III programs for educational

technology in the revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and programs to promote educational networking in the National

Science Foundation and the Department of

Commerce.

 The federal government has tended to focus

more attention on inservice education rather

than preservice education, channeling more

support to K-12 schools than to colleges of

education—an approach that seeks to address

current needs but does not greatly influence

teacher quality over the long term.

 The types of professional development activities supported with federal funds run the gamut

from courses for teacher certification, to summer institutes, to one-shot workshops on specific topics. The role of technology in training

also varies from short-term training on a specific type of software to semester-long projects

that engage teachers in telecommunications

networks. Federal projects include training

with technology as well as training about

technology.

 Much of the federal support for technology-related teacher development is optional in nature

and small in amount, provided through competitive grant programs, or as part of programs

with larger purposes. As a result, federal support for this purpose has been highly variable

from year to year, piecemeal in nature, and

lacking in clear strategy or consistent policy.

Depending on how the federal government implements new initiatives for technology leadership, this situation could be improved.

 Federally funded programs are beginning to

address several challenges implicit in providing technology-related teacher development.

These include the need to train with higher intensity and longer duration, to translate exposure to cutting-edge technologies into viable

classroom learning experiences, to provide

extensive followup after the end of formal

training, and to improve evaluation and dissemination of projects developed with federal

funds.

 Projects helping schools develop access to the

emerging National Information Infrastructure

could provide resources and access to highquality professional development activities for

teachers. These grant programs have yet to focus on professional development as central issues, but offer great potential.

INTRODUCTION1

For several decades, the federal government has

provided various forms of support to improve the

preparation and professional development of elementary and secondary school teachers. Over the

years, a small portion of this support has focused

on helping teachers learn more about educational

technologies, beginning with early projects to acquaint teachers with educational television and

audiovisual technologies and continuing through

current projects to train teachers to use computer

models to teach physics.

1 Much of this chapter is taken from Nancy Kober, “Teachers and Technology: The Federal Role,” contractor report prepared for the Office

of Technology Assessment, May 25, 1994. The contractor report was based on a review of the research literature and of the United States Code,

compilations of federal education laws, the Code of Federal Regulations, the Federal Register, the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance,

federal budget documents, reports of the Congressional Research Service and the General Accounting Office, reports of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, and a variety of federal agency publications. To determine which programs actually

were supporting technology-related teacher training and to gather specific information on program activities, the contractor talked with federal

program administrators, state and local project directors, and other experts, and reviewed federal evaluations, award abstracts, and federal and

local project materials.
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 209

Federal support for technology-related teacher

development2 has grown considerably in recent

years. But because it has come in small amounts

from multiple programs with different purposes,

this support has been somewhat haphazard and

lacking in a clear strategy. This situation may

improve in the near future, however, as the Department of Education (ED) implements new

educational technology programs under Public Law 103-382 (the Improving America’s

Schools Act), as states complete federally supported technology plans under Public Law

103-227 (the Goals 2000: Educate America

Act), and as Congress and the executive branch

confront critical decisions about educator access to the emerging national information infrastructure.

As the federal government prepares for new

leadership roles, it is important to examine current

and past federal efforts to influence technologyrelated teacher development. This chapter:

1) describes and analyzes the current and emerging federal role in technology-related teacher

development, including the major programs,

activities, and strategies;

2) reviews historical federal efforts to improve

teacher training in general and technology-related teacher development in particular;

3) examines the implications and lessons from

current and past federal programs; and

4) discusses some key issues to be considered by

Congress and the executive branch in formulating future federal policies in this area.

BACKGROUND ON THE FEDERAL ROLE

Primary authority for teacher preparation, licensing, and certification rests with the states, not the

federal government. Substantial responsibilities

also rest with colleges of education as regards

preservice education and with local school districts as regards inservice education. Given these

constraints, the federal government has played

a limited role in both the preparation and professional development of the average teacher.

Most federal efforts to influence teacher training

over the past four decades have been confined to

areas in which Congress has perceived an urgent

need, such as strengthening American competitiveness through better mathematics and science

instruction or improving education for children

with disabilities and other special needs. Occasionally, the federal government has initiated

broader reforms aimed at the general teaching

force, with mixed results, as discussed later in this

chapter.

Nevertheless, there are spheres in which the

federal government has significantly influenced

teacher training. Although federal training programs have never reached more than a small percentage of the total teaching force, over the years

they have helped millions of teachers improve

their knowledge, skills, and career advancement.

It might even be said that the federal government

helped give credence to the whole notion of inservice education and professional renewal through

such early efforts as the teacher institutes sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF)

in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s or authorized by

the National Defense Education Act (NDEA)

from 1958 to 1968 (see table 6-1).

In mathematics and science, enough teachers

have participated in federally funded training to

have had a significant effect on instructional quality or teacher supply. It has been estimated that

past NSF institutes reached half the math and science teachers in the nation at some point; more recently, it has been estimated that one-third of all

math and science teachers took part in some type

of activity funded by the Eisenhower Professional

Development program in 1988-89. The numbers

2 As used in this discussion, technology-related teacher development means preparation and professional development for K-12 teachers

and other education personnel that 1) aims to help them become familiar with any of several educational technologies and learn to integrate

them into instruction, or 2) uses technology as a tool for providing training of any kind. Resources for technology-based training include telecourses, electronic networks, or computer- or video-based teacher training.
Program Dates

Training Teachers In Critical Subjects

NSF Teacher Institutes 1954-75

National Defense Education Act 1958-68

Training Teachers of Students with Special Needs

Special Education Media Services 1964-86

Part D Personnel Preparation 1966-present

(Special Education)

Bilingual Education Personnel Training 1974-present

(Title VII, ESEA)

Costsa

Purpose Total Period

Improve teacher skills in math and $750 million 1958-74

science.

Improve teacher skills in critical sub- $148 million 1958-68

jects, including instructional media.

Produce and disseminate materials for $182 million 1966-80

persons with disabilities, train teachers

in their use.

Prepare teachers to teach children with

disabilities.

$811 million l966-90

Prepare bilingual education teachers. $409 million 1975-91

Increasing the Supply of Educators and Recruiting New Teachers

Higher Education Act Fellowships and 1965-68 Increase number of teachers and im- $67 million 1966-68

Traineeships prove their preparation.

Library Career Training 1965-present Provide preparation and professional $14 million 1966-91

development for librarians, including

school librarians.

350,000 1953-68

90,000 trained in 1958-68

NDEA institutes

15,000 1964-74

5,000-7,000

annually in

preservice; about

20,000 annually

inservice

36,000 per year 1977-78

4,140 fellowships 1966-68

and 3,850

traineeships

4,309 fellow- 1966-91

ships
Reforming and Improving Teacher Education

Teacher Corps 1965-81

Education Professions Development Act 1967-76

Teacher Centers 1978-8”

Training Teachers To Stimulate Innovation and Reform

National Diffusion Network 1974-present

Title Ill, ESEA Title IV-C 1965-81

Chapter 2, ECIA 1981-94

Prepare teachers to teach in low-in- $460 million 1965-81

come areas; provide more field experiences for teachers in training.

Coordinate and expand federal teacher $800 million 1967-76

training programs, improve federal

leadership.

Enhance teacher skills through teacher- $47 million 1978-8”

directed professional development

centers.

Promote adoption of exemplary K-12 $145 million 1974-91

programs through teacher training and

other means.

Encourage innovation in education $1,443 million 1966-76

through teacher training and other

means.

Support locally determined education Not available

reform efforts.

61,478 educa- 1965-81

tors and 10,155

interns

300,000 trained 1967-76

Not available

60,000 educa- 1974-77

tors in 7,000

schools

35,000 1968

Not available

a Costs are given for the years in which figures are available; costs are not available for years other than those listed.

b Numbers trained are given for the years in which data were collected; numbers are not available for years other than those listed.

SOURCE” Office of Technology Assessment, 1994. Based on Nancy Kober, “Teachers and Technology: The Federal Role,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, May 25,

1994.
212 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

of teachers receiving federally supported professional development in math and science could be

considered potentially a critical mass for improvement within these disciplines.

Federal programs have also been a major force

in the creation and growth of several teaching subspecialties, including special education, educational media, assistive technology for children

with disabilities, and bilingual education.

Federal fellowships, scholarships, and other financial aid—beginning with the first fellowships

under the Higher Education Act in 1965 and continuing through the Paul Douglas Teacher Scholarships, Perkins Loan Cancellations, and minority

teacher recruitment programs of today—have

changed the composition of the teaching force and

attracted talented people to the profession who

might have pursued other careers. Innovative federal programs such as the Teacher Corps helped

develop new approaches to teacher preparation.

Similarly, over the past four decades the federal

government has also undertaken efforts to develop, promote, and expand the use of educational

technologies. However, these initiatives have received a very small slice of the federal education

budget and have fluctuated greatly with changes

in leadership and shifting goals and priorities in

education. These programs have been research

and development efforts, devoting more attention

to promoting the development of and access to

technology than they have to preparing teachers to

use technology well.

Here, too, however, there are ways in which the

federal government has influenced the training of

teachers with and about technology. Some of the

most innovative applications described elsewhere

in this report—such as national telecommunications testbeds for students and teachers, video

modeling of effective classroom interactions for

teachers in training, or hands-on teacher research

opportunities involving advanced technologies—

have been developed, piloted, and disseminated

with federal money. Federal dollars have helped

develop and implement distance-learning telecourses for professional development and have

exposed thousands of teachers to new uses and

new ways of thinking about technology in the

classroom.

CURRENT FEDERAL SUPPORT

AND COMMITMENT

❚ Sources of Federal Support

Many different federal programs currently support or could support technology-related teacher

development. They range in size from large formula-grant programs that reach most school districts, such as ED’s Eisenhower Professional

Development Program, to small discretionary

grant programs that serve a select number of

teachers, such as the Summer Teacher Enhancement workshops administered by the Department

of Energy (DOE) at research laboratories across

the federal government. They range in mission

from programs aimed at developing particular

kinds of teachers, such as special education personnel development, to those aimed at enhancing

the use of particular kinds of technologies, such as

Star Schools distance learning. They range in directiveness from programs in which technologyrelated professional development is an integral

requirement, such as the new state and local

technology grant program under Title III of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act

(ESEA), to those in which it is an entirely local option, such as Title VI of the ESEA program for

educational innovation (formerly Chapter 2). And

they range in target population from programs that

focus on teachers only, such as the NSF Teacher

Enhancement program, to those that involve both

teachers and students, such as the Aerospace

Education program administered by the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

The federal government also promotes technology-related teacher development through means

other than direct grant programs. For example,

several federal laboratories and facilities donate

personnel, time, space, and equipment to provide

on-site training, research, and mentoring opportunities for K-12 teachers and students; many of

these efforts involve advanced technologies.

NASA and ED also have developed technology
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 213

demonstration centers, or “classrooms of the future,” where teachers can experience exemplary

applications of educational technologies.

Federal agencies also sponsor electronic networks and databases aimed at teachers, students,

and others interested in sharing or obtaining

educational information, materials, and resources. The Office of Educational Research and

Improvement (OERI) in ED has developed an

Institutional Telecommunications Network serving all major OERI-supported research and development institutions. NASA has a Spacelink

electronic information system to exchange information about aeronautics and space exploration. Other telecommunications networks are

sponsored by NSF, the National Institutes of

Health, and other agencies. In addition, federally

sponsored clearinghouses often include technology-based materials among their resources or

encourage potential clients to access their collections electronically.

The President, the Cabinet, Congress, and other federal officials also exercise leadership in

educational technology by publicizing and rallying support for technology-related issues, by promulgating policy directives and executive orders,

by establishing interagency committees or advisory groups, or by making high visibility technology appointments. Examples of federal leadership

activities include the appointment of a Director

for Educational Technology in the Office of the

Deputy Secretary in the Department of Education,

the announcement of an executive branch technology policy for the United States,3 and the establishment of a Committee for Education and

Training under the White House Office of Science

and Technology Policy.

❚ Level and Scope of

Federal Commitment

It is difficult to know exactly how many federal

programs are supporting technology-related

teacher development in any given year and to what

extent.4 A starting point is to look at federal programs for professional development (teacher or

administrator training) in general. A 1994 internal

inventory of ED professional development programs identified 20 funded programs, with total

funding of over $474 million in FY 1994, whose

sole or major purpose was personnel development, plus another 44 that authorize significant resources for personal development.5 Several more

professional development programs are administered by other agencies.

In nearly all of the relevant programs, support for technology-related teacher training is

an option rather than a requirement, and often

a local decision. At the local level, there are probably thousands of federal grants and funded

projects that might involve some form of technology-related teacher training, but getting precise

information on these projects is a complex undertaking. With few exceptions, the federal government does not collect data from grantees in the

format or detail needed to discern which projects

are actually supporting technology-related training and how much they are spending for it.

Based on a review of federal program legislation and regulations, agency reports, project abstracts, discussions with federal and state

officials, and other information, the Office of

Technology Assessment estimates that at least 58

federal programs are currently supporting, have

recently supported, or are likely to be supporting

3 See Executive Office of the President, Technology for America’s Economic Growth: A New Direction To Build Economic Strength (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 1993).

4 There is also a semantic complication: namely, how one defines “program,” especially in the case of agency-initiated activities below the

budget line-item level.

5 U.S. Department of Education, “Department of Education, Activities That Support Teacher and Administrator Training and Improvement,” unpublished document, 1994.
214 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

technology-related teacher preparation or professional development to some degree.

Most of these programs are small by federal

standards; a number have appropriations under

$10 million. They differ by major purpose. Some

focus primarily on teacher development. Many of

these are programs to improve teacher skills in

math and science, obvious subjects for infusion of

technology because of the real-world links between science and technological applications.

Others focus primarily on developing and expanding the use of educational technologies, with professional development authorized as a means

toward this end.

Other relevant programs concentrate on educating children with special needs, such as Title I

of the ESEA for disadvantaged children, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),

and the Bilingual Education Act. Technology is

used frequently to deliver services in these programs, and professional development for teachers

of participating children is an allowable use of

funds. Also pertinent are certain programs that

foster general school reform and allow support for

professional development as a vehicle for change.

From this broad list of relevant programs, it

is possible to identify 23 key programs that

form the core of federal support for technology-related teacher training (see table 6-2).

Most of the key programs are administered by

the Department of Education. Several are overseen by NSF, consistent with the agency’s science

orientation and long-standing involvement in

technology-related research and development.

Relevant programs are also administered by the

Departments of Energy, Commerce, Health and

Human Services, Agriculture, Defense, and

Transportation, as well as NASA, the National

Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Smithsonian Institution, and other agencies. These programs tend to

be much smaller in scope and funding than the ED

and NSF efforts. Many have a math and science

orientation and offer institutes, workshops, or research opportunities for K-12 teachers at laboratories and other facilities. A smaller number

improve teacher content and pedagogical knowledge for other disciplines.

Eligible grantees vary by program and include

state educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), institutions of higher

education (IHEs), and other public or private organizations. Several programs require or encourage

collaboration among more than one entity, such as

school districts and higher education institutions.

The remaining programs are smaller or less dependable sources of funding for technology-related teacher development (see table 6-3). They

include programs that authorize teacher training

as one of many different allowable activities; that

could support technology-related training under

current guidelines but have not done so to any notable extent; that focus primarily on technology

research and development, with small teacher

training components; or that do not collect sufficient data to determine whether technology-related training is actually funded.

Estimating the level of federal expenditures for

technology-related teacher development is not

possible. In most of the 23 key programs listed in

table 6-2, a small portion of total expenditures

goes toward technology-related training. At the

same time, unknown levels of support come from

programs not listed in table 6-2, or table 6-3. Because there are so few programs where specific

data on technology-related training are available, OTA finds that there is no reliable estimate available for overall federal funding

support for this purpose.

❚ Key Points

Whatever the current amount, several points can

be made about federal funding for technology-related teacher development.

 The amount of federal support for this kind

of teacher training lags behind federal

spending on educational technology hardware, software, equipment and facilities. As

one indicator, expenditures for computer hardware and software under a single program,

Chapter 2 of the ESEA (now Title VI), have
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 215

ranged from $50 million to about $100 million

annually in recent years.6 Star Schools projects

have spent an average of 35 percent of total

funding on equipment, or about $5 million to

$8 million per year.7 The amount for professional development in either of these programs

is much less. Several million dollars more for

infrastructure have come from the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program and other

federal sources; again, teacher support for using these resources is extremely limited.

 From all indications, federal support for

technology-related teacher development has

grown considerably since OTA first looked

at educational technology in its 1988 report

Power On! New Tools for Teaching and

Learning. Funding for the Eisenhower program, a vital source of support, more than

doubled between FY 1988 and 1994, from

$120 million to over $250 million. According

to a government-wide inventory, 117 new federal programs for science, math, engineering,

and technology education were created between 1988 and 1993, yielding a total of 290

such programs, of which 29 had teacher enhancement as their primary purpose.8 Technology-related teacher projects have been

designated as an absolute priority9 in recent

annual grant competitions under several programs—among them, the Fund for Innovation

in Education (FIE), the Eisenhower National

Program, the Star Schools program, and the

technology and media program for individuals

with disabilities.

 Funding for technology-related teacher

training is likely to grow. The FY 1995 appropriations include $40 million for educational technology programs under the new Title III

of the ESEA and an extra $70 million for the Eisenhower program. And, as explained below,

technology-related training is given greater encouragement and more explicit attention in

several ESEA programs, including Title I Eisenhower, Title VI (formerly Chapter 2), and

bilingual education.

 Support for technology-related teacher

training is optional in most programs. Although diverse funding sources for technologyrelated teacher development may appear to

offer an abundance of opportunities, accessing

federal funding for technology-related teacher

development is not always easy. Many programs leave it up to state or local grantees to decide whether technology-related training—or

for that matter, any kind of professional development—is supported and in what form. For

example, although the Title I of the ESEA program for disadvantaged children, the IDEA

state grant program for children with disabilities, and the Perkins Vocational Education Basic Grants program encourage funds to be used

for professional development, local project directors must weigh the need for teacher training

against other priorities, most notably direct student instruction. Often technology-related

training and, in general, professional development are viewed as niceties rather than necessities. Even in competitive grant programs at the

6M.S. Knapp and C.H. Blakely, The Education Block Grant at the Local Level: The Implementation of Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 1986); and Ruskus Joan et al., How Chapter 2 Operates at the Federal, State,

and Local Levels (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1994).

7 About 130 separate staff development activities were offered in the 1992-93 school year. For the most part, general staff development

consisted of a number of short “one shot” workshops presented as a teleconference, rather than a sequenced set of activities. Naida C. Tushnet et.

al., Star Schools Evaluation Report One (Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory, July 1993), p. 49.

8 Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, Committee on Education and Human Resources, The Federal

Investment in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education, Where Now? What Next? Sourcebook (Washington, DC: August

1993), pp. 10-17.

9An absolute priority means that only those projects that address a particular issue or activity (as announced in the Federal Register) will be

funded in a given year. Priorities in national discretionary programs often change from year to year.
Program Fundinga Purpose Treatment of Technology-Related Training

Department of Education

Title Ill, ESEA, Technology for $40 million

Education

Goals 2000: Educate America Act $403 million

Eisenhower State Grant

Eisenhower National Program

Star Schools

$321 million

$39 million

$30 million

IDEA Part

Personnel

IDEA Part

D, Special Education $91 million

Development

G, Technology,

Media, and Materials

Title I (Chapter 1) ESEA

Educational $11 million

$7,232 million

Bilingual Education Training Grants $25 million

Library Personnel Development $5 million

Christa McAuliffe Fellowships $2 million

Provide federal leadership and financial support to expand access to and use of educational technologies.

Encourage states to develop comprehensive

school reform plans based on standards for

student learning.

Improve teacher knowledge and skills in math,

science, and other core academic subjects.

Develop models of national significance in

professional development in core subjects.

Support acquisition and use of distance-learning technologies for education.

Provide preparation and professional development to help teachers educate children with

disabilities.

Support research and development and technical assistance to advance technologies for

persons with disabilities.

Provide educational services to help lowachieving children in low-income areas meet

high standards.

Support teacher preparation and professional

development for bilingual education teachers.

Train and retrain school librarians and other

library personnel.

Provide fellowships for outstanding teachers to

continue education, develop innovative programs, train colleagues.

Secretary develops long-range technology plan;

state and local grants must provide for ongoing professional development to integrate technologies in

education.

States must develop educational technology plans

as part of overall improvement plans; act also established Office of Educational Technology in U.S.

Department of Education.

Funds may be used for professional development in

effective use of technology as instructional tool.

Funds may be used for training teachers in innovative uses of technology.

Funds may be used to develop and provide preservice and inservice distance learning for teachers

and to train teachers to integrate telecourses for

students into instruction.

Technology-related training programs authorized;

emphasis on assistive technologies.

FY 1994 priority on organizational support and professional development.

Schools must devote sufficient resources to professional development; may include instruction in use

of technology.

Some projects involve technology; no specific encouragement for technology-related training in law.

Training in new technologies encouraged.

Several fellows develop technology-related projects.
Title Vi/Chapter 2, ESEA

National Diffusion Network

National Science Foundation

Teacher Enhancement

Teacher Preparation

Applications of Advanced

Technologies

National Education Infrastructure for

Networking

OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

Department of Commerce (NTIA)

Public Telecommunications Facilities

Program

Telecommunications and Information

Infrastructure Assistance Program

National Endowment for Children’s

Educational Television

Department of Energy

Summer Teacher Enhancement

Teacher Research Associates

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Education and Training

$347 million

$15 million

$101 million

$18 million

$10 million

$15 million

$29 million

$64 million

$2.5 million

$2 million

(FY 1994)

$1,9 million

$2 million

(FY 1994)

Provide grants for range of state and locally

determined school improvement activities.

Disseminate and encourage adoption of exemplary education programs through staff

training and other means.

Fund teacher training programs in math, science, technology.

Support projects to improve undergraduate

teacher preparation.

Fund research and demonstration in revolutionary technologies for education.

Demonstrate innovative applications of networking for education.

Supports innovation and capacity building of

the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure.

Accelerate the use of telecommunications and

information technology.

Supports creation and production of television

directed toward development of children’s intellectual skills.

Provide teacher training and research opportunities in federal laboratories.

Provide teacher summer laboratory experiences and training in science.

Train teachers and improve materials in K-12

environmental education.

Funds may be used for technology-related professional development at state/local option.

Some current projects available for adoption have

technology focus; professional development is primary strategy for helping schools adopt programs.

Many programs involve technology.

Projects must address preparation in new technologies.

Some projects have components for teacher support and development.

Teacher support and development integral part of

all projects.

Supports distance-learning activities for teachers

and students.

Supports telecommunications networks that can provide professional development for teachers as well

as new teaching opportunities in K-12 classrooms.

Much of the programming can be used in the classroom.

Many projects involve training teachers in high

technology applications in science

Some projects involve training in technology.

Use of technologies encouraged.

a Funding levels are for the entire program, not just the technology-related teacher training projects or components All figures are FY 1995 unless noted otherwise.

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment 1994 Based on Nancy Kober, ‘“Teachers and Technology’ The Federal Role, ” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, May 25,

1994.
218 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Department Of Education

Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education

Act: For basic state grants, states must include support for professional development for vocational

teachers. “Tech-prep” projects linking secondary and

postsecondary vocational education must include

teacher training in tech-prep curricula. Teacher and

administrator training and leadership development are

among activities of National Center for Research in

Vocational Education.

Part B IDEA State Grants: States must have comprehensive systems of personnel development; may use

federal grants for teacher training.

IDEA Special Purpose Programs: Training for special

education personnel is authorized under special purpose programs (i.e., Severely Disabled, Severe Emotional Disturbance, Deaf-Blindness, Early Childhood

Education, and Transitional Services).

Regional Resources Centers, IDEA: Services include

teacher training, assistance to states regarding comprehensive systems of personnel development.

Indian Education Personnel Development and Special

Projects: Projects train Native Americans for careers

as teachers; special projects support teacher professional development, including some technology-related training.

Territorial/ Teacher Training: Preparation and professional development for teachers in U.S. territory

schools.

Emergency Immigrant Education: Inservice training is

one of many activities to improve education of immigrant children in heavily impacted schools; some projects involve technology.

Javits Gifted and Talented Education: Research, demonstration, and training projects to improve gifted and

talented education; some involve technology.

National Writing Project: Teacher training in writing

instruction; encourages technology infusion.

National Science Scholars: Scholarships to talented

science, math, computer science, and engineering

majors; recipients must teach in K-12 schools or pay

back the award amount.

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

(FIPSE): Projects to promote reform and innovation in

postsecondary education; infusing technology and

strengthening teacher education are among priorities.

Regional Education Laboratories and Educational Research Centers: Research, dissemination, and teacher

training on effective teaching and learning; improving

instructional uses of technology is among priorities.

■ Language Resource Centers: Teacher training is

among the activities to develop better methods of

teaching foreign languages; new technologies are an

area of emphasis.

National Science Foundation

●

■

■

■

■

■

State Systemic Initiative: State planning for systemic

reform in math, science, and technology education.

Urban and Rural Systemic /initiatives: Systemwide

improvement plans in math and science education for

cities with highest numbers of children in poverty and

for rural areas; technology can be included.

Research in Teaching and Learning: Basic and applied research on science and math education, including research on teacher uses of technology.

Mathematics and Science Teaching Perspective Component: Teacher lab experiences with scientists and

student Young Scholars.

Research Opportunity Grants: Teacher research experiences with NSF principal investigators.

Advanced Technological Education: Teacher preparation and professional development are allowable activities under the program to improve training of technicians for high-performance workplaces.

Department of Defense

■ Department of Defense Dependents’ Schools: Current

activities target DODDs schools as a testbed for telecommunications networks.

● Summer Associateships for High School Science and

Mathematics Faculty Research opportunities for outstanding teachers at U.S. Army labs.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

■ NEWESTINEWMAST Programs: Offer inservice training

at NASA Centers to improve teacher knowledge in

aerospace technologies.

■ Aerospace Education Services: Teacher workshops on

integrating aerospace topics into curriculum.

■ Education Satellite Videoconferences: Teleconferences

for inservice use on scientific topics.

Department of Agriculture

■ 4-H Leadership Centers: Land-grant colleges and

universities train teachers and others to implement

science-technology curricula.

● Teacher Research Fellowship Program: Teacher research opportunities with Agricultural Research Service scientists.
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 219

Department of Health and Human Services

Minority High School Student Research Apprenticeship Program: Inservice and preservice training to

minority teachers, teachers in largely minority schools,

and minority undergrads interested in science teaching careers.

Summer Fellowship Program: Inservice and preservice

teacher training in microbiology lab techniques and

electronic databases, summer internships in National

Institutes of Health laboratories, workshops on incorporating new skills into curriculum.

National Endowment for the Humanities

■

■

■

Summer Seminars for Teachers: Summer humanities

studies for K-1 2 teachers; technology may be a resource.

Elementary and Secondary Education in the Humanities: Program to improve humanities teaching in K-12

schools; includes teacher institutes in which technology may be a resource.

Special Opportunities in Foreign Languages: Teacher

institutes and other activities to improve foreign language instruction at all levels; technology may be a

resource.

OTHER AGENCIES

Department of Transportation

■ Aviation Education Workshops: Familiarizing teachers

with aviation education curricular materials.

Department of Energy

● Laboratory Partnerships, Local Programs, Regional

Systemic Efforts: Variety of lab-based teacher training

and K-1 2 education improvement projects in science

and technology.

Smithsonian Institution

■ Project SPICA (Support Program for Instructional

Competency in Astronomy): Summer institutes and

teacher-leader training in astronomy for K-12 teachers

and college faculty.

Environmental Protection Agency

■ Environment/ Education Grants: Support can include

teacher training to develop and implement models for

environmental education.

National Endowment for the Arts

■ Arts in Education.’ Teacher professional development

is one of many activities.

Interagency Initiative: NASA, NSF, and National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

■ GLOBE Program: Grants for developing curricula,

data collection and communication technologies, and

teacher training in support of worldwide environmental

science experiments.

This Iist IS meant to be iIlustrative and IS not a complete inventory of all federal programs with components for technology-related teacher training.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.

national level (e.g., the NSF Teacher Enhancement Program), the amount of support for

technology-related teacher development varies

from year to year, depending upon the priority

given to technology or the kinds of proposals

submitted. Until the passage of the Improving

America’s Schools Act, the two pieces had not

come together: programs devoted to professional development did not mandate or recommend that grantees consider technology as

either a topic for training or a mode for delivery,

while programs that provide funds to acquire

technology or expand its use did not always require attention to teacher training needs.

In part because of these characteristics, federal

support for technology-related teacher development has tended to be highly variable, fragmented, and lacking in a unifying strategy or

clear leadership. As a subcommittee of an ED

steering group concluded in 1992, “Since the establishment of the Department in 1980, very little

initiative or coordinated effort has been taken by

ED to promote or guide educational technology
220 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

efforts in the schools.”10 As discussed in detail later in this chapter, this situation has begun to

change.

NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR

FEDERAL LEADERSHIP

The federal government is starting to exert stronger leadership in educational technology and

teacher training, as signaled by several new legislative and executive initiatives. As a result of new

legislation, the Department of Education now

has greater authority and stronger directives to

develop and implement a coordinated federal

policy for educational technology.

❚ Goals 2000: Educate America Act

The major purpose of Goals 2000 is to encourage

states to establish content and performance standards for student learning in core academic subjects and then to develop comprehensive school

reform plans based on these standards. These state

improvement plans must include “a process for

providing appropriate and effective professional

development, including the use of technology,

distance learning, and gender-equitable methods,

necessary for teachers, school administrators, and

students to meet state content standards and state

student performance standards.” Furthermore, the

act also authorizes grants to states to develop systemic plans, as part of their broader state improvement plans, to increase use of educational

technologies for student learning and staff development. For FY 1994, $5 million was appropriated for this purpose.

The act also required ED to establish an Office

of Educational Technology. This office is responsible for reviewing, coordinating, and overseeing

federal educational technology policy.

With encouragement from the Goals 2000 Act,

national groups are developing voluntary national

content standards in core subjects, including standards for what teachers should know and be able

to do. The mention of technology in these standards could send a strong signal, while the omission of technology could constitute a setback.

Together the provisions of Goals 2000 could give

stronger federal encouragement to states and

school districts to use technology both to support

curricular reforms and to provide professional development.

❚ Improving America’s Schools Act

The Improving America’s Schools Act extends

and amends most of the major federal elementary

and secondary education programs supported under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

It also contains far-reaching amendments affecting educational technology, most significantly the

new Title III of the ESEA—the most comprehensive federal education technology legislation to

date and a turning point in the federal role in

educational technology. Title III authorizes several new federal leadership activities and grant programs in ED aimed at expanding access to and use

of educational technologies, strengthening the

technology infrastructure, and supporting technology-related technical assistance and professional development (see box 6-1). For FY 1995,

the first year of funding, $40 million has been appropriated for the legislation. The Department has

committed $27 million of this amount to a

Technology Challenge grant competition. This

program encourages schools, districts, research

labs, nonprofit organizations and businesses to

propose technology solutions to educational challenges and problems.

A key provision of Title III charges the Secretary of Education with developing a national longrange technology plan by October 1995 that

includes strategies to:

10See Tom Hanley (ed.), “1992 Report of the Subcommittee on Educational Technology to the Steering Committee on Math and Science

Education, U.S. Department of Education,” n.p., November 1992, p. 98. This report noted that ED is quite limited in what it can do without

congressional authorization or appropriation—a debatable point since in FY 1994 the Department designated technology-related priorities for

several discretionary programs without changes in law.
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 221

By the year 2000...

Goals 2000 legislation encourages states to increase the use of technologies for student Iearning and staff development, and

requires that school districts provide professional development to meet state content and student performance standards.

■ encourage effective use of technology in all ED

programs,

■ facilitate technology use through joint efforts

with other federal agencies,

■ work with state and local agencies and the private sector,

● promote increased opportunities for teacher

professional development in the use of new

technologies, and

■ accomplish other long-range goals.

This plan could provide focus and strategic

planning for the federal role in educational

technology, not only in ED but across government.

Also noteworthy is the new state and local

technology grant program authorized in the

new Title III, which has stronger recognition

and mandates for technology-related professional development than any current federal

program School districts receiving funds under

this program are required, to the extent possible,

to use funds to provide “ongoing professional development in the integration of quality educational technologies into school curriculum and

long-term planning for implementing educational

technologies."11 Funds are also required to be

used to expand technology applications to support

school reform and ensure that schools have meaningful access to hardware, software, and connectivity, among other activities. School districts also

must describe in their grant applications how they

“will ensure ongoing, sustained professional development for teachers, administrators, and

school library media personnel”12 to further use of

technology.

11 Section 3134 (4) of the Improving America’s Schools Act.

12 Section 3135 (1) (D) (i), ibid.
222 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Part A—Technology for Education of All Students

Total FY 1995 Appropriation: $40 million

Subpart l—National Programs

FY 1995 appropriation: $3 million

National Technology Plan

Secretary must develop a national long-range technology plan by October 1995 that will include

strategies to encourage effective use of technology in all Department of Education programs.

Federal Leadership

Secretary may use national program funds for various federal leadership activities such as:

helping technical assistance providers improve their services;

conducting research and development on interoperability and advanced applications of educational

technology;

developing and evaluating software and products;

developing, demonstrating, and evaluating the educational aspects of high performance computing,

communications technology, and the national information infrastructure in providing professional development;

developing, demonstrating, and evaluating model strategies for preparing teachers and other personnel to use technology effectively; and

encouraging collaboration with other federal agencies.

Subpart 2—State and Local Programs for School Technology Resources

FY 1995 appropriation: $27 million

Grantees

In years in which less than $75 million is appropriated (i.e., FY 1995), Secretary makes “challenge

grants” to local consortia that include at least one district with a high concentration of low-income

children. (If more than $75 million is appropriated, funds go to state education agencies based on Title

1, ESEA formula and states make subgrants to school districts).

Statewide Technology Plans

States must develop statewide technology plans (or use their Goals 2000 technology plan or a similar

one) that must address long-term strategies for financing educational technology and serving districts

with low-income children and high-technology needs.

Local Use of Funds

School districts shall use grant funds, to the extent possible, to:

n

n

n

n

n

n

develop, adapt, or expand applications of technology to support school reform;

fund projects of sufficient size and scope to improve student learning and, as appropriate, support

professional development;

acquire connectivity, hardware, and software to ensure that schools have meaningful access;

provide ongoing professional development in integration of quality educational technologies;

acquire connectivity with wide area networks; and

provide educational services for adults and families.

Local Applications

School districts must describe how they “will ensure ongoing, sustained professional development for

teachers, administrators, and school library media personnel served by the local educational agency to

further use of technology.”
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role 1223

Subpart 3-Regional Technical Support and Professional Development

FY 1995 appropriation: $10 million

Grantees

Educational laboratories and other regional entities, to develop regional programs in professional

development, technical assistance and information dissemination.

Regional Professional Development

Regional professional development activities may include intensive school-year and summer workshops, video conferences, distance professional development, repositories of professional development

resources, and more.

Subpart 4-Product Development

(No appropriation for FY 1995)

Purpose

Secretary makes competitive grants or loans to consortia to develop, produce and distribute technology

enhanced instructional resources and programming for student instruction or professional development.

Part B—Star Schools

FY 1995 appropriation: $30 million

Star Schools program extended through FY 1995.

Part C--Ready-to-Learn Television

FY 1995 appropriation: $7 million

New program of grants to nonprofit entities to develop, produce, and distribute video programming

promoting school readiness for preschool and elementary children and their parents.

Part D-Telecommunications Demonstration Project for Mathematics

FY 1995 appropriation: $2.25 million

New program of grants to telecommunications entities to conduct a national telecommunications demonstration project to help teachers prepare all students to meet content standards in mathematics. Grantees

must use public telecommunications to train teachers in standards-based curriculum.

Part E—Elementary Mathematics and Science Equipment Program

New program, not yet funded, of formula grants to states and school districts to provide equipment and

materials for hands-on math and science instruction in elementary schools. Funds shall not be used for

computers and peripherals or for staff development.

Part F—Elementary and Secondary School Library Media Resources Program

New program, not yet funded, of grants to states and school districts to acquire school library and

media resources.

SOURCE . Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.

A Title III program of grants to regional edu- 1 Telecommunications Legislation

cational laboratories for technical assistance Potentially Impacting Education

authorizes regional professional development ac- Congress has also been debating federal policy

tivities in technology use. As discussed below, the that would affect educational access to emerging

Improving America’s Schools Act also amends

- -

information infrastructure. A number of bills were

several other federal education programs to submitted in the 103d Congress, with varying apstrengthen technology use.
224 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

proaches to regulation of access; it is expected that

similar bills will be submitted in the 104th Congress. The final outcome of these debates will

have a significant impact on the affordability,

availability, and access to information resources

for educational users. These bills could set in

place a new system of educational services and

materials for teacher and student use. Clearly

teachers will need training and support if they are

to derive maximum benefit from the new resources available.

However, as suggested by the past experience of many of the programs described below,

ambitious initiatives do not always translate

into better programs or stronger leadership.

Budget ceilings can limit funding of new programs and appropriations increases for existing

ones. New programs can be implemented effectively or poorly. Furthermore, a special office

within an agency does not automatically guarantee better administration or coordination. Federal

administrators must have the authority, tools,

funding, and congressional and White House support to carry out the ideas embraced on paper in a

technology plan.

MAJOR TECHNOLOGY-RELATED

TRAINING PROGRAMS

As discussed above, there are two important ways

that technology-related teacher training can be

viewed: technology as a subject for teachers to

learn about or use (i.e., as a resource for a range of

K-12 instructional goals) and technology as a

mode for delivering teacher training of any kind.

This analysis looks at both these emphases in several key programs supported by the major players

in this area: the Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and, most recently, the

Department of Commerce.

❚ Department of Education Programs

Eisenhower Professional Development

Program—FY 1995 Funding: $359 Million

The Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development program, originally authorized by

Title II of the ESEA in 1988 and reauthorized

under the Improving America’s Schools Act, is

now the largest federal program aimed at improving professional development. The program has two components: 1) the state grant

program allocates funds by formula to states for

grants to school districts (LEAs) and institutions

of higher education (IHEs) for training K-12

teachers, and 2) the national program provides

competitive grants from the federal level for innovative projects of national significance.

Until this year the program has focused on improving mathematics and science instruction

through inservice and preservice teacher training.

New amendments in the Improving America’s

Schools Act will extend Eisenhower professional

development activities to other core academic

subjects beginning in FY 1995, as long as math

and science activities are funded at a level of at

least $250 million per year.

Eisenhower state grant funding reaches 83 percent of the school districts in the nation—more

than any other federal teacher training program.13

It also reaches more teachers. In 1988-89, an estimated one-third of all math and science teachers in

the nation took part in some type of activity

funded by the Title II program.14

The forerunner of the Eisenhower program was

the 1984 Education for Economic Security Act.

This act allowed teacher training in “computer

learning and foreign languages” only if math and

science training needs had already been met. This

wording presumed that learning about computers

13 U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, The Eisenhower Math and Science State Grant Program, GAO/HRD-93-25 (Washington,

DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992), p. 26.

14 Michael S. Knapp et. al., The Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Program: An Enabling Resource for Reform, Summary

Report (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International,1991), p. iii.
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 225

(the dominant technology of the time) was considered a separate topic, not a means for teaching

math or science. Revisions in 1988 expanded the

policy to permit training in and instructional use

of technologies (not just computers) as part of a

math and science program and to allow purchase

of hardware and software if all other teacher

training needs had been met.

The 1994 amendments to the ESEA give much

stronger encouragement to technology-related

professional development. In their Eisenhower

plans, states now must describe how they “will

use technology, including the emerging national

information infrastructure, to enhance the professional development of teachers.” State and local

Eisenhower grants may be used to provide professional development “in the effective use of educational technology as an instructional tool.” Under

the national program, the Secretary may fund efforts “to train teachers in the innovative uses and

applications of technology to enhance student

learning.”

Both the state program and the national program are key sources of federal funding for

technology-related teacher training. The most recent national evaluation of the state program, conducted in school year 1988-89, found that 20

percent of all LEA Eisenhower projects and 14

percent of all IHE projects provided support for

computer education not connected to math or science; well over half of these computer education

projects (62 percent) focused on staff development. In addition, a notable share of math- and

science-oriented projects involved use of educational technology—in math, about 38 percent of

the LEA projects and 41 percent of the IHE projects.15 Support for technology-related training

has continued in more recent years. A 1992 compendium of model programs funded through the

state program included several technology-related

training projects, such as helping teachers use laser holography to teach about light or use computers to model decisionmaking about natural

resources.16

Under the national program, the FY 1994 grant

competition designated three absolute priorities,

one of which encourages model professional development projects that help teachers effectively

use technologies in teaching math and science;

electronic networking among teachers is required

in all projects.17 The 10 Eisenhower regional consortia funded by the national program to disseminate exemplary materials and provide technical

assistance have also provided technology-related

training to teachers.18 Other national program

grants are supporting projects to establish an online network to enable teachers to communicate

with the National Clearinghouse for Mathematics

and Science Education, implement statewide telecommunications networks for teachers, develop

video teacher training modules, help teachers use

networks to enhance instruction, and train teachers to integrate computer technologies into math

instruction for Indian children.19

What impact has the Eisenhower program had?

A recent evaluation found that the quality of LEAsupported training varied, from well-designed

staff development that clearly influenced teacher

thinking and classroom practices to “ad hoc training that appeared to contribute little to improved

practices.”20 The study also uncovered mixed results regarding the impact of Eisenhower program

participation on teacher classroom practices and

15 Ibid., pp. 15-18.

16 Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education, State Model Programs (College Park, MD: Triangle Coalition, 1992).

17 Federal Register, vol. 59, No. 84, May 3, 1994, p. 22910.

18 Keith M. Kershner, “Eisenhower Regional Consortia Progress Update,” Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics & Science Education, vol.

3, No. 3, fall 1993, pp. 6-7.

19 U.S. Department of Education, Dwight D. Eisenhower National Program for Mathematics and Science Education: Project Abstracts

(Washington, DC: 1994).

20 Michael S. Knapp et. al., op. cit., footnote 14, pp. iv-v.
226 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Star Schools funding has brought experts into even the most

remote classrooms. Here Gene Cernan, the last astronaut to

walk on the moon, discusses space exploration with students

and teachers over an interactive instructional television

network.

student learning.21 And much of the Eisenhowersupported training was of low-intensity-an average of six hours of training per participant per year

in LEA projects in 1988-89.2

In response to these findings, the Department

of Education revised program regulations in 1992

to encourage projects of longer duration. 23 In the

1994 amendments, Congress directed all Eisenhower projects to support ’’sustained and intensive

high-quality professional development” that will

have a lasting impact on teacher performance, become part of the everyday life of the school, and be

oriented toward continuous improvement.

21 Ibid, p. 23.

22 Ibid, p. iv.

Star Schools, Title III-B of the ESEAFY 1995 Funding: $30 Million

With an appropriation of $30 million for FY 1995,

ED’s Star Schools program makes grants to telecommunications partnerships to support the use

of distance-learning technologies to improve student instruction in math, science, foreign languages, and other subjects. A large share of Star

Schools funding is used to acquire and operate

distance-learning equipment and to develop and

deliver programming mostly aimed at students.24

Teacher professional development has always

been an allowable activity under the program; the

1991 amendments required partnerships to offer a

range of courses for educators with different skills

and to train participating teachers to use telecommunications equipment and integrate distancelearning activities into the curriculum. In FY

1991, an estimated 22,600 teachers participated in

Star Schools staff development activities and

another 720 teachers received college credit

courses through the system. 25 In 1992-93, about

130 different general staff development activities

were offered by Star Schools partnerships, varying in length from l-hour to 6-hour segments,

with some 10-hour telecourses. Most of these activities were “one-shot” teleconferences, and most

were underused. A recent national evaluation sug- ‘

gests that “general staff development was perhaps the weakest component of Star Schools

projects." 26 Many of the distance-learning staff

development activities imparted information to

teachers as passive recipients-in other words,

old delivery in a new package. Effectiveness

23 James B. Stedman, "Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Act: Overview and Issues for Reauthorization,” Congressional

Research Service, Library of Congress, CRS Report for Congress 93-5 EPW, December 1992, p. 12. 24 Tushnet et. al., op. cit., footnote 7, p. 2.

25 U.S. Department of Education, Annual Evaluation Report: Fiscal Year 1991 (Washington, DC: 1992), p. 614-2. 26 Tushnet et al., op. cit., footnote 7, p.71.
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 227

would probably increase, the report concluded, if

projects used the interactive aspects of the technology to foster learning communities.27

The 1994 amendments to the ESEA continued

a move begun by ED to strengthen professional

development activities through distance learning.

Star Schools funds may be used to develop and acquire preservice and inservice programs “based on

established research,” to establish teleconferencing facilities for making interactive training

available to teachers, to provide professional development to teachers, to train instructors to use

distance-learning equipment and integrate programs into the classroom, and to provide teacher

training for teaching core subjects. Priority for

funding is given to applicants that, among other

characteristics, have substantial capabilities to

provide professional development and to train

educators to integrate telecommunications into

school curriculum.

Title I of the ESEA—

FY 1995 Funding: $7.2 Billion

Title I (formerly Chapter 1) is the largest single

federal education program. Nearly every school

district in the nation participates in the program,

which provides supplementary instruction in academic subjects to low-achieving children in highpoverty schools. Because of its size and reach,

Title I is a potent force in education today.

Professional development for teachers who

work with Title I students has always been an allowable activity, although the amount or percentage of funding for this activity in recent years is

not known.28 It has been found, however, that staff

development supported by Title I “is generally of

short duration offering cursory coverage of multiple topics.”29

Educational technologies, primarily computers, are used in over half of Title I projects.30 Despite large investments in hardware and software

and the popularity of computer-assisted instruction in Title I projects, in the past very little Title I

support has been devoted to helping teachers of

Title I students use technologies effectively. The

extent of Title I staff development that addresses

educational technologies is unknown,31 although

it was not among the 10 most common topics covered in staff development for Chapter 1 teachers in

1991.32 Because Title I funding is so large, however, even a 1 percent share of Title I funds for

professional development would amount to a

$72 million contribution. Therefore, Title I presents a potentially large untapped source for

technology-related professional development.

The 1994 amendments to Title I give greater

emphasis to professional development and technology use. Title I schools must now “devote

sufficient resources to effectively carry out” professional development activities, and schools that

do not meet state performance standards must use

10 percent of their Title I grant for professional development. In addition, a new section on professional development requires every school district

receiving Title I funds to provide high-quality professional development to improve teaching in aca27 Ibid., p. 78.

28 Case study data from a U.S. General Accounting Office review of eight local programs found that in school year 1990-91, the school

districts studied used from 0 to 4 percent of their Title I budgets for in-house training. The report also noted that it is possible that more funds

were used for training but were categorized as nonsalary classroom services. U.S. General Accounting Office, Compensatory Education: Most

Chapter 1 Funds in Eight Districts Used for Classroom Services (Washington, DC: 1992), pp. 12-13.

29 National Assessment of the Chapter 1 Program, Reinventing Chapter 1: The Current Chapter 1 Program and New Directions Executive

Summary (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning, February 1993), p. 21.

30 National Assessment of the Chapter 1 Program, ibid, p. 80.

31 Mary Jean LeTendre, Office of Compensatory Education, U.S. Department of Education, personal communication, Nov. 17, 1993.

32Mary Ann Millsap, Marc Moss, and Beth Gamse, The Chapter 1 Implementation Study, Final Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Education, 1993) p. 7-7.
228 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

demic subjects, and this may include “instruction

in the use of technology.”33 The Secretary of

Education may also fund projects to demonstrate

promising Title I practices, including application

of new technologies.

Title VI of the ESEA—

FY 1995 Funding: $347 Million

Title VI (formerly Chapter 2),34 which supports

state and locally determined school reform efforts,

has been a major benefactor of both school

technology acquisition and general staff development. In school year 1991-92, about 72 percent of

the districts in the nation used Chapter 2 funds to

buy computer hardware and software, according

to the most recent national evaluation.35 The

school districts examined in a substudy of that

evaluation spent 17 percent of their Chapter 2 allocations on hardware and software. Extrapolated

nationally, this would amount to $61 million from

Chapter 2 funding for technology purchases.

During the same period, about 27 percent of

school districts used some Chapter 2 funding on

professional development (averaging about 13

percent of their local Chapter 2 allocations).36

Again, if these percentages were extrapolated nationally, it would come to about $47 million for

professional development.37 It is likely that

additional funding for professional development

was reported under other Chapter 2 spending

categories.

State education agencies (SEAs) may keep a

percentage of their federal money for state initiatives (the percentage was reduced from 20 to 15

percent under the 1994 amendments). In 1991-92,

states used about 12 percent of their Chapter 2

SEA allocations for professional development activities, or about $11 million. Funding for technology acquisition from this pot of money was less,

about 2 percent of the SEA share, or less than $2

million.38

The national evaluation of Chapter 2

showed that technology-related training was a

common topic for professional development at

both the state and local levels. Of the SEA’s that

supported professional development with Chapter

2, 69 percent addressed the use of technology in

instruction as a professional development topic.39

For local education agencies supporting professional development with Chapter 2 funds, 39 percent addressed technology.40

In addition, the Chapter 2 legislation specifically authorized the use of funds for innovative

technology education programs for students

(which might also involve professional development for teachers). Although this initiative comprises only a small portion of SEA and LEA

support,41 it has encouraged interesting applications. For example, Maryland developed an interactive computer and video system that teachers

could use to explore effective teaching methods

keyed to specific learning outcomes in the state’s

33 Funding for this need not come from Title I; they may use Title I, Title II, Goals 2000, and any other sources to provide this professional

development.

34 Although technically now Title VI, this program is commonly referred to as Chapter 2, therefore this is the name used in this chapter.

35 Joan Ruskus et al., How Chapter 2 Operates at the Federal, State, and Local Levels (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

1994), p. 73.

36 Ibid., p. 175.

37 Ibid., p. 18.

38 Ibid., pp. 17-20.

39 Ibid., p. 143.

40 Ibid., p. 184.

41 SEAs in the national evaluation and LEAs in the substudy each used 3 percent of their allocations for this purpose. ibid., pp. 17-18.
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 229

central reform initiative. In another example, a

district in Texas supported the One Computer

Classroom program, which includes software and

related staff training to make efficient use of a

single computer in a whole-class setting.42

When funding for technology-related professional development from all Chapter 2 components is totaled, it is still likely to be far less than

the investment in equipment. The new Title VI is

likely to encourage a greater emphasis on

technology-related professional development,

by specifying that local grants may be used for

professional development to assist teachers to

use technological equipment and software effectively.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—

FY 1995 Funding: $3.3 Billion

The federal government has recently expanded

support for technology-related teacher training

under the various components of the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—the major federal legislation for educating children with

disabilities (authorization for IDEA is scheduled

to expire in the 104th Congress). An impetus for

this growth is the need for teachers who educate

students with disabilities to be knowledgeable

about adaptive and assistive technologies.

The largest IDEA program is the Part B State

Grant program, which in FY 1995 will provide

$2.3 billion to educate children with disabilities.

Part B requires states to have a comprehensive

system of personnel development that includes

procedures for adopting promising technology,

where appropriate, and permits funds to be used

for teacher preparation and inservice training. Although 90 percent or more of Part B funds are used

for direct services to students,43 29 states used

some Part B funds in 1991 to support inservice

training.

The major IDEA program for teacher training

is the Part D Personnel Development program.

Funded at $91 million for FY 1995, this program

provides grants to IHEs, SEAs, and nonprofit organizations to train teachers, education personnel,

and related services personnel to serve children

with disabilities; to demonstrate new approaches

to personnel training; and to help states carry out a

comprehensive system of special education personnel development. Most of the funding supports undergraduate and graduate degree training

in special education, through scholarships, fellowships, and institutional aid. Less frequently,

grants are used for inservice training.

In 1990, provisions were added to Part D that

specifically authorized training in instructional

and assistive technology services, and this has

dramatically increased the number of technologyrelated projects. At least 16 projects in 1993 involved a significant focus on technology. Most of

these were graduate programs that trained specialists in assistive technology and augmentative and

alternative communications. One project, for example, is developing the competencies of assistive technologists through computer technology.

Another is developing teacher training modules

using interactive television.44

Additional support for technology-related

training is available through another IDEA program, the Part G Program for Technology,

Educational Media, and Materials. Part G subsidizes research, development, and technical assistance to advance the quality and use of

technology, educational media, and materials for

individuals with disabilities. To date, the focus

has been on research and development. For FY

42 Ibid., p. 57.

43 U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Fourteenth Annual Report to Congress (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1992), p. 143.

44 Max Mueller, Office of Special Education and Related Services, U.S. Department of Education, personal communication, Dec. 7, 1993.
230 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

1994, however, the Department of Education allocated $1.8 million from this program to fund innovative projects that combine organizational

support and professional development in technology, media, and materials.45

Similarly, in the IDEA Program for Children

with Severe Disabilities, one of five priorities for

competitive grants in FY 1994 and 1995 was a

model inservice training project to prepare personnel to educate students with severe disabilities

in general classroom and community settings.

Competency areas could include instructional

technology and assistive technology.46

National Diffusion Network—

FY 1995 Funding: $14.5 Million

Begun in 1974, the National Diffusion Network

(NDN) is a national dissemination system to promote the sharing of K-12 education programs that

have been validated as effective by a review panel.

NDN projects span all subjects, specializations,

and grade levels. Training teachers is one of the

main strategies used by the program to help

schools adopt exemplary projects developed in

other sites. In school year 1990-91, more than

32,000 school districts adopted NDN projects,

and nearly 91,000 educators were trained.47

The NDN was an early promoter of educational

technology and early provider of technology-related teacher training. Several technology-related

projects are included in the current roster of projects available for adoption. Examples are a program to enhance the ability of teachers to use

videodiscs to teach core math concepts, a computer simulation program in environmental education, and a statewide program in Washington State

that delivers training through satellite technology.48

The 1994 amendments outline several explicit

NDN functions related to technology. NDN statelevel staff must provide professional development

to participating school districts; this training

should help districts identify educational technology needs, secure technical assistance to meet

these needs, and use technology to increase access

to professional development.

❚ National Science Foundation Programs

Teacher Enhancement—

FY 1995 Requested Funding: $101 Million

Technology is embedded in the purpose of NSF’s

Teacher Enhancement program: “to improve,

broaden, and deepen the disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge of teachers, administrators

and others who play significant roles in providing

quality science, mathematics, and technology

education for students from pre-kindergarten

through grade 12.”49 This program provides competitive grants to LEAs, IHEs, museums, and other organizations with records of excellence in

professional development. In 1993, the program

reached about 21,800 math and science teachers,

each of whom was expected to train another four

to five teachers.50

Many projects involve intensive summer

workshops with regular followup during the

school year, while others use research internships,

workshops, seminars, and other inservice formats. Projects may target teachers in a single

school district or in a state, region, or the nation.

45 U.S. Department of Education, “Technology, Educational Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program, Fiscal Year

1994: Application for New Grants,” n.p., 1993.

46 Federal Register, vol. 58, No. 119, June 23, 1993, p. 34189.

47 Several districts adopted more than one NDN project. U.S. Department of Education, Annual Evaluation Report, Fiscal Year 1991, p.

611-2.

48 National Diffusion Network, Educational Programs That Work (Longmont, CO: Sopris West, 1993), pp. 7-17.

49 National Science Foundation, Guide to Programs, Fiscal Year 1994 (Washington, DC: 1993), p. 16.

50 Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, Committee on Education and Human Resources, Sourcebook

op.cit., footnote 8, p. 16.
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 231

Special emphasis is given to projects that lead to

systemic reform in education or that provide leadership training to help effective teachers become

change agents in their school or district.

Perhaps one-fifth of the current Teacher Enhancement projects focus specifically on technology, and a high proportion of the remaining

projects use technology as a vehicle for teaching

math and science. Recent projects have focused

on helping teachers incorporate computer microworlds and simulations, new laboratory technologies, digital image processing, and

telecommunications networks into their instruction. Others have trained teachers in rural areas

through distance learning, encouraged teachers to

develop video materials for classroom use, and

promoted teacher collaboration through electronic networking.51

Teacher Preparation—FY 1995 Requested

Funding: $18 Million

A new program within NSF, the Collaboratives

for Excellence in Teacher Preparation, seeks to encourage comprehensive change in the undergraduate education of future K-12 teachers and

increase the number of teachers well prepared in

science and math. A reshaping of the former

Teacher Preparation program, the Collaboratives

strive to produce creative national models for

teacher preparation that address both content and

methods. Collaboratives must involve faculty

from colleges of education; faculty from college

departments of math, science, and engineering;

and K-12 teachers and administrators. They may

also include two-year colleges, community organizations, and public and private sector representatives.

The predecessor NSF program for Teacher

Preparation supported several technology-related

efforts, including projects to strengthen math

teaching through hypermedia instructional materials, prepare K-8 teachers to use calculators and

computers in teaching the fundamentals of probability, and integrate computer-based laboratory

experiences into physical science courses for future middle school and high school teachers.52

The new program strengthens the emphasis

on technology. Preparing prospective teachers

to employ the latest technologies is one of the

goals cited in program guidelines. Every Collaborative project must address the “preparation of students in the use of new tools and

technologies.” Funds may also subsidize workshops for faculty and mentor teachers to explore

and design new methodologies and technologies.53

Other NSF programs are likely to be providing

additional support for technology-related teacher

preparation. For FY 1994, preparation of K-12

teachers was one of three special emphases that

cut across all programs in the Division of Undergraduate Education, including programs for

course and curriculum development, faculty development, improvement of mathematical science instruction, and laboratory improvement.54

Applications of Advanced Technologies—

FY 1995 Funding: $10 Million

The Applications of Advanced Technologies program promotes research and demonstrations in

“revolutionary” technologies that will be available in five to ten years, with the goal of speeding

their transfer to the classroom. Although teachers

are not the central focus, most projects have a

51 Michael Haney, Teacher Enhancement Program, Directorate of Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation, personal communication, Nov. 22, 1993; and National Science Foundation, Directory of NSF-Supported Teacher Enhancement Projects (Washington, DC: 1992).

52 National Science Foundation, EHR Directory of Awards, Fiscal Year 1990 (Washington, DC: 1992), pp. 148, 150, and 157.

53 National Science Foundation, Undergraduate Education, Program Announcement and Guidelines (Washington, DC: 1993), pp. 21-22.

54 National Science Foundation, Guide to Programs, op.cit., footnote 49, p. 18.
232 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Following the standards set by the National Council for

Teachers of Mathematics and those of the National Science

Teachers Association, teacher training programs sponsored

by the National Science Foundation encourage teaching with

“hands-on” science, math, and technology activities.

component for teacher support and development. 55 These teacher activities are less formal

than those sustained by NSF’s Teacher Enhancement program, but are important because they

yield valuable information about the kinds of support teachers need to assimilate advanced technologies into their instruction. Support has been in

areas of intelligent tools and learning environments (e.g., an algebra workbench, microcomputer-based laboratories, exploration of virtual

reality environments); knowledge-based systems

and intelligent tutors (e.g., intelligent tutors in calculus, algebra, geometry, and science); and telecommunications and educational infrastructures

(e.g., testbeds for educational networking in support of science and math education, worldwide

Global Laboratory, and schoolwide Earth Lab

projects). 56

Networking infrastructure for Education–

FY 1995 Funding: $15 Million 57

This program aims to demonstrate the most innovative applications of educational networking for

students and teachers, with the goals of developing many different models for using networks effectively to improve education. Grants are made

to consortia that include educational agencies or

institutions, usually working with other public

and private sector partners, and federal funds are

matched with funds from other sources. Projects

may address networking applications for everything from an entire state-such as a statewide

educational network in New Jersey—to a single

school with a teacher as principal investigator.

Helping teachers learn to use networks construetively is an integral part of all the projects, as is

providing ongoing professional development and

support through networking.

■ Department of Commerce Programs

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of

Commerce funds a number of programs to support

innovation and capacity building of the nation’s

telecommunications infrastructure. NTIA is

scheduled to play a key role in fulfilling the Administration’s goal of deploying an “information

superhighway” as outlined by The National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action.58

The distance-learning grant awards made by

NTIA’s Public Telecommunications Facilities

Program (PTFP) since 1979 have created the underlying infrastructure for distance-learning facilities at the district and state level. The new

Telecommunications and Information Infrastruc5 5Nora Sabelli, Applications of Advanced Technologies, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation,

personal communication, Dec. 8,1993. 56 National Science Foundation, Guide to Programs in the Division of Research, Evaluation and Dissemination (Arlington, VA: September

1993), p. 15. 57 $5 Million of this amount is set aside for projects in the Department of Defense Dependents’ Schools

58 U.S. Department of Co mmerce, The National Informatia n Infrastructure: Agenda for Action (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993).
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 233

ture Assistance Program (TIIAP) was created to

accelerate the use of telecommunications and information technology in the public sector. Each of

these programs require partnerships and matching

funds, designed to magnify the impact of federal

dollars. For example, the TIIAP FY 1994 grants

were matched by state and private contributions at

a 2:1 level, bringing the $24.5-million program to

a $70-million total investment.59

Public Telecommunications Facilities

Program—FY 1995 Funding: $29 Million

These grants are made to colleges and universities, school districts, public television and radio

stations, and consortia of broadcasters and public

agencies to develop Instructional Television

Fixed Service (ITFS), microwave, satellite, or

other telecommunications facilities to serve local

communities. From 1979 through 1994, over 60

grants have been made to support telecommunications services benefiting K-12 school districts.

Grants have ranged from $30,000 to $800,000.

Although not targeted to professional development or teacher training per se, the distance-learning projects supported under these grants offer a

range of professional development opportunities

for schools and districts. For example, with a

NTIA grant of $72,546 the Los Angeles Office of

Education constructed a satellite uplink facility

for use by its Educational Telecommunications

Network (ENT). ETN provides satellite-delivered

programming for students and teachers in over

350 school districts in 12 counties serving 3 million students. For the 1994-95 school year, ETN’s

Teaching and Learning Channel is offering 180

hours of professional development for teachers, in

topics including methods of teaching math and

science, working with parents, and integrating

ecology topics in the curriculum. Approximately

25,000 educators are reached in these programs.

Telecommunications and Information

Infrastructure Assistance Program—

FY 1995 Funding: $64 Million

This program supports both planning activities

and demonstration projects for telecommunications networks serving nonprofit agencies and

state and local governments. In the first year of

this program, $24.4 million in grants was awarded

to 92 projects. Eleven grants, totaling $3.72 million, were made to SEAs or school districts to

provide telecommunication infrastructure development at the K-12 level. This represents 15 percent of the TIIAP FY 1994 grant support.60 In

addition, a number of other grants went to universities, state agencies, or other organizations for

planning purposes or demonstration projects that

will also benefit the K-12 sector. At one end of the

funding spectrum is the $3,000 grant to the Hall

Elementary School District No. 8 in rural southwest Montana to install an Internet connection in

its two-room school building. The connection, the

town’s first, provided the 25 students and 95 residents of the town with access to Montana’s statewide information services as well as national

resources. At the other end of the spectrum, a

$450,000 grant to Columbia University connects

the university and the Environmental Defense

Fund with students and teachers in the Harlem

(NY) Economic Empowerment Zone. Environmental resources will be provided to teachers and

students through the extension of high-speed networks and graphical interfaces for teaching. The

project will include purchase and installation of

new equipment in six schools, provision of curricular material and support, and necessary elements

for connections to the university.

59Emilio Gonzalez, Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications, personal communication, November 1994.

60 Ibid.
234 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

National Endowment for Children’s

Educational Television—FY 1995 Funding:

$2.5 Million

The National Endowment for Children’s Educational Television (NECET) supports the creation

and production of television programming specifically directed toward the development of fundamental intellectual skills of our nation’s children.

Although NECET primarily supports programming intended for general viewing, much of the

programming it funds also has applicability within a classroom context. An example, of NECETfunded programming is “Wufniks!” This

prospective series was supported by a FY 1993

grant of $157,903 for planning, development, research, scripting, and evaluation of a pilot. “Wufniks!” is intended to help 5- to 9-year-olds develop

an awareness of, curiosity about, and engagement

in general science, math, and technology. A followup grant of $100,000 in FY 1994 is supporting

the research and development and scripting of six

30-minute episodes of the series.

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL EMPHASIS IN

TECHNOLOGY-RELATED TRAINING

SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES

The preceding program descriptions give a sense

of the broad strategies and categories of federal

support for technology-related teacher development. While there is great variety at the program

or project level, some general conclusions about

technology-related services and activities in federal programs can be drawn by looking at a number of factors, including the specific treatment of

technology, program content and teachers served,

the form of training, and uses of technology across

programs.

❚ Role of Technology in Training

Federally funded projects today use or address

technology in much more diverse and innovative

ways than they did just a few years ago (see box

6-2). By and large federal programs are moving

away from treating technology as a compartmentalized subject or an end in itself (e.g., providing

teachers with a computer “class”) and toward

viewing technology as a means of delivering, expanding, and changing instruction in a variety of

subjects.

Often the focus continues to be educating

teachers about technology. Activities in these

types of projects vary in intensity and strategy

from one-time training that acquaints teachers

with a single application (e.g., how to use graphing calculators in math instruction) to ongoing

support that helps teachers understand how using

technology can change teaching style and instructional techniques (e.g., how to use global telecommunications to facilitate a hands-on, project

approach to environmental education). In some

programs, such as NASA’s teacher activities in

space science, real-world applications of technology also form the content being studied by teachers and students.

Some federally funded projects are exploring

which technological applications are most appropriate for different types of learners, such as

children with disabilities or those with limitedEnglish proficiency. Others are exploring effective ways to integrate technologies into the

teaching of particular subjects. As a result of the

math and science orientation of so many federal

training programs, the group that has been most

served by federally subsidized training is math

and science teachers at the middle and secondary

school level. Recently, the math and science training needs of elementary teachers have received

greater attention from these programs. 

Far rarer is training that integrates technology into the teaching of history, social studies,

the arts, or English. Prototypes do exist, however. For example, the National Writing Project

supported by ED, which provides professional development in writing instruction, encourages the

use of technologies in the writing classroom and

has supported a teacher network. A project funded

by the National Endowment for the Arts is training teachers to use video technologies as part of

broader training in integrating media arts into the
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 235

Training About Technology

Acquainting teachers with the use of a specific technology, such as satellite technology, and assistive

technology for children with disabilities.

Familiarizing teachers with a variety of technology tools and applications, such as telecommunication

networks.

Training teachers to use technology to facilitate new instructional approaches (e.g., using networks to

help students become investigators).

Teaching teachers to integrate technology into a specific subject (e.g., using computer simulations in

physics),

Helping teachers learn to incorporate technology across the curriculum, such as accessing libraries,

databases, and networks.

Training With Technology

Delivering telecourses or teleconferences by satellite.

Videotaping training sessions.

Videotaping and critiquing of teacher performance.

Modeling good instruction on video.

Computer-assisted training modules for independent study.

Using laboratory tools for research assignments or internships.

Using telecommunications networks for research, interaction, and collegial work.

Providing computer databases on instructional issues.

Providing computer or video guides to accompany training materials.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995

classroom. 61 A project supported through the Ja- programs for teachers of academic subjects other

vits Gifted and Talented Education program used

telecommunications to link civics teachers with

mentors in the legal community.62 A grant from

the ED Fund for the Improvement of Schools and

Teachers helped social studies and history teachers create multimedia lessons on a historical period, such as the 1920s, by accessing print, video,

and studio materials with Macintosh computers

and Hypercard software (see box 6-3).63

The expansion of the Eisenhower program to

other academic subjects may expand these kinds

of models of federal professional development

than math and science. Foreign language programs administered by ED, arts and humanities

programs under the National Endowments, and

others may have great untapped potential to reach

a broader base of teachers and subject areas. To

spur technology integration in other subjects, federal grant invitation guidelines could include language encouraging such projects.

Many federal technology-related training projects also address pedagogical issues, such as

instructional methods and classroom management. Strategies for meeting the needs of special

61 Vonnie Sanford, Ohio Art Council, personal communication, Dec. 16, 1993.

62 U.S. Department of Education, unpublished 1992-93 abstracts from the Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program (Washington, DC: n.d., n.p.)

63 Amanda Podane, University of California at Los Angeles, personal communication, Dec. 16, 1993.
236 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Teachers learned to implement the “Jason Project” Curriculum, which uses interactive distance learning

to ‘lake students and teachers along” on undersea robot explorations; together they learn more about

science, geography, social studies, and even Greek mythology in the process. Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Department of Education

Teachers created multimedia lessons for a thematic, interdisciplinary approach to history and social

studies: a lesson on the 1920s, for example, might use photo images of the flapper fashions, readings

from The Great Gatsby, and historical materials from newspapers. Fund for the Improvement and Reform of Schools and Teachers, Department of Education

Michigan school media specialists learned to use telecommunications technologies, to introduce networking in their schools, and help teachers in their schools develop lessons by accessing databases through

the Internet. Library Education and Human Resource Development, Department of Education

A Star Schools partnership broadcast a six-session, nine-hour professional development telecourse to

help middle school teachers use inquiry-based computer programs to support the kinds of math instruction called for in math teaching and learning standards. Star Schools, Department of Education

Undergraduate teacher education students learned how to produce multimedia materials for reading

instruction. Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education

Students, teachers, university faculty, and community members were linked electronically at a magnet

school for math and science; teachers had continuous support through teleconferencing. Javits Gifted

and Talented Education Program, Department of Education

Using McAuliffe fellowship money, an lowa teacher bought 18 electronic keyboards, and took them to

area schools to show other teachers how to use them with computers for teaching music by recording

accompaniments, transcribing arrangements, and coordinating playing among groups. Another teacher

outfitted a school bus with computer-based multimedia technologies, and shuttling between two Kentucky schools, he showed other teachers and students how to integrate technology into all subjects.

Christa McAuliffe Fellowships, Department of Education

groups of children are a common theme, as is us- ties for teachers, maximizes the use of expensive

ing a constructivist approach or a “discovery” approach to teaching. Sometimes pedagogical

issues are the sole focus of training, as with certain

teacher telecourses developed by the Star Schools

partnerships. More often, pedagogy is addressed

in tandem with subject-matter training. Some federal programs, such as the new Eisenhower program, require professional development to be

based on solid research about effective teaching

and learning.

Several federal programs expose teachers to

state-of-the-art technology through research and

training experiences in federal laboratories and facilities. This approach presents unique opportunifederal resources, engages the expertise of federal

scientists, and contributes in-kind support to

training programs. Exposure to advanced technologies in a training situation creates a challenge for

the teacher, however, who must figure out how to

translate the new experiences and knowledge into

something usable in the classroom, especially

when the technology in question is neither practical for students nor accessible to many schools.

Some projects have taken steps to address this

problem. The Summer Teacher Enhancement

Program requires teachers to develop lessons or

experiments to take back to their schools and

plans followup visits from scientists or research-
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 237

At the National Wetlands Research Center in Louisiana, teachers spent four weeks in hands-on training

and research projects involving light and electron microscopy, learned about the wetlands biosystem,

and brainstormed ideas for incorporating microscopy into their curriculum. Interagency Summer

Teacher Enhancement Program, Department of Energy

Teachers learned to use the Geological Information Service natural resources database of the Columbia

River Estuary to develop a project-oriented curriculum for secondary school students. Environmental

Education Grants, Environmental Protection Agency

Minnesota teachers focused on using constructive mathematical and computer models to study scientific phenomena. Teacher Enhancement, National Science Foundation

Teachers and students in poor rural schools in Mississippi were able to access courses, Instructional

support, and materials via nine multimedia Interactive Technology Centers housed at high schools

across the state. Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, Department of Commerce

By integrating multiple diverse computer networks across the State of Alaska, 81 percent of the population, including K-1 2 educators, will have non-toll access to a combined education/government/library

network. Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program, Department of

Commerce

In the science and mathematics Teaching Teleapprenticeships program, teacher education students

and practicing teachers participate in electronic network-based activities with K-12 students, teachers,

university-based scientists, and teacher educators using specially developed communication tools for

math and science education. Applications of Advanced Technologies Program, National Science

Foundation

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995.

ers during the school year. To address this issue ing, videotaping and critiquing of novice teachers,

further, the Department of Energy is working with

the Bank Street College of Education to synthesize research on effective transfer of advanced

technologies into classroom settings. 64

Federal programs are also encouraging professional development and preparation with technology—in other words, as a mode for delivering

training. Federally funded projects are experimenting with the full range of options: distance

learning, electronic networking, video training

materials, videotaped models of effective teachcomputer-assisted training and modules for independent study, electronic libraries of instructional

resources, and more. Networking, rare a few years

ago, is receiving increasing attention in federal

programs as a vehicle for teacher interaction with

peers or students and for followup to formal training. Less common are applications that combine

multiple technologies, although some of the national demonstration programs are working on

this concept.

64 Margaret Dwyer, Office of University and Science Education Programs, Program Evaluation Branch, U.S. Department of Energy, personal communication, Dec. 14, 1993.
238 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

The value of professional development programs can be enhanced by providing followup and support

after formal coursework ends. A number of approaches have been tried, including:

■ newsletters, periodic mailings to participants;

■ requirements for teacher participants to train or share information with others;

■ requirements for teachers to develop projects or lesson plans to take back to school;

■ scheduled reinforcement sessions, conferences, or meetings during the year;

■ formal planning for curriculum implementation by teams of teachers;

■ ongoing access to lending libraries, resource centers, materials, equipment;

■ teleconferences, video conferences;

■ on-site visits by trainers or colleagues; and

■ electronic or video networking with fellow participants, trainers, experts, and others.

SOURCE’ Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1995.

■ Strategies for Followup and Support determine whether they are including the most efWhat happens to teachers after formal training

ends has been a critical issue in past and present

federal programs. Recognizing this, programs

such as the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, the NSF Teacher Enhancement

program, and others are encouraging stronger followup. Some federal projects now require participants to make an upfront commitment to attend

followup meetings during the year, develop projects and lesson plans to implement in their classroom, or share what they have learned with a

certain number of other teachers (see box 6-4).

Particularly promising are approaches that use

telecommunications networks or interactive video and audio to keep participants in constant connection with each other, their training leaders,

scientists, or scholars. Access to networks can reduce the need for scheduled reinforcement sessions and can provide teachers with on-the-spot

answers to questions. Some of the newest projects

are building a requirement for followup networking into their training activities. The Department

of Energy has supported the development of evaluation “templates” that local projects can use to

fective practices for training teachers; included in

one template is the use of telecommunications for

followup. 65

■ Strategies for Magnifying Impact

To implement new technology-based knowledge

and approaches in the classroom, teachers must

have a number of supportive resources and conditions. These include:

■ access to the technologies addressed in training;

■ appropriate software, instructional materials,

and equipment;

■ availability of telephones in the classroom;

■ complementary assessment practices;

■ supportive scheduling and class assignment

policies; and

■ a school climate conducive to change.

Learning from some of the shortcomings of

past teacher training efforts, many newer federally

funded projects for professional development are

attempting to address local organizational conditions in the design phase. Some programs are re65 Ibid. The templates are included in National Center for Improving Science Education, Profiling Teacher Development programs: An

Approach to Formative Evaluation (Andover, MA: The NETWORK, 1993).
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 239

Past and current federal programs have not been funded at sufficient levels to undertake a massive

upgrading of the general U.S. teaching force. However, a number of strategies have been used to expand

and enhance the impact of federal professional development dollars. These include:

training the “trainers of teachers, ” such as college of education faculty or district instructional

supervisors;

improving teacher preparation in colleges of education through new or better courses, stronger links

with faculty in content departments, and other institutional reforms;

targeting key teachers or “teacher-leaders” who train peers or promote change in their schools;

requiring teams of education personnel from the same school or district to attend training together;

supporting model or demonstration projects that can be disseminated and adopted by other districts;

developing new organizational arrangements for training teachers, such as field-based training or collaborative training involving school districts, institutions of higher education, and other partners, and

coordinating professional development with current curricular reforms, such as implementing new content standards for mathematics.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1995

quiring administrators to participate in training, ernment began supporting efforts in which the

encouraging administrator-teacher teams to participate together, requiring local funding contributions, or asking administrators to agree

upfront to provide certain support after teachers

return from training.

Federal programs have used various strategies

to attempt to magnify the effect of limited federal

dollars (see box 6-5).

HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS FOR

TECHNOLOGY-RELATED PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT66

The current efforts to support technology-related

teacher development are not the first time the federal government has tried to influence teacher

preparation and professional development in specific directions. In the 1950s,67 the federal govstrands of teacher training and educational

technology intersected.

Much like the present role, past support for

technology-related teacher development was

mostly optional and came from diverse programs,

including programs to develop and expand the use

of educational technologies, to train teachers in

math and science, to improve education of children with special needs, or to foster educational

innovation. Also relevant are certain federal initiatives to reform general teacher preparation and

professional development, such as the Education

Professions Development Act (EPDA) (see table

6-l).

As with recent efforts, these past federal programs did not follow a neat linear progression but

rather were marked by periods of attention and ne66 For a fuller description of past federal efforts to influence teacher preparation and professional development, see N. Kober, “Teachers and

Technology: The Federal Role,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, May

1994.

67 Federal involvement in teacher preparation actually dates back to the Second Morrill Act of 1890 and the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, both

of which supported vocational teacher preparation. The history most relevant to this discussion, however, begins in 1954 with the first NSF

institutes for secondary school teachers.
240 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

glect and propelled by frequently shifting congressional concerns—e.g., heading off Soviet

technological threats, staffing federal programs

for disadvantaged and handicapped children, or

improving the educational quality. Over four decades, numerous programs were started, expanded, and revised—then later reduced, consolidated,

eliminated, or allowed to expire, often for reasons

that had little to do with continuing need or program quality. A review of some of the key historical efforts reveals parallels between past and

present federal policies affecting teachers and

technology.

❚ Early Technology-Related

Training Projects

In 1954, spurred by reports of increased Soviet

production of scientists and engineers, NSF extended an existing program of institutes for college faculty to include an experimental summer

conference for high school teachers. By the late

1950s, NSF was sponsoring a variety of summer

and academic-year institutes and training opportunities for high school teachers.

Although the content of the NSF institutes was

not specifically geared to technology—except for

use of laboratory and other equipment—the institutes constituted a large-scale professional renewal effort that opened the door for more active

federal involvement in teacher training and set a

standard for quality. Early institutes were conducted on university campuses, taught by eminent

scientists, emphasized disciplinary content

knowledge, and targeted the most experienced or

talented teachers and teachers of advanced high

school subjects. Later institutes reached out to

other kinds of colleges, involved content in more

general science topics and teaching methods, and

targeted elementary teachers, less well prepared

teachers, new or re-entering teachers, and trainers

of teachers.

Between 1958 and 1974, the “golden era” of

NSF precollege institutes, the agency spent nearly

$750 million for teacher training and upgrading.68

By 1974, about half of the nation’s high school

science teachers had participated in at least one

NSF institute, according to agency estimates.69

What was the impact of this investment? Studies found that the institutes generally succeeded in

improving participants’ subject matter competency and understanding of scientific methods and

encouraged them to continue in their educational

careers and assume leadership roles.70 Research

yielded conflicting findings as to whether benefits

for teachers translated into improvements for their

students; some studies said that pupils of participating high school math teachers had higher

achievement scores than pupils of nonparticipants,71 while others found no such relationship

or insufficient evidence.72

Another seminal program was the National Defense Education Act of 1958, a collection of categorical programs to strengthen education in fields

considered critical to national defense. Among the

programs were several related to preservice or inservice training, including loans and fellowships

for undergraduate and graduate studies in education. The Title XI program, added in 1964, authorized inservice teacher institutes in a variety of

subjects other than math and science (under the

68 Victor L. Willson and Antoine M. Garibaldi, “The Effect of Teacher Participation in NSF Institutes Upon Student Achievement,” Research Paper No. 10, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1974, p. 1.

69 Congressional Research Service, “The National Science Foundation and Pre-College Science Education: 1950-1975,” report prepared

for the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee Print, 94th Congress, 2d Session (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1976), p. 207.

70K. Forbis Jordan, “Precollege Science and Mathematics Education: Experiences with the National Defense Education Act and the Teacher Institutes Conducted by the National Science Foundation,” Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Report No. 82-214 S, December 1982, p. 19.

71 Willson and Garibaldi, op. cit., footnote 68, p. 14.

72 Jordan, op.cit., footnote 70, pp. 19-20.
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 241

From 1958 through the 1970s, the federal government supported many workshops and summer institutes to help math and

science teachers improve their teaching skills.

purview of NSF). Of particular relevance to

technology were the institutes to train library and

educational media personnel. The NDEA also

provided grants for schools to acquire laboratory

equipment and authorized a program of experimentation in educational television, radio, motion pictures, and similar media; teacher training

was not supported to any meaningful degree under

these two programs.

Another federal program relevant to educational media and technology was Title II of the Higher

Education Act of 1965, which provided preservice and inservice training for librarians, including school librarians; this program still exists in

modified form. The Higher Education Act also inaugurated a program of graduate fellowships in

educational media. A 1969 study concluded that

the federal programs for media specialists and library training, along with the programs for

instructional media for children with disabilities

discussed below, encouraged institutions of higher education to revise their instructional media

courses to incorporate material on television and

computers and helped increase the use of instructional media in the classroom.73

A far-reaching federal effort to reform

teacher education was the Education Professions Development Act of 1%7 (EPDA), characterized by some as “the peak involvement of

the federal government in teacher education.” 74 This legislation sought to coordinate and

expand personnel training at all levels by combining existing and new federal teacher programs into

73 U.S. Office of Education, The Education Professions: A Report on the People Who Serve our Schools and Colleges--1968 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969), p. 182.

74 David L. Clark and Robert F. McNergney, "Governance of Teacher Education,’’ Handbookof Research on Teacher Education, W. Robert

Houston (cd.) (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1990), p. 101.
242 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

a single legislative package. Among its components were programs for professional development for vocational education teachers, new

fellowship opportunities to encourage advanced

training in educational television and radio and to

prepare instructional media specialists.

To oversee the EPDA programs, a new Bureau

of Educational Personnel Development was established in the Office of Education. Implementation of the act was hampered, however, by dissent

about its purposes, contention over its administration, limited funding in light of expectations,

lukewarm support from Congress, omission of

several specialized training programs from the

act’s coordinating functions, and diffusion of resources across too many programs. A decade later,

all the EPDA programs had been repealed except

the Teacher Corps, and it was years before Congress again considered comprehensive reform

legislation for teacher training.

The Teacher Corps program, established by

the 1965 Higher Education Act then subsumed

under the EPDA, was a comprehensive and intensive effort to revamp teacher training and

also fill teacher shortages in low-income areas.

The program recruited young college graduates

who otherwise may not have become teachers to

teach in teams in low-income schools under the

guidance of experienced teacher-leaders. The program sought to provide teachers-in-training with

more meaningful field experiences, to incorporate

innovative strategies from the latest research, and

to strengthen linkages among school districts,

higher education institutions, and communities.

Although it did not specifically address technology, it is important because it trained over 61,000

education personnel and over 10,000 interns75 and

pioneered strategies that are now commonplace,

including field-based preparation, team teaching,

flexible grouping, individualized instruction,

multicultural education, community-based education, and collaborative decisionmaking.76

❚ Special Education Personnel

and Technologies77

The federal government played a unique role

in the training of special education personnel,

one that was much more influential and more

receptive to the use of educational technology

than the federal role in general teacher training. In fact, it was the need to prepare teachers to

work with mentally retarded children that

prompted the federal government to become involved in special education in the first place.

Federal support for special education personnel

development began in 1958 with a program of

grants to states and higher education institutions

to train teachers and other specialized personnel

to educate mentally retarded children. Initially

this was viewed as a short-term endeavor, but as

the federal government broadened its commitment to special education and later mandated free

public education for all handicapped children, it

became clear that special education personnel

training would be a major and continuous undertaking.

Federal attention and funding produced swift

and noticeable impacts: rapid growth in the number and capacity of university and state training

programs, an equally rapid increase in the number

of specialists equipped to teach handicapped children, and improvements in the quality of training

offered.

75 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, An Overview of the Teacher Corps Program,

1965-1982, n.d., pp. 22-25.

76 Jerome Freiberg and Hersholt C. Waxman, “Changing Teacher Education,” Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, W. Robert

Houston (ed.) (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 617-635.

77 This discussion is based on Richard P. Holland and Margaret M. Noel, A Review of Federal Legislation Concerning Special Education

Personnel Preparation, Technical Report (College Park, MD: University of Maryland, 1985); U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, A Summary of Selected Legislation Relating to the Handicapped, 1963-1967 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968);

and U.S. Office of Education, The Education Professions, op. cit., footnote 73.
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 243

The federal movement to make instructional media more available to disabled persons began in 1958

with enactment of a free loan service of captioned motion pictures for deaf persons. The popularity of this

program highlighted the urgent need for better dissemination and personnel training in special education

media.

In response, two types of centers were created. A network of Special Educational Instructional Materials

Centers (IMCs), begun in 1964, collected materials for special education and offered conferences, workshops, institutes, and ultimately university credit courses to train teachers in their use. A parallel network of

Regional Media Centers (RMCs) established in 1966 did much the same for media materials for deaf

persons.

In 1968 these two types of centers were merged into an IMC/RMC network that experimented with film,

television, audio, typewriting, and even computer technologies—as well as more conventional materials—

for all types of handicapped persons and that provided related inservice and preservice training. A

National Center on Educational Materials and Media for the Handicapped collected and disseminated

information about materials and related media training.

By 1974, about 15,000 teachers had been trained in media and materials through these federal

programs. Together these programs helped promote wider use of a range of educational technologies, with

benefits for both handicapped and nonhandicapped learners. In 1986, the authorizations for all activities

related to media, materials, and technologies for special education were grouped under a new Part G of

the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), the flagship federal law for special education enacted in

1970. This law has now been replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

SOURCES: LeRoy Aserlind, “The Special Education IMC/RMC Network,” Educational Technology, vol. 10., No. 8, August 1970, pp.

32-39; S.C. Ashcroft, “NCEMMH A Network of Media/Material Resources, Audiovisual Instruction, vol. 21, No. 10, pp. 46-47; William

D. Jackson, “The Regional Media Centers for the Deaf,” Educational Technology, vol. 10, No. 8, August 1970, pp. 45-48, and Malcolm

J. Norwood, “Review of Media Services and Captioned Films,” American Annals of the Deaf, vol. 119, No. 5, October 1974, pp.

460-465.

During the early 1960s, Congress expanded stantial training components and pioneered severpersonnel preparation programs to address other al innovative uses of technologies.

disabilities in addition to mental retardation and

to cover all levels of inservice, undergraduate,

and graduate preparation. In 1966 the federal

government enacted a major state grant program

for special education, which included a Part D devoted solely to personnel development.

Developing along a parallel track, the federal

government initiated several activities to furnish

educational media to help deaf and blind children

learn (see box 6-6). These programs included sub1 Technology Research, Development

and Innovation

NSF was an early leader in developing educational technology and exploring effective ways to help

teachers implement it. From 1968 to 1981, precollege technology projects received between 1 and 3

percent of NSF’s annual science education budget. 78 For example, the Precollege Teacher Devel-

.

78 For a more complete description of the history of federal support for technology at the K- 12 level, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning, OTA-SET-379 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1989), especially pp. 151-171.
244 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

opment in Science Program supported teacher

institutes, predominantly for secondary school

teachers, in improving the teaching of science.

Many of these institutes in the late 1970s supported teacher training in computer literacy and

emerging technology applications.

The Office of Education (OE), which later became the Department of Education, had an onand-off relationship with educational technology.

As early as 1967, for example, a few Title I projects were using educational television to deliver

services to disadvantaged children, and as early as

1969, some Title I projects were pioneering computer-assisted instruction. In at least some cases,

these projects trained teachers to implement these

technology-based approaches. Little information

is available about the nature and extent of these

experiments; it appears that the training was short

and largely focused on how to use specific television or computer programs with Title I students.79

Another early stimulant of technology innovation was the original 1965 Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which

made competitive grants to school districts to

demonstrate the feasibility of a wide range of

educational innovations. Inservice training was a

key strategy for local implementation of Title III

projects. As noted by a major study of sustained

change in Title III and other federal innovation

programs, “successful change agent projects

seemed to be operating as staff development projects.”80 Title III was also a pacesetter in piloting

educational applications of television, computer,

and other technologies and in some cases providing teacher training in or with technology. One

1968 Title III project in rural New Hampshire, for

instance, trained art teachers through televised inservice courses produced jointly by a university

and a school district.81

The Regional Educational Laboratories and

Educational Research and Development Centers

that took shape with federal funding in the 1960s

also helped expand the knowledge base in teacher

education, promote redesign of professional development strategies, and explore educational applications of technology—roles that they continue

to play today. In the 1960s, the Labs and Centers

were early promoters of educational television,

and experimented with using this medium to deliver professional development, until studies

showing limited impact dampened enthusiasm.

Several years later the introduction of computer

instructional technologies revitalized the role of

the Labs and Centers in educational technology

research and development.

Between 1965 and 1971, OE drew upon the resources of more than 100 discretionary programs

to channel $160 million into more than 500 computer-related projects. This scattershot approach

fell short, though, according to then U.S. Commissioner of Education Sidney Marland, because

it failed to produce a coherent body of knowledge

about effective uses of educational technology.82

During the next decade, between 1971 and

1980, the federal government spent about $350

million on projects for educational technology,

according to one study. If support for educational

broadcasting and school audiovisual equipment is

included, the figure is over $1 billion. About half

79 Betsy Mynhier, “The Impact of Federal Programs on Learning to Read in Appalachia,” paper presented to the International Reading

Association conference, Kansas City, MO, April 30-May 3, 1969; Pittsburgh Public Schools, ESEA Title I Projects Evaluation Report 1967,

Volume II (Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh Public Schools, 1967); and W. Paul Street, “Computerized Instruction in Mathematics Versus Other Methods of Mathematics Instruction Under ESEA Title I Programs in Kentucky,” Bureau of School Services Bulletin, vol. 45, No. 1, September 1972.

80 Paul Berman and Milbrey W. McLaughlin, Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change: The Findings in Review (Santa Monica,

CA: The Rand Corporation, 1975), cited in McLaughlin and Berman, “The Art of Retooling Educational Staff Development in a Period of Retrenchment,” Rand paper series P-5985, 1977, p. 2.

81 New Hampshire Supervisory Union 21, “Inservice Teacher Education Courses in Art and Science for the Elementary Teachers of New

Hampshire: An Evaluation Report,” n.p., 1968.

82 U.S. Office of Education, The Education Professions, op.cit., 73, p. 182.
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 245

the funding came from large grant programs, such

as ESEA’s Title I, Title IV-B (for library books and

instructional materials and equipment), and Title

IV-C (for educational innovation). The remainder

came from small discretionary projects with a

technology focus.83 An unidentified portion went

toward technology-related teacher training.

In the early 1980s, ED supported PreCollege

Teacher Institutes in Science for elementary

school teachers. Some of these projects trained

elementary teachers in computer applications, before the program was consolidated into Chapter 2

block grants. (Chapter 2 consolidated several other teacher training authorities, most notably the

Teacher Corps and the Teacher Centers.)

Although the block grant concept meant that no

new discretionary programs were funded during

this era, then Secretary of Education Terrell Bell

promoted his Secretary’s Technology Initiative

aimed at pulling all technology-related projects in

the Department under one umbrella. (Funding and

program authorizations remained separate, however.) Teacher training to support technology use

was authorized in most of these projects, but was

not the primary goal. When William Bennett

became Secretary of Education, the technology

initiative and related emphasis on computer activities ended, remaining a low priority throughout

the 1980s.

❚ Educational Television84

Commencing with the NDEA educational television program, federal funding was instrumental in

building the infrastructure and developing programming for educational television; occasionally some of this funding was spent on training the

educators to use this technology effectively.

One of the best-known efforts was the Children’s Television Workshop (CTW). Beginning in

1968, the Workshop received funding through the

Cooperative Research Act and other OE discretionary authorities to develop a variety of education programs, “Sesame Street” being the best

known. As a part of this contract, CTW developed

curricular materials, teacher guides, and teacher

workshops to encourage the use of “Sesame

Street” in the classroom.

A federal educational television effort with a

rockier history was the Emergency School Aid

Act (ESAA) of 1972. This legislation provided

grants to school districts that were undergoing

school desegregation. At least 3 percent of the

funds were reserved by law for grants to public

and private nonprofit organizations to produce,

promote, and distribute racially and ethnically integrated children’s television programming with

an educational mission. Between 1972 and 1979,

the former Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare (HEW) invested nearly $68 million in the

ESAA-TV effort, which yielded 31 series. A national evaluation criticized the program for devoting little funding or attention to facilitating

classroom use of the television series; the study

recommended better teacher materials and followup.85 Part of the problem was that OE discouraged the use of ESAA-TV funds for inservice

teacher training.

83 Andrew Zucker, “Computers in Education: National Policy in the USA,” European Journal of Education, vol. 17, No. 4, 1982, pp.

401-403; and Andrew Zucker, “Support of Educational Technology by the U.S. Department of Education, 1971-1980,” Journal of Educational

Technology Systems, vol. 10, No. 4, 1981-82, p. 309.

84 This discussion is based on Cynthia Char and Jan Hawkins, “Charting the Course: Involving Teachers in the Formative Research and

Design of the Voyage of the Mimi,” Mirrors of the Mind: Patterns of Experience in Educational Computing, Roy D. Pea and Karen Sheingold

(eds.) (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company, 1986); M. Jay Douds, “The Reshaping of an Innovation: ACSN—The Learning Channel,”

Appalachian Regional Commission, Washington, DC, 1982; Keith W. Mielke et al., The Federal Role in Funding Children’s Television Programming, Volume 1, Final Report (Bloomington, IN: Institute for Communication Research, 1975); Bernadette Nelson et al., Assessment of the

ESAA-TV Program: An Examination of Its Production, Distribution, and Financing (Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 1980); and Zucker, op

cit., footnote 83.

85 Nelson et al., op. cit., footnote 84, p. 7.
246 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Yet another relevant program was funded by

HEW in 1974 through 1976—a telecommunications demonstration using NASA satellites, with

projects in Appalachia, the Rocky Mountains, and

Alaska. The Appalachian project made particularly strong use of this technology for teacher inservice. Accredited teacher training courses in

reading and career education were developed by

the University of Kentucky and transmitted

throughout the region, with opportunities for live

discussion. This demonstration grew into an

educational cable network that continued teacheroriented programming.

More recently, ED and NSF dollars helped develop “The Voyage of the Mimi,” a science and

math educational television series for classroom

and broadcast use that first aired in 1984 and that

included companion multimedia teacher materials. Teachers served as consultants and field testers in the development of the curriculum and

helped designers determine what training teachers

needed to use the series effectively. Distributors

were required to provide teacher training, which

was done through school-based workshops and

sessions at teacher conventions.

❚ Impact of Past Federal Programs

An ever-changing roster of programs and variable

funding levels makes it hard to trace long-term effects of prior federal teacher training programs in

technology. In addition, programs differed so

much in structure, content, and intensity that there

are few common bases for generalizations.

Many programs did not conduct adequate,

timely, or objective evaluations; often there was

no funding reserved for this purpose. Few conducted formal evaluations or control-group studies assessing changes in teacher behavior or

student outcomes. When evaluations were conducted, they were often little more than surveys of

participants’ reactions to training activities. Furthermore, there was often no clear consensus

about which goals and outcomes were most important or worthy of assessment. And when evidence of teacher or student outcomes did appear, it

was hard to attribute it definitively to a particular

federal program because of the myriad influences

that affect teaching and learning.

The studies that are available look at the entire

teacher training program and do not single out

technology-related aspects. Still, their findings

have implications for the more focused technology training efforts underway today.

Evidence is available regarding several outcomes of federal teacher training programs in a

wide number of areas: numbers and kinds of participants affected; knowledge and skills acquired

by teachers; changes in instructional methods and

teacher effectiveness; effectiveness of teacherleaders in reaching peers; improvements in student learning and attitudes; adoption and impact

of model programs; and changes in institutional

behavior, organizational structures, and strategies

for teacher education. Based on these measures,

results are mixed.86 The federal government had a

clear and positive impact on some of these goals

and a negligible or uncertain impact on others.

Moreover, impact and effectiveness varied enormously from program to program, and from site to

site. And in some cases, federal programs had undesirable negative side effects. These positive and

problematic outcomes are summarized in box 6-7.

LESSONS FROM PAST AND

PRESENT FEDERAL EFFORTS

The history of federal programs in support of

teacher preparation and professional development

over 40 years holds several lessons that ought to

be considered in forging future policy. Many different approaches to improve teacher training

have already been tried, leaving a record that

can be plumbed before the same strategy is

tried again.

86 See, e.g., U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Precollege Math and Science Education: Department of Energy’s Precollege Program Managed Ineffectively, HEHS-94-208 (Washington, DC: September 1994).
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 247

Positive Outcomes of Past Federal Teacher Development Programs

Participation in federal training programs produced substantial improvements in the knowledge, attitudes, behavior and career advancement of many teachers.

For example, participants were more likely to experiment with new approaches, use technology more

appropriately, use a wider variety of teaching techniques, and become more involved in school and

community educational policy issues.l

Participants perceived that federal programs had positive effects at the institutional level.

For example, teacher education institutions added new courses, strengthened collaboration with parents, students or the community, improved “learning by doing” and by competency-based approaches,

and improved or extended their student teaching opportunities. Most felt that their graduates were

better prepared as a result.2

At the school district level, federal funding sometimes provided the external stimulus needed to promote change.

For example, training familiarized many teachers with innovative instructional approaches and integration of technologies such as audiovisual materials, educational television, and computer technologies.

Common goals reinforced across federal programs had a greater influence on practices.

For example, attention to science and math education over four decades and across many federal

programs infused more discipline-specific content into teacher preparation and inservice programs.

Emphasis on children with special needs heightened attention to instructional issues for these children

in all teacher preparation and inservice programs.

1 Roy A Edelfelt, Ronald G Corwin, and William I, Burke, “The Impact of Federal Funding for Research and Demonstration on

Teacher Education, ” Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, W Robert Houston (ed.) (New York Macmillan, 1990), pp.

176-177.

2 Preston M Royster and Gloria J. Chernay, “Teacher Education: The Impact of Federal Funding” (ERIC ED 218218, 1981), pp.

169-177 Another survey of federal Impacts conducted in 1988 corroborated some of these findings Over 70 percent of the respondents believed that federal programs were responsible for many significant new practices in teacher preparation, and a majority felt

that teacher preparation had become more practical because of federal programs. Edelfelt, Corwin, and Burke, op. cit., footnote 1, p

175.

(continued)

Why hasn’t federal government support re- aid, and state grants for children with disabilities.

suited in greater long-term changes in teacher The optional nature of many teacher training aupreparation and professional development? Several characteristics of federal programs appear to

hamper effectiveness and mitigate against sustained change.

Teacher preparation and professional development have been relatively low federal priorities to date. The total funding for all programs

specifically targeting teacher-training pales in

comparison to such high-priority programs as

Title I/Chapter 1, Pen Grants and other student

thorities has made the past federal attention to

teacher development issues ring somewhat hollow.

Federal efforts to influence teacher training

have been diffuse and uncoordinated. Federal

policy has been carried out through dozens of discrete programs. Somewhere in the history can be

found something for almost every purpose: teacher quantity, teacher quality, subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, the best teachers,
248 I Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Problematic Outcomes of Past Federal Teacher Development Programs

■

■

■

■

Most did not seem to yield long-term change.

For example, most projects reverted back to former practices after the grant ended;3 school of education

programs were particularly resistant to sustained change. Some deans and others at institutions of higher

education were unconvinced that programs led to improvements in faculty teaching, better supervision of

practicum experiences, and Incorporation of research findings into teacher preparation.4

Budget decisions were not always linked to project evaluations.

For example, the Department of Energy’s Precollege Math and Science Education program did not

evaluate half of its most resource-intensive projects, while other evaluations were of poor quality. As a

result, many decisions to increase budgets or manage projects were based on inadequate information.5

Federal programs have not usually reached beyond a small fraction of the total teaching force.

For example, most programs have targeted subsets of teachers (e.g., math and science), while in the

humanities and other subjects, the impact IS much less significant and, in some discipline’s, negligible. The

Inclusion of special needs students into regular classes creates critical demands for training but federal

programs are meeting only a portion of the demand for specialists, and meeting very little of the need to train

regular classroom teachers to use educational technology effectively with special needs children.

Involvement in multiple programs created some undesirable side effects at the local level.

For example, programs have expressed concern with complex and bureaucratic regulations, deficient

monitoring procedures, a short-term project mentality, hasty procurements, inadequate resources, and

lack of coordination among federal agencies and programs. 6 Problems arose when goals and operational

requirements of various programs did not mesh well with each other or with the core local educational

program, producing a clash in teaching methods or inhibiting a hollistic approach to staffing and instructional methods.7

3 Roy A. Edelfelt, “The Impact of Federal Funding on Teacher Education, ” Educatioonal Horizons, vo. 67, No. 1-2, fall-winter 1989,

p 49

4 Edelfelt, Corwin, and Burke, op cit. footnote 1, p 177

5 U S Congress, General Accounting Office, Precollege Math and Science Education Department of Energy's Precollege Program Managed Inefficiently HEHS-94-208 (Washington, DC September 1994)

6 Edelfelt Corwin, and Burke op cit. footnote 1, pp. 177-178

7 Jackie Kimbrough and Paul T. HiII, The Aggregate Effects of Federal Education Programs (Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, 1981 )

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1995

—

teachers most in need of improvement, preservice,

and inservice have all been “priorities.” Limited

funding has been spread across many different

goals. What has been lacking is a unifying philosophy or an overall policy strategy.

Coordination has been a particular problem,

beginning with the early years when both NSF and

OE were operating teacher institutes. Attempts to

bring more coherence have not been very successful, often because aspects of the legislative process undermined them.

Federal attention to and support for teacher

preparation and professional development has

been sporadic and lacking in continuity. Programs have come and gone, waxed and waned, in

response to the latest perceived crisis or the most

recent data on teacher supply and demand. Laws
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 249

have been enacted that have never been funded,87

funded inadequately, funded late, or funded for

just a few years. This mentality has hindered

meaningful and sustained commitment required

to solve substantial national problems.

Many programs were “disrupted by fickle

political forces” before they were able to achieve

momentum,88 and others were discontinued for

political reasons even when they seemed to be

working. The lack of deep interest in teacher training issues in Congress has been reinforced by the

indifference of the public to teacher needs. Administration support has been variable and often

weak, and advocacy by those with a direct interest

has not always been successful.89

Many programs have had goals that were

too ambitious, in light of their funding levels,

project periods, or chosen strategies. Filling

teacher shortages, reforming schools of education, and training regular classroom teachers to

work with children with disabilities are examples

of ambitious goals that would seem to necessitate

sustained federal attention, considerable resources, and well-designed strategies. Yet these

factors have seldom been present. The rhetoric accompanying new federal initiatives sometimes

promised “more than [was] possible within the

limits of the existing knowledge base, technology,

and resources.”90 Often programs were expected

to accomplish too much too quickly, or tried shortterm solutions to persistent problems.91

With some exceptions, such as the Teacher

Corps, federal programs have tended to operate at the margins, avoiding the larger state,

local, and institutional policies and organizational issues affecting teacher preparation and

professional development. The most common

mode of training has been a short-term institute or

workshop in the context of a specific project—the

type of effort that could be easily marginalized by

the sponsoring institution. Less frequently have

projects addressed local factors found to be

associated with sustained changes. The Rand

Change Agent study noted that two of the most

important factors influencing longer-term change

were institutional support from administrators

and a well-considered local implementation strategy, yet these factors were lacking in many of the

programs examined.92

Insufficient funding and attention has been

devoted to evaluation. Most past programs did

not conduct evaluations needed to determine

classroom impact or national impact or discern

which practices were most effective. Some programs had no national or formative evaluations,

and some did not even have descriptive assessments. When evaluations were conducted, they

were not always used to improve programs in subsequent years.

Many of these problems persist. The quality,

extent, and timeliness of evaluation practices vary

87 Even today Title V of the Higher Education Act authorizes several programs focused on teacher preparation and professional development that have never received appropriations.

88 Roy A. Edelfelt, Ronald G. Corwin, and William I. Burke, “The Impact of Federal Funding for Research and Demonstration on Teacher

Education,”Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, W. Robert Houston (ed.) (New York: MacMillian, 1990), p. 183.

89 David H. Florio, “Federal Policy and the Improvement of School Personnel,” Viewpoints in Teaching and Learning, vol. 54, No. 4, October 1978, pp. 154-155.

90 Edelfelt, Corwin, and Burke, op. cit., footnote 88, p. 182.

91 K. Forbis Jordan and Nancy B. Borkow, “Federal Efforts To Improve America’s Teaching Force,” Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, L.B. 2842 A, March 1984, p. 2.

92 Berman and McLaughlin, op. cit., footnote 80, pp. 2-3.
250 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

substantially among current science, math, engineering, and technology education (SMET) programs.93 Practices run the gamut: formal

evaluations, descriptive reviews, case studies,

self-evaluation questionnaires, or anecdotal reports.

A federal interagency review found that of the

116 federal programs for K-12 science, math, engineering, and technology, only 30 (or about one

in four) had been evaluated.94 “For a majority of

federal SMET programs, no evaluation information is available at all, or no serious inquiry beyond anecdotal or self-reported data has been

made.”95 The review further found that less than

one-half of 1 percent of the budgets of the relevant

programs was spent on evaluation.96 As a result,

federal programs often lack a rational basis for

strategic planning decisions or spending decisions.

The impact of “demonstration” programs

intended to produce effective models that can

be replicated often has been limited by inadequate funding, variable quality, lack of

evaluation, or inattention to administrative

mechanisms to promote wide-scale dissemination. Many past and present “demonstration”

projects have not developed approaches that are

particularly innovative or exemplary, and many

do not have very effective dissemination strategies. A federal interagency committee found that

in federal SMET programs, less than 1 percent of

the funding was used for dissemination. “Valuable

education resources developed with federal funding . . . have not been shared effectively,” the committee concluded, recommending improved

dissemination and better “marketing” of programs to target particular audiences (see box

6-8).97

This situation is improving, however. Steps

have been taken to improve dissemination

through the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse

and Regional Consortia, through new multipurpose technical assistance centers authorized by the

1994 ESEA amendments, through guidelines for

the Teacher Enhancement program, and through

several technology-based initiatives.

There has been little attention to the continuum and interaction between preparing new

teachers and enhancing the skills of those already on board. Again, based on supply and demand, federal support has been focused at some

periods of time on preservice and at others on inservice teacher development, usually one at the

expense of the other. In general, more support and

attention have been focused on upgrading the

skills of teachers already in the classroom, rather

than on developing new teachers through support

for schools and colleges of education, signaling

what may be a short-sighted approach to influencing teacher quality in American schools. 

KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE FEDERAL

POLICIES FOR TECHNOLOGY-RELATED

TEACHER DEVELOPMENT

As the executive branch proceeds to implement

the major educational technology legislation

passed by the 103d Congress, it is useful to identify some issues to be addressed to improve existing

programs and effectively carry out new ones. Federal leaders now have the tools to expand and

greatly improve technology-related teacher devel93 Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, Committee on Education and Human Resources, The Federal

Investment in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education: Where Now? What Next? Executive Summary (Washington, DC:

June 1993), p. 31.

94 Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology, Sourcebook, op.cit., footnote 8, p. 62.

95 Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, Executive Summary, op.cit., footnote 93, p. 29.

96 Ibid., p. 6.

97 Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology, Sourcebook, op.cit., footnote 8, p. 11.
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 251

Research on sustained change in federally funded projects found that the projects that produced the

greatest impact on teacher change tended to share the following administrative features:

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

a sharp focus on an area where strong federal leadership could make a difference,

teacher training as their primary purpose,

consistent and adequate funding over several years,

clear and realistic program goals, and

willingness to change in response to evolving needs and evaluation findings.

Furthermore, at the project level, the following characteristics seemed to be associated with success:

well-defined objectives,

more intensive training experiences,

ownership and commitment among teachers,

relevance to teacher needs and everyday concerns,

varied and flexible training format,

practical and hands-on training experiences,

an emphasis on individual and small group learning,

parity among participating institutions,

active support of administrators, such as deans or principals,

regular opportunities for planning during all phases of the project, and

concrete staff training throughout the project.

SOURCES Dale Mann, “The Politics of Staff Development, ” paper prepared for the Annual Conference of the American Educational

Research Association, Washington, DC, Mar. 31, 1975, pp. 14-16; Paul Berman and Milbrey W McLaughlin, Federal Prograrns Supporting Educational Change: The findings in Review (Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, 1975), cited in McLaughlin and Berman, “The Art of Retooling Educational Staff Development in a Period of Retrenchment, ” Rand paper series P-5985, 1977, pp. 2-3, and

Donald C. Orlich, “ln-Service Education: Fiscal Implications for Policy-Makers,” Planning and Changing, vol. 13, No 4, winter 1982, p.

215.

opment. For example, many critical issues could An ongoing question is whether federal probe addressed in the long-range educational

technology plan being prepared by ED.

Implications for long-term legislative improvements should also be considered.

■ Setting Priorities

A critical set of issues revolves around how to give

more focus to a diffused federal role. Since there is

unlikely to be adequate funding to meet the

technology-related training needs of all U.S.

teachers, and since the role of the federal government in support of teacher preparation and

professional development is a limited one, it

makes sense to establish some priorities for federal support.

grams should try to serve many teachers and

districts, asunder the Eisenhower program, or

to demonstrate national models for teacher

training that could be picked up by other districts, as in the NSF Teacher Enhancement

program, or both. Another way to frame the

choice is whether to support only the best new

ideas and those schools and districts ready to

move ahead with them, using them as models for

others; or to help districts and teachers who have

the most urgent technology-related training

needs. Findings from current studies suggest that

the two types of programs—focused demonstration programs and broad service programs—play
252 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

different and complementary roles,98 and that

there may be a continued need for both. Demonstration programs generate more intensive and innovative strategies and can lead the way for

comprehensive reform; but broad service programs are necessary to build awareness among

large numbers of teachers. The 1994 amendments

continue both strategies. However, in practical

terms, it may be difficult to do both. Broad-based

support may be so expensive that funding is shallow and diffuse, seeding the field so thinly that a

rich outcome is unlikely. Providing comprehensive training at a level that could make a significant difference is likely to be beyond the range of

available funding. For example, a study of the Eisenhower program in 1991 suggests that the sustained training endorsed in that study would cost

roughtly $890 a year per participating teacher. Extending this model to provide training in educational uses of technologies for the entire K-12

teaching force would be substantial—reaching a

quarter of all precollege teachers a year with this

level of training would cost approximately $1 billion year.99 Yet equity concerns may argue against

focusing efforts on the already well-positioned,

even if leaders can have a broader impact by sharing their experiences with others. In making

recommendations, the federal educational technology plan may need to take a clearer stance on

this issue.

A related key issue is what kinds of teachers

should have priority for technology-related

training. Should resources concentrate on supervisors and teacher-leaders, or on those most in

need of improvement? On math and science teachers, since technology applications are proceeding

rapidly in these fields, or on humanities and other

fields, since they have been somewhat neglected

to date? On specialists who work with children

most at-risk, or on “regular” teachers who work

with all children? On elementary or secondary

school teachers? Preservice or inservice teachers?

Faculty in schools and colleges of education? The

current federal role tries to cover nearly all of these

target groups, although some very superficially.

Also related is the question of which kinds of

institutions should receive priority for federal

support—local schools and districts serving

the inservice needs of teachers already in the

classroom, or schools and colleges of education

preparing new teachers to enter tomorrow’s

classrooms. As discussed elsewhere in this report, many colleges and schools of education are

behind school districts and individual schools in

terms of faculty expertise, technological resources, and understanding of the potential of

technology for education. Given the expected

growth in the number of teachers needed in the

next decade, it may be cost-efficient to support the

development of technology expertise in teacher

candidates as they prepare to enter the classroom

so that less inservice training will be required once

they are on board. Furthermore, federal support

encouraging greater connection between colleges

of education and K-12 schools may result in partnerships benefiting both, as they share their teaching and technology resources and expertise.

❚ Maximizing the Impact of

Reform Efforts

The history of federal teacher training efforts suggests that it is very important to address the broader organizational context in which teachers work.

This effort begins with the school site as a locus

for change, but it does not end there. Equally important in the U.S. educational system are the state

and local institutions that have the main responsibility for teacher policies and that must be relied

upon to carry out federal priorities from several

layers removed.

98 Knapp et al., op. cit., footnote 14, p. vi.

99 James B. Stedman, U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service Issue Brief, “Information Technologies in Elementary and Secondary Education: Background and Federal Policy Issues,” Washington, DC; 1993, p. 14.
Chapter 6 Technology and Teacher Development: The Federal Role | 253

A key issue, then, is how to use federal leadership to integrate technology into existing national, state, and local systemic reform

efforts—the most obvious being the reforms

fostered under Goals 2000: Educate America

Act (Public Law 103-227). If effectively implemented, this legislation has the potential to bring

about major interrelated changes in teacher preparation, certification, and professional development, as well as curriculum and testing. The

standards that emerge will receive high visibility

and could set the direction for most education reforms for the rest of the decade and beyond. The

1994 legislation provides a solid framework for

coordinating several different efforts around a

similar set of goals and standards, if the opportunities are seized.

A related issue is how to improve coordination and interagency strategic planning among

the various federal agencies involved in professional development and technology. Improving

coordination is one of the new ED leadership responsibilities under Title III of the ESEA.

❚ Focusing on Necessary Services,

Activities, and Support

What are the most effective kinds of federal support to help teachers learn about and apply

technology? Should funding allow purchase of

hardware and software for teacher use, at home or

at school, in order to assure access and use of

technology? What are the costs of linking up to or

using telecommunications networks for continuing support? Typically, these costs have not been

covered in training programs but may be essential

components for success.

How could access to telecommunications networks change the nature of programs and services

available for training teachers? Although most

schools today do not have this access, opportunities to connect and use networks are growing. If

current trends continue, one of the most significant uses of telecommunications resources will be

teacher’s professional use—connecting with other teachers, seeking and sharing information,

learning and keeping abreast of changes and

developments in their fields. If these networks

become used more generally, they could significantly change the nature and form of teacher training and professional development in the future.

❚ Leveraging Resources for

Improving and Expanding Training

Through Technology

Technology itself can play a critical role in leveraging federal resources. Government networks, resource centers, satellite conferences, and

video libraries can extend the sweep of ideas,

models, materials, and curricula. If the federal

government or other entities choose to emphasize

the development of national models, this type of

dissemination becomes extremely important.

New funding sources (e.g. the Department of

Commerce) and collaborative partnerships

with other public sector agencies and with

businesses in support of shared use networks

can leverage scarce federal dollars in areas

benefiting education and the broader community. This is one of the important lessons learned

from the Star Schools experience.

Telecommunications and networking technologies can extend the duration of training

and provide almost continuous followup and

support. Options for building these capacities

into all federal training programs need to be explored, along with evaluations of the effectiveness

of these telecommunications training and support

models.

Aggressive research and development is needed to determine which types of education technologies work best in which settings and for which

teachers. Another area for research is whether

technology-related training is more effective

when delivered in the context of a specific subject

area or as a general pedagogical technique, or in

some combination. However, because the technologies are changing so rapidly, funders should
254 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

not require that grantees be locked into any one

model.

CONCLUSION

Recent authorizing legislation and federal leadership have set the stage for greater emphasis on

technology-related teacher preparation and professional development than ever before. Congressional budget concerns and proposed executive

branch funding limits, however, could limit the

potential of these initiatives. Nevertheless, the

problems associated with overlap, lack of information, and erratic and changeable support

across a range of programs could be ameliorated

by the technologies themselves, which could offer

robust and flexible resources for coordinating information and streamlining the delivery and continuing support for teacher preparation and

continuing growth. Whether the promise of these

new opportunities is realized will depend on federal, state, and private commitment and effective

implementation of new proposals.
Appendix A:

 Boxes,

 Figures, and

Tables

Boxes

Chapter 1

1-1: Why This Study 5

1-2: How This Study Was Conducted 7

1-3: Technologies in U.S. Schools: Definitions and Availability 9

1-4: What Difference Does Educational Technology Make? 14

1-5: Some Lessons About Technology Implementation 30

1-6: Past Federal Efforts To Support Teacher Development 32

1-7: Areas for Federal Policy 34

1-8: Organization of the Report 45

Chapter 2

2-1: How Computer Use Changes Teaching: Results of a Survey of Accomplished

Computer-Using Teachers 52

2-2: How Teachers Use Telecommunications: Results of a Survey of Teachers Who Are

Telecom Pioneers 55

2-3: “The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury” 58

2-4: Global Lab: Collaborative Research for Teachers and Students 62

2-5: “Dear President Hoover” 67

2-6: What Happens When Every Teacher Gets a Computer? 72

2-7: Technology Tools for Teacher Productivity 74

2-8: Professional Development in the Lives of Teachers 80

2-9: Mathline: A New Approach to Professional Development for Mathematics Teachers 84

2-10: Teacher Collegial Exchange Using Telecommunications 87

| 255
256 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Chapter 3

3-1: Results from an International Study of Computers in Education 94

3-2: Timeline of Changes in the Prevailing Wisdom of “Experts” About How Teachers Should Use

Computers in Schools 104

3-3: Telecommunications Terms and Concepts 112

3-4: The Texas Education Network (TENET) 116

3-5: Planning for School Technology Use: Two State Examples and Cost Estimates 123

Chapter 4

4-1: Acceptance of New Technologies: A Marketing Theory 133

4-2: Teacher Inservice Technology Training: State Requirements and Resources 138

4-3: Computer Inservice Teachers in Jefferson County 149

4-4: Teacher Productions Showcasing Promising Practices 151

4-5: State Planning for Technology: The New Jersey Experience 156

4-6: SuperSubs: Making It Easier To Learn About Technology 160

Chapter 5

5-1: Factors Affecting the Demand for New Teachers 167

5-2: Curriculum Guidelines for Accreditation of Educational Computing and Technology

Programs 177

5-3: Redefining Preservice, Texas Style 182

5-4: Beyond the Box: Why Preservice Integration Requires Full Support 188

Chapter 6

6-1: Title III, ESEA—Technology for Education Act: Major Provisions Affecting Teachers 222

6-2: Some Roles for Technology in Federally Funded Professional Development Projects 235

6-3: How Some Federally Funded Projects Have Integrated Technology into Teacher Preparation

and Professional Development 236

6-4: Followup Strategies Used in Federally Supported Professional Development Programs 238

6-5: Strategies Attempting To Magnify the Impact of Federal Support for Technology-Related

Teacher Development 239

6-6: Early Federal Support for Training Special Education Teachers in Instructional Media and

Technology Applications 243

6-7: Summary of Impacts of Federal Teacher Development Programs 247

6-8: Factors Associated with Greatest Impact in Prior Federal Teacher Development

Programs 251

Figures

Chapter 1

1-1: Requirements for Effective Use of Technology 20

Chapter 3

3-1: Teacher Reports of Access and Use of Technology Resources, 1991 92

3-2: Installed Base of Computer and Video Technologies in Typical Schools, 1991-92 93

3-3: Inventory of School Computers by Age/Power of Computers, 1992 95
Appendix A Boxes, Figures, and Tables | 257

3-4: Percentage of Public Schools Owning Specific Technologies, 1993 98

3-5: Average Number of Students per Computer by State, 1994 101

3-6: Status of State Support for K-12 Instructional Telecomputing Networks, 1993 115

3-7: America Online’s LabNet Main Screen 118

Chapter 4

4-1: District Computer Budgets: Estimated Allocations, 1992-93 136

Chapter 5

5-1: Peabody College’s Virtual Professional Development School 204

Tables

Chapter 1

1-1: Teaching and Technology: The Potential 12

1-2: Teaching and Technology: Current Barriers 19

1-3: Estimated Installation and Operating Costs of Selected Telecommunications Technologies 22

1-4: Major Federal Policy Levers for Enhancing Teachers’ Use of Technology and Teachers’

Professional Development 36

Chapter 3

3-1: Average Student-Computer Ratios in 1992 by Computer Density, School Control, School Size,

and Percent Minorities 100

3-2: State Education Technology Policies, September 1994 120

Chapter 5

5-1: State Requirements for Entrance to Teacher Education Programs 174

Chapter 6

6-1: Past Major Federal Programs in Support of Technology-Related Teacher Development 210

6-2: Key Current Programs for Technology-Related Teacher Development 216

6-3: Additional Current Sources of Federal Support for Technology-Related Teacher

Development 218
Appendix B:

Sources of

Survey Data

for This Report

During the course of this report, OTA hired three contractors to collect and analyze survey data. This

appendix describes the methodology of each contractor report.

Analysis and Trends of School Use of

New Information Technologies

Henry J. Becker—March 1994

o original data were collected for this contractor report. Instead, the results of a

number of major national surveys of educational technology conducted between 1989 and

1993 were re-analyzed and synthesized. The majority of the analysis comes from three surveys: 1)

the United States portion of the 1992 Computers

in Education Study of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Attainment

(IEA), 2) the 1991 National Study of School Uses

of Television and Video conducted by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), and 3) the

1993 Survey of Member Teachers of the National

Education Association (NEA) conducted for the

NEA by Princeton Survey Research Associates.

For all three studies, this contractor report also

profited from reports in progress or technical documents related to these studies. The major features

of these three studies and the other four studies

used in the analysis are described below. Additional features are shown in table B-1.

The 1992 International Association for the

Evaluation of Educational Achievement

Computers in Education Study1

The IEA survey is the only recent national survey

to provide detailed data about computer use in

schools, primarily from school-level staff (principals and school computer coordinators) and student respondents, but also with data collected

from teachers. The sample of schools, although

rather small (571 schools with responses from

computer coordinators), was a carefully drawn national probability sample including public, parochial, and private schools stratified by school size,

reported student-computer ratio in 1988, size of

1 Ronald E. Anderson et al., Computers in American Schools, 1992: An Overview, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement Computers in Education Study (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1993).

258 |
Nature

Study Data about of data Date of study Nature of sample Response rate

Number of

cases

National probability sample, excluded schools

with no computers at all, special education

schools and primary schools (serving only

below grade 4) Sampled elementary teachers grades 3 through 6 and secondary math,

science, English, computer education teachers. Includes public and nonpublic schools

76% of schools (computer coordinator), 94% including partial

telephone interview, 79% of

teachers (weighted); 93% including telephone interviews

999 schools (1 ,227

including partial telephone mterviews),

817 teachers (957

Including partial telephone interviews)

international Association for

the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)

Survey-Stage 1

Schools and

teachers

Weighted

data

Weighted

data

Weighted

data

Weighted

data

Printed

statistics

Printed

statistics

Raw data

(no sampling done)

Spring 1989

Spring 1992

Spring 1991

Spring 1993

Fall-winter

1992

Spring 1990

Summer 1992

National probability sample, excluded schools

with no computers at all, special education

schools and primary schools (serving only

below grade 4) Sampled elementary teachers, grade 5, and secondary English teachers

(grades 8 and 11) Includes public and nonpublic schools

82% of school-level computer

coordinators, 72% of teachers,

and 74% of students (About

15Y0 of coordinator sample were

partial phone interviews )

571 computer coordinators; 500 teachers, and 11,150

students.

International Association for

the Evaluation of Educational Achievement Computers

in Education Survey—

Stage 2

Schools,

teachers, and

students in

grades 5, 8,

and 11

Corporation for Public

Broadcasting Study of

School Uses of Television

and Video

Schools and

teachers

National probability sample of public schools

(excluding special, vocational, and alternative

education) m districts with more than 300 students; teachers of all subjects and grade

levels.

90% of schools (principal), 75%

of teachers.

1,829 schools; 3,072

teachers; 2,920 with

both questionnaires

National sample (simple random sample) of

NEA members

33% (reported by NEA as 78%.

when excluding those not

reached by telephone).

About 39% of public schools including 68% of schools in the

nation’s 893 largest districts

94% of students attempted m

1990 followup Unknown bias

from low base year (1988)

school response rate (61 %)

89% of teachers sampled m

1990

Near 100% but not uniformly

collected on each variable

National Education Associa- 1,206 teachers

tion (NEA) Communications

Survey

Teachers

o Market Data Retrieval:

‘(Education and Technology”

Schools, from

district-level

data collection

Universe of public school districts. Information

gathered at district level except followup mailings sent to schools in largest districts.

3,927 districts representing 31,172

schools.

National probability sample of 8th graders,

two years later (nondropouts), sample of two

of four major subject teachers

20,706 students,

15,908 teachers divided among 4

subjects

National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS88)

“First Followup”

Teachers and

10th grade

students

Quality Education Data

school census

Schools, from

district-level

Universe of public and nonpublic schools

Information gathered at the district level

104,000 schools

data collection

— SOURCE’ Henry J Becker, “Analysis and Trends of School Use of New Information Technologies, ” Off Ice of Technology Assessment contractor report, March 1994
260 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

the metropolitan area community, and district

poverty level. Disproportionate sampling was

employed to overrepresent schools with larger

student bodies and more computers. (Data analysis was performed using case weights to recreate

the equal probability sample needed for valid descriptive statistics.) Response rates for different

categories of respondents varied from 72 to 82

percent, including some partial telephone interviews. Extensive questions were included about

computer-related hardware and software, utilization, processes of decisionmaking, and attitudes.

Students reported their own computer experiences

and were given a test of computer literacy which

was, however, not used in this analysis. The 1992

IEA survey was a second stage of a longitudinal

study that began with a similar study (minus the

student data) in 1989.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s 1991

National Study of School Uses of Television

and Video2

The CPB survey is the only major recent national

survey of instructional television and video presence and use in schools. It also is part of a series—

in this case, the third conducted by CPB over a

15-year period. At the school level, the CPB survey was several times as large as the IEA computer survey (1,829 schools; 3,072 teachers), but it

did not include student-level data. The sample design involved a multistage probability sample of

public school districts, schools, and teachers, explicitly stratified by district size and urbanicity,

and implicitly stratified by region and district

wealth. Districts enrolling fewer than 300 students were excluded from the population sampled. Ninety percent of principals and 75 percent

of teachers responded. Superintendents also completed a survey form, but this was not used in this

analysis. Principals responded to questions about

their school’s experience using a variety of broadcast and stored video media and about schoollevel support for instructional media. Teachers

reported about their use of TV and video in classroom instruction and their own personal experience and access to equipment like VCRs and

camcorders.

The 1993 Communications Survey of National

Education Association Teacher-Members3

The NEA survey was of a sample of current teachers from the NEA’s national membership roster,

and thus excludes teachers from most large city

districts and others that do not have NEA as their

employee bargaining agent. A total of 1,206

teachers participated in telephone interviews for

this study. Excluded from the sample were special

education teachers, resource teachers, and those

who did not currently teach in grades K-12. The

cooperation rate for this survey (i.e., the percentage of eligible sample members reached who

agreed to be interviewed) was 79 percent. However, field work was terminated before the majority of initially sampled individuals could be

reached. So from a formal standpoint, the response rate for this survey (interviews divided by

estimated number of eligible members originally

sampled and called) was only about 33 percent.

However, the vast majority of the remaining 67

percent were not “refusals,” but simply those who

were not reached by telephone. In addition, the

NEA survey was of limited use because it was not

principally about teachers’ technology use but

rather about their perceptions of access to technologies. However, it was valuable in that it included

2 Andrew L. Russell and Thomas R. Curtin, Study of School Uses of Television and Video: 1990-91 School Year (Arlington, VA: Corporation

for Public Broadcasting, February 1993). Also see Research Triangle Institute, Study of the School Uses of Television and Video: Methodology

Report (Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, Mar. 20, 1992).

3 Princeton Survey Research, National Education Association Communications Survey: Report of the Findings (Princeton, NJ: June 2,

1993).
Appendix B Sources of Survey Data for This Report | 261

information about both computer and video technologies in the same survey and contained information not otherwise available about access to

other technologies such as telephones and photocopying.

Other Survey Sources

In addition to the IEA, CPB, and NEA surveys,

substantial information about the presence of

technologies in schools was provided by an August 1993 report on the K-12 public school market

for educational technology by Market Data Retrieval (MDR), Inc.,4 and from the master building-level and district-level datasets and related

reports from Quality Education Data (QED).5

Both of these market research surveys supplied

data on technology presence (although nothing on

utilization), but each had disadvantages that prevented further use. Both market surveys reported

data about individual schools but collected these

data primarily at the district level, making detailed

data less reliable, with impairment most likely in

medium-sized and larger districts. It has been accepted for some time, for example, that QED’s

census of the number of school computers is

roughly 25 percent under the estimates obtained

using national probability surveys such as those of

the IEA Computers-in-Education studies.6

Access to the MDR data was limited to published tabulations. Moreover, the MDR survey response rate was very low (roughly 25 percent)

except for the largest 7 percent of all districts.

Overall, only 39 percent of public schools (no private or parochial schools) were included in the

tabulations in the MDR report. The QED dataset,

while encompassing more than 100,000 public,

Catholic and other private schools nationwide,

produced estimates that were at significant variance with similar data obtained from the CPB and

IEA surveys—almost always reporting fewer

schools having a given type of technology (e.g.,

videodisc players, modems, integrated learning

systems)—even when one attempted to correct

MDR results for their disproportionate number of

schools from large districts. This almost certainly

derives from the QED dataset being composed of

accumulated reports over several years and thereby not only undercounting recent acquisitions but

providing only partial data about types of technologies more recently added to its database (e.g.,

presence of CD-ROM). Nevertheless, both QED

and MDR tabulations were useful at various

stages in the analysis.

Finally, other statistics produced for this contractor report came from both original analysis

and published tabulations of teacher and student

data from the 1990 “first followup” of the National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS88),7

and from original analysis and tabulations from

the 1989 IEA Computers in Education Survey.

Use of the NELS88 survey was minimal because

only a few questions dealt with technology, and

use of the 1989 IEA survey was primarily for providing baseline data for measures of change. The

1989 IEA survey did contain much more detailed

data on computer use at the teacher level than any

other more recent survey available for this analysis, but because of its age (4 years as of this

writing), its descriptive statistics on computer use

4 Market Data Retrieval, Education and Technology, 1993: A Survey of the K-12 Market (Shelton, CT: August 1993).

5 Quality Education Data, Technology in the Public Schools: 1992-93 (Denver, CO: January 1993), Educational Technology Trends, Public

Schools: 1992-93 (Denver, CO: August 1992).

6 Ibid., Technology in the Public Schools: 1992-93, p. 4.

7 Steven J. Ingels et al., National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988: First Follow-Up Teacher Component Data File User’s Manual

(Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, November 1992); National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988: First Follow-Up

Student Component Data File User’s Manual, vols. 1 and 2 (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, April 1992).
262 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

were felt to be generally too outdated to be

useful.8

Those seven surveys—the 1992 and 1989 IEA

Computer surveys, the CPB video survey, the

NEA member survey, the two market surveys

(MDR and QED), and the 1990 NELS first followup survey—constitute the database for the

Becker contractor report. Other sources of survey

data were considered but excluded on grounds of

insufficient national representativeness, unsatisfactory response rate, or lack of timeliness.9

State Technology Activities

Related to Teachers

Ronald E. Anderson—Nov. 15, 1994

uring the summer of 1993, telephone calls

were placed to an educational technology

coordinator or specialist in all states and the

District of Columbia. After repeated calls, responses to a telephone interview were obtained

from over 85 percent of the states. In addition, reports of various types related to educational

technology were obtained from a majority of the

states. A year later, in June 1994, a survey form

was mailed to all state educational technology

coordinators asking them to update and clarify

several technology policy items. During the summer repeated calls, faxes, and mailings were used

to obtain responses from all the states as to the accuracy of the information collected.

Information Technology in Teacher

Education: Surveys of the Current Status

Jerry Willis, Linda Austin, and

Dee Anna Willis—March 1994

comprehensive survey focusing on the use

of information technology—“The USA

Faculty Survey”—was mailed to a random

sample of teacher educators in the United States.

A second survey, reworded for recent graduates of

teacher education programs, was sent to a random

sample of public and private schools across the

United States. This survey—called “The USA Recent Graduate Survey”—was addressed to principals who were asked to forward it to the most

recently hired teacher. The only additional requirement was that the teacher who completed the

survey must have graduated within the last two

years.

Although the survey data presented in this contractor report represents one of the only efforts to

date to gather information on technology in teacher education, a number of limitations should be

kept in mind. A major limitation is the low rate of

return for all of the surveys. The surveys sent to

teacher education faculty and recent graduates

8 Henry Jay Becker, “United States Participation in the I.E.A. Computers-in-Education Study,” final report to the National Science Foundation, Grant #SPA-8850564, Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, September 1992.

9 The 1992 survey by Bank Street College, “Telecommunications and K-12 Educators,” directed by Margaret Honey (M. Honey and A.

Henríquez, “Telecommunications and K-12 Educators: Findings from a National Survey,” Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street

College of Education, 1993) provides useful information about the most active telecommunications-using teachers, but is based on a purposive

snowball sample of high-end users rather than a representative sample of teachers.

Market surveys published in 1991 by LINK Resources Corporation (“K-12 Market for Technology and Electronic Media: Ninth Annual

Survey”) and in 1992 by the Software Publishers Association (“1991-92 SPA K-12 Market Study Report”) both obtained roughly 20 percent

response rates from school principals or other school or district officials, deemed insufficient to provide valid enough information about the full

population of U.S. schools.

Several statewide surveys have been conducted during the past several years—for example, “Technology in the California Classroom: The

Teacher’s Perspective 1991,” conducted by Robert G. Main for the California Technology Project—but it was decided that state-level statistical

information would not be informative for considering national patterns and trends.

Finally, several once-informative national studies are now dated by the rapid rate of change in technology availability and use—among

them the 1989 U.S. Census Bureau’s supplementary questions on computer use in the October 1989 Current Population Survey, as reported in

their publication, “Computer Use in the United States: 1989,” Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 171, 1991.
Appendix B Sources of Survey Data for This Report | 263

were quite lengthy and the time required to complete the survey may have been one factor in the

relatively low return rates. Another factor possibly contributing to a low rate of return was that the

distribution method involved sending surveys to

administrators who were then asked to distribute

them to the appropriate instructors. For example,

from the 1,223 faculty surveys mailed to teacher

education institutions, a total of 250 were usable,

which is 20 percent of the surveys mailed. As the

percentage of usable surveys was relatively low,

readers should be cautioned about over-interpreting the survey data.

The USA Faculty Survey

The faculty survey included questions about the

institution and teacher education program, the faculty member’s history of general and instructional

use of information technology, attitudes toward

technology, and ratings of barriers to wider use of

information technology. The survey was developed after a thorough review of existing surveys

on both K-12 use of technology and technology

use in teacher education. Many of the items in the

survey used here were based on items in previously published surveys. Once a draft survey was developed, it was evaluated by an advisory group of

experts and by OTA staff. The feedback was used

to revise the instrument, and experts were again

asked to review it. For example, the original

instrument was much longer than the final version. It contained items on how faculty used

technology rather than simply whether they used

it or not. Most of the reviewers felt the original

survey was far too long and recommended it be

shortened. Many items were removed.

A random sample of 65 teacher education programs was selected from Peterson’s Guide to Colleges and Universities.10 The only restriction on

randomness was the requirement that all 15 of the

largest teacher education programs in the United

States be included in the sample. At least one survey was returned from 66 percent of the institutions sampled. A total of 250 usable surveys were

returned.

The USA Recent Graduate Survey

The survey sent to recent graduates was a modified form of the faculty survey. The questions

were rephrased to indicate the respondents were

students in teacher education programs rather than

faculty.

A random sample of 500 elementary and secondary schools in the United States was selected

by a mailing list organization and supplied to the

researchers on mailing labels. Both public and private institutions were included. A total of 100 surveys were returned, a return rate of 20 percent.

However, a total of 70 surveys were usable and all

the data in this section is based on the analysis of

70 surveys. The 30 unusable surveys were returned because the school had closed or no teacher

met the criteria of having competed a teacher

education program within the last two years. With

only 70 usable surveys, the results should be considered tentative.

10 Peterson’s Guide to Four-Year Colleges, 19th Ed. (Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s Guides, 1989).
Appendix C:

Glossary

Analog communication

A communication format in which information is

transmitted by modulating a continuous signal,

such as a radio wave. Voice and video messages

originate in analog form since sound and light are

wavelike functions; thus, they must be converted

into digital messages in order to communicate

along digital communications formats or media.

Anonymous FTP site

A server that allows the public to log on and

download files without having an account or a

user ID on that server.

Application tools

Computer software that enables the user to manipulate information to create documents or reports.

Archie

A database listing programs and data files available at anonymous FTP sites or Telnet sites on the

Internet. See Veronica.

ARPAnet

The original experimental U.S. government network that started the Internet. ARPAnet was

started in the mid-1960s to connect researchers,

and is no longer in existence. ARPA is the Advanced Research Projects Agency, under the

Department of Defense, previously named

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency).

Artificial intelligence

The use of computer processing to simulate intelligent behavior. Current research includes natural

language recognition and use, problem solving,

selection from alternatives, pattern recognition,

generalization based on experience, and analysis

of novel situations.

ASCII (American Standard Code for

Information Interchange)

Pronounced “as-key,” a set of computer characters

devised to achieve some measure of compatibility

among various computers. Putting a text file in

ASCII format reduces it to essential elements—

upper- and lower-case letters, numbers, punctuation, and some control characters but no graphics

characters or printer codes—and eases the process

of sharing it with other computers.

Asynchronous communication

Two-way communication in which there is a time

delay between when a message is sent and when it

is received. Examples include electronic-mail and

voice-mail systems. In contrast, synchronous

communication is simultaneous two-way exchange of information—for example, a telephone

conversation.

264 |
Appendix C Glossary | 265

Audiographic conference

A conferencing system that can transmit audio

and still-video signals, computer graphics, and

text on the same telephone cable or other narrowband communications channel. Equipment generally includes computers, graphics cables, and

speaker phones at both the receiving and delivering ends.

Authoring

The process of building or modifying computer

software using a computer program designed for

that purpose. Generally, authoring software

applications require less technical expertise

compared with programming languages.

Backbone

The main communication channel in a network

wiring scheme, so called because other communications lines connect to it like ribs connect to the

human body’s backbone.

Bandwidth

A measure of information-carrying capability.

The difference between the lowest and highest

signal frequency is expressed in hertz (cycles per

second). Wider bandwidths can carry more information.

BITNET (Because It’s Time Network)

An international computer network created to

connect research institutions and higher education.

Broadband

A flexible, all-purpose, two-way medium that

provides the wide bandwidth necessary for both

conventional video and high-definition television, and for still-frame displays for information

retrieval, catalog shopping, and so on.

Bulletin board service (BBS)

A computer service that is modeled after a community bulletin board. Using a computer, modem,

and phone line, individuals connect to a central

“host” computer to post or read messages or to

upload and download software. Communication

is usually asynchronous.

Cable television system (CATV)

A broadband communications system capable of

delivering multiple channels of programming

from a set of centralized satellite and off-air antennae, usually by coaxial cable, to a community.

Many cable television systems combine microwave and fiberoptic technologies.

CAI (Computer-aided instruction)

Instruction that is carried out or supported by

computer technology.

CD-ROM (Compact disc-read only memory)

An optical storage system for computers that permits data to be randomly accessed from a disc.

With read-only discs, new data cannot be stored

nor can the disc be erased for reuse. Other optical

storage systems allow users to record or write and

rewrite information.

Chat room

An area on a computer network where members

“gather” to type in messages in real time. They can

receive immediate responses. There are two types

of chat rooms—public and private.

Client

A computer workstation that can request and receive services, information, and applications—

such as file transfer to other computers, access to a

printer, or access to another computer network—

from a server on the same computer network.

Coaxial cable

Shielded wire cable that connects communications components. Coaxial cable is commonly

used in cable television systems because of its

ability to carry multiple video (or other broadband) signals.

Codec

An electronic device that converts analog video

signals into a digital format for transmission, and

vice versa. The name is an abbreviation for

“coder-decoder,” or “compressor-decompressor”

when compression is also involved.
266 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Compression

Compressing information so that it requires less

space to store or transmit. When speech is compressed, for example, pauses are eliminated.

Compression is generally expressed as a ratio. For

example, an 8-to-1 ratio means that the information requires one-eighth of its original space. The

greater the compression ratio, the higher the

chance for loss of quality in image, sound, or motion. In compressed video, digital technology is

used to encode and compress the signal. Picture

quality is generally not as good as full motion;

quick movements often appear blurred.

Computer graphics

Representations of information in formats other

than text on a computer. Application tools allow

users to draw or “paint” original images with a

mouse or a graphics tablet.

Conference

In computer networking, refers to an online discussion group focused on a topic.

Connectivity

The degree or level to which one computer can

connect to an online service. For example, a lower-level of connectivity to the Internet may support only the exchange of e-mail, while a more

advanced level of connectivity may support FTP

and Telnet services.

Courseware

A package used for teaching and learning that includes computer or video software and related

print materials such as a teacher’s guide and student activity books.

Curriculum (pl. curricula)

The courses offered by an educational institution.

Most schools have a prescribed curriculum teachers must follow throughout the school year and on

which students are tested as the basis for passing a

course or getting credit for it.

Cyberspace

Worldwide pool of information stored and transmitted by internetworked computers. William

Gibson created the term in his novel Neuromancer, where he used it to refer to computers and the

society that focuses on them.

Database

A collection of related information, computer databases can include text files, programs, and

graphics, that can be searched by key words or

other means, and reviewed or downloaded onto

another computer.

Digital communications

A communications format used with both electronic and light-based systems that transmits audio, video, and data as bits of information.

Digital video

A format used to store, manipulate, and transmit

moving images of bits of information. Codecs are

used to convert traditional analog signals into a

digital format and back again. Digital video can be

compressed for more efficient storage and transmission.

Digitize

To change analog information to a digital format.

Once information has been converted to this form,

it can be conveniently stored, manipulated, and

compressed. It can also be transmitted over a distance with little or no loss in quality. Sound (such

as speech or music), still images (such as transparencies), and motion video are commonly converted into digitized form.

Distance learning

Instruction delivered from a distant site, possibly

including data, voice, and video transmissions for

interactivity.

Distributed network

Network that relies on multiple computers to provide various resources to other computers in the

network, rather than making all resources available from a single server. The Internet depends on

distributed networking.

Domain

A set of nodes on the Internet whose names share

the same last two or three parts. For example,

“msu.edu” is the domain name for the network of

Michigan State University. Domain names that
Appendix C Glossary | 267

end with “edu” are for education organizations;

“com” for commercial entities; “net” for networks; and “gov” for governments.

Download

To copy a file, e-mail, or other information from a

central computer to a personal computer. See

upload.

Downlink

An antenna shaped like a dish that receives signals

from a satellite. See uplink. Often referred to as a

satellite dish, terminal, Earth station, or TVRO

(television receive-only).

Electronic mail (e-mail)

A computer application for exchanging information over a distance using a modem and a computer. Communication is asynchronous. E-mail

typically consists of text and/or graphics; advanced multimedia formats are under development. It can be addressed to an individual, as well

as to groups of people.

E-mail address

A specific, locatable, electronic address that designates a person or service at a specific network

site. Electronic mail addresses include a user

name (which can be a title or function, such as

“info”), the symbol “@,” and a domain name

(e.g., teacher@school.edu).

Ethernet

A type of local area network of up to 1,024 nodes

(i.e., computers in a network), originated by Xerox Corporation. It specifies the types of wires

connecting the network and the format in which

information is packaged to travel over those wires.

There are three types of Ethernet connections; different Ethernet systems use different software

protocol, such as TCP/IP.

Facsimile machine (fax)

A device that converts hard-copy images and text

into an electronic form for transmission over telephone lines to a similar device at another location,

which then reconverts it back to text and images.

Fiberoptic cable

Hair-thin, flexible glass rods that use light signals

to transmit information in either analog or digital

formats. Fiberoptic cable has much higher capacity than copper or coaxial cable, and is not as subject to interference or noise. Fiberoptic cable has

the bandwidth to accommodate high-speed, multimedia networking.

File

A file is a body of information (text, graphics, or a

program) that can be passed from one computer to

another.

File server

The personal computer that provides access to

files for all workstations in a local area network.

Flame

To send over a computer network, as through

e-mail, a message displaying a derogatory, obscene, or inflammatory attitude.

Flat-panel display

A video or computer screen that is relatively thin,

lightweight, and typically used in portable computers.

FreeNet

One of a group of freely accessible servers offering information, e-mail, and access to the Internet

over telephone lines.

FTP (File Transfer Protocol)

A standard technique for transferring files among

dissimilar computer systems on a network.

A program that transfers files using file transfer

protocol. It supports file exchange over the Internet.

Gateway

A dedicated computer that provides a link between dissimilar networks, allowing information

to cross between the two.

Gopher

Software that presents in menu form information

found all over the Internet. Gopher programs also

allow searches on the Internet for hosts, directories, or files based on keywords supplied by the

user.

Groupware

A software program that allows the same information to be shared among several computers simultaneously. With some applications, users can see
268 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

each other and, from their own computers, add to

or edit text and graphics in a single document.

Hardware

The electrical and mechanical equipment used in

conjunction with software (programs and files)

for computer and telecommunications systems.

Host

The main computer system to which computer users are connected.

Hub

A point of connection to the Internet for users in a

particular region.

Hypercard

A software program designed to create multiple

pathways for moving through a body of related

material, allowing the user to link documents and

parts of documents in a nonlinear fashion from a

single computer. Words in the displayed document may be linked to other documents or other

text in the same document, usually by icons within

the document, sometimes called buttons. Through

Hypercard applications, the user can quickly access linked materials from a variety of media, such

as still-motion video from a videodisc linked to a

paragraph from a word processor (this type of Hypercard use is often called hypermedia).

Icon

A symbol displayed on the computer screen that

represents a command or program (e.g., a trash

can symbolize the command to delete a document

or file).

Information highway/information superhighway

The vast network of interconnected telecommunications systems worldwide.

Interface

A general term used to designate the hardware and

associated software needed to enable one device

to communicate with another or to enable a person

to communicate with computers and related devices. A user interface can be a keyboard, a mouse,

commands, icons, or menus that facilitate communication between the user and computer.

Internet

International collection of interconnected electronic networks that support a common set of data

communication protocols—Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP). Internet evolved from ARPAnet. The National

Science Foundation supported wider use of the

network through development of NSFnet, expanding and replacing ARPAnet, and through

funding for development of regional distribution

networks. Many networks in the United States and

worldwide are now part of the Internet.

ISDN (Integrated Service Digital Network)

Network that accommodates digital transmission

of voice, data, and video over, standard copper

telephone lines.

Keyword

A word that leads the user to go directly to a specific area. For example, entering the keyword

“LABNET” takes you to the LabNetwork;

“NGS,” to the National Geographic Society;

“Time,” to Time magazine.

Knowbots

Software programs that act as “knowledge robots”

to carry out functions such as searches for desired

information, on electronic networks.

“Last mile”

Popular term for the last segment of the connection between a communication provider (e.g.,

telephone company central office) and the customer (usually residential, but sometimes commercial).

LATA (local access and transport area)

A geographic region ranging from a metropolitan

area to a state, created with divestiture of AT&T

and used to define service areas for regulated versus unregulated services (e.g., intra-LATA local

service versus inter-LATA long-haul services).

Library

The term library, when used with computers,

refers to a collection of computer files. A library

contains files that can be text, graphics, or

programs.
Appendix C Glossary | 269

Listserv

A program (text and graphics) that distributes

e-mail to users on a computer network who share a

common interest and whose ID’s are stored together. Any mail sent to a list on the listserv is automatically distributed to everyone on that list.

Local area network (LAN)

A network connecting computers in close proximity, LANs facilitate communication and sharing of

information and computer resources (such as

printers or storage by the members of a group).

Login/Logon/Logoff

The process of entering and leaving an electronic

communications system; access generally requires a user identification code or password

(often the user’s name).

Mailbox

A file or directory on the end user’s host computer

that holds the user’s e-mail.

Mailing list

A topic-specific alias with multiple mail destinations.

Message board

Message boards (or boards) are where members

post messages, reply to messages, and so forth.

Boards are organized using folders, which contain

messages on a specific theme.

Microwave

High-frequency radio waves used for point-topoint and omnidirectional communication of

data, video, and voice.

Modem

A device that allows two computers to communicate over telephone lines. It converts digital computer signals into analog format for transmission.

A similar device at the other end converts the analog signal back into a digital format that the computer can understand. Abbreviated form of

“modulator-demodulator.”

Mosaic

A popular interface that eases navigation of the

Internet.

Mouse

A pointing device that connects to a computer.

With a mouse, users can control pointer movements on a computer screen by rolling the mouse

over a flat surface and clicking a button on the device. The mouse is also commonly used to define

and move blocks of text; open or close windows,

documents or applications; and draw or paint

graphics.

Multimedia

Any combination of video, sound, text, animation, and graphic images in a computer-based environment. Often includes technology such as

CD-ROM, videodiscs, videocassette recorders,

television, video cameras, and software.

National Research and Education Network (NREN)

Electronic network that eventually will succeed

the noncommercial aspects of the Internet in the

United States.

Network

A shared communications system that supports

digital communication among connected computers.

Newsgroup

A topical discussion group on a network. Individuals submit messages to a newsgroup and read

messages that are posted there.

NII (National Information Infrastructure)

The overall electronic information system in development in the United States.

NSFnet

The National Science Foundation Network, a

high-speed network of networks linking computers at educational and research institutions. It is

made up of several regional networks.

Online

Being actively connected to a network or computer system; usually being able interactively to exchange data, commands, and information.

Optical storage

High-density disk storage that uses a laser to

“write” information on the surface. Erasable or rewritable optical storage enables written informa-
270 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

tion to be erased and new information written on

the disk.

PC

A personal computer or microcomputer. The Apple Macintosh and the IBM PS/2 are examples of

personal computers. Many participants on the Internet use PCs to connect to Internet hosts.

Point-to-point protocol (PPP)

Protocol that enables a computer to use the Internet protocols (TCP/IP). PPP is gaining in popularity over the SLIP alternative.

Protocols

The set of specific communication standards that

allow one computer to interact with other computers.

RAM (random access memory)

Computer memory where any location can be read

from, or written to, in a random access fashion. A

computer’s RAM is its main memory where it can

store data.

ROM (read only memory)

Once information has been entered into this part of

the computer’s memory, it can be read as often as

required, but cannot be changed by the user.

Router

A device (sometimes a specialized computer) that

stores addresses of network hosts and forwards

packets of data between networks. For maximum

access to the Internet’s resources, a local area network needs its own router.

Satellite

See downlink.

Scanner

An input device attached to a computer that makes

a digital image of a hard-copy document, such as a

photograph, scanned picture, graph, map, and other data that are often used in desktop publishing.

Server

A server is a powerful computer on a network that

provides a particular service and information to

other computers; for instance, a disk server manages a large disk, and a print server manages a

printer.

Shareware

Shareware is software that can be shared among

users but it is not free. Users purchase this type of

computer software through donations to the software developer, usually to fund further research

and development of the product line.

Simulation

Software that enables the user to experience a realistic reproduction of an actual situation. Computer-based simulations often involve situations that

are very costly or high risk (e.g., flight simulation

training for pilots).

“Snail mail”

Paper-based mail, delivered by the U.S. Post Office or other vendor, that cannot compete for speed

with electronic networking.

Software

Programming that controls computer, video, or

electronic hardware. Software takes many forms,

including application tools, operating systems,

instructional drills, and games.

Synchronous communication

See asynchronous communication.

Sysop (system operator)

A person in charge of a network system or BBS.

TCP/IP

Abbreviation for Transmission Control Protocol/

Internet Protocol. TCP/IP is a set of computer

commands that dictate how the computers on the

Internet will communicate with each other.

Teleconference

Simultaneous visual and/or sound interconnection using telecommunications links that allow

individuals in remote locations to see and communicate with each other in a conference arrangement. There are many types of teleconferencing,

including videoconferencing, computer conferencing, and audioconferencing.

Telnet

An Internet service that allows users to log on to

remote host computers as “guest” users, providing

access to the files as if they were actually at the

host site.
Appendix C Glossary | 271

Terminal

The computer used to connect to a host. The terminal can be a personal computer such as a Macintosh, IBM, or compatible microcomputer.

Touch screen

A device that attaches to a computer screen that allows data to be entered by using a specialized stylus

to write on the screen, or by making direct physical

contact between the finger and the screen.

Uplink

A satellite dish that transmits signals up to a satellite. These signals are then sent back to Earth to a

downlink (receiving) site.

Upload

To copy a file, e-mail, or other information from

one’s personal computer to a larger computer on a

network.

Veronica

A Gopher service that allows you to do a keyword

search of Gopher menus. Named after the comic

strip character (like Archie).

Videoconference

A form of teleconferencing where participants see

and hear other participants in remote locations.

Video cameras, monitors, codecs, and networks

allow synchronous communication between sites.

Videodisc

An optical disc that contains recorded still images,

full-motion video, and sounds that can be played

back using a Videodisc player through a television

monitor. Videodiscs can be used alone or as a part

of a computer-based application.

Videotext

A form of multimedia that presents video and text

simultaneously on the same screen.

Voice mail

An electronic system for transmitting and storing

voice messages, which can be accessed later by

the person to whom they are addressed. Voice mail

operates asynchronously, like an e-mail system.

Voice recognition

Computer hardware and software systems that recognize spoken words and convert them to digital

signals that can be used for input (often used as an

alternative to other input devices, such as a keyboard).

WAIS (Wide Area Information Server)

A protocol that allows users to search and access

different types of information on many different

computer systems from a single interface. This

text-based information retrieval system selects

databases from an unlimited pool, without the

need for user familiarity with the internal configurations of each, and helps to organize responses on

the user’s machine despite vast amounts of accumulated data.

Wide area network (WAN)

A computer network in which widely dispersed

computers, such as those among several buildings

or across a city or state, are interconnected. WANs

make use of a variety of transmission media,

which can be provided on a leased or dial-up basis.

Window

A part of the computer screen that is given over to

a different display from the rest of the screen (e.g.,

a text window in a graphics screen). It can also be a

portion of a file or image currently on the screen,

when multiple windows are displayed simultaneously.

Wireless

Voice, data, or video communications without the

use of connecting wires. In wireless communications, radio signals make use of microwave towers

or satellites. Cellular telephones and pagers are

examples of wireless communications.

Workstation

A computer that is intended for individual use, but

is generally more powerful (i.e., it has greater

memory and speed) than a personal computer. A

workstation may also act as a terminal for a central

mainframe.

World Wide Web (WWW)

A hypermedia information retrieval system linking a variety of Internet-accessible documents and

data files (text and graphics). Often referred to as

“the Web.”
Appendix D:

Workshop Participants,

and Reviewers and

Contributors

Workshop on Technology Implementation Projects: What Research Reveals About

Teachers and Technology, February 8, 1994

Nancy Carson, Chairperson

Office of Technology Assessment

Linda Roberts, Facilitator

U.S. Department of Education

Glen L. Bull

Curry School of Education

University of Virginia

Allan Collins

Bolt, Beranek and Newman

Ron Gillespie

Central Kitsap School District

Susan R. Goldman

Learning Technology Center

Vanderbilt University

Louis Gomez

School of Education and

Social Policy

Northwestern University

Jan Hawkins

Center for Children and

Technology

Ellen Mandinach

Educational Testing Service

Cecil McDermott

IMPAC Learning Systems

Barbara Scott Nelson

Education Development

Center, Inc.

Robert Pearlman

Cambridge, MA

Cathy Ringstaff

Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow

Janet W. Schofield

Learning Research and

Development Center

University of Pittsburgh

272 |
Appendix D Workshop Participants, and Reviewers and Contributors | 273

Reviewers and Contributors

Kim Ahnen

Arlington, VA

Geri Anderson-Neilson

Georgetown Day School

Larry S. Anderson

Mississippi State University

Yvonne Marie Andres

Global Schoolhouse Foundation

David Banisar

Electronic Privacy Information

Center

Bruce Barker

Western Illinois University

William D. Barnes

Jefferson County Public Schools

Gladys Bauder

John Ross Elementary School

Tom Bauder

Woodrow Wilson High School

Donna Baumbach

University of Central Florida

Ivan Bender

Chicago, IL

Caroline Benson

Challenger Research,

Development, and Teaching

Center

Gregory M. Benson

New York State Department

of Education

Boris Berenfeld

TERC

Michael Bidwell

Shelby County Public Schools

Gary Bitter

Arizona State University

Colleen Blankenship

University of Utah

Ellen Blanton

National Demonstration

Laboratory

Robert T. Blau

Bell South

Craig Blurton

Wheeling Jesuit College

Carey Bolster

Public Broadcasting System

Sylvester Boyd

Office of Technology Assessment

Bonnie L. Bracey

Arlington Public Schools

Gerald Bracey

Alexandria, VA

Ludwig Braun

Dix Hills, NY

Laura Breeden

U.S. Department of Commerce

David Brittain

Florida Department of Education

Elsie Brumbach

North Carolina Department

of Education

Glen L. Bull

University of Virginia

Patty Burness

George Lucas Educational

Foundation

Scott Busell

Montana Department of

Education

Dennis L. Bybee

International Society for

Technology in Education

Pat Caberra

Education Telecommunications

Network

Doris Carey

University of Colorado

Gordon Cawelti

Alliance for Curriculum Reform

Sylvia Charp

T.H.E. Journal

Charlotte Chowning

Shelby County High School
274 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Daryl Chubin

National Science Foundation

Vicki Chubin

Fairfax County Public Schools

Jennifer Clair

IBM

John Clement

National Science Foundation

Hugh Cline

Educational Testing Service

Catherine Cobb Morocco

Education Development

Center, Inc.

Roger Coffee

Webster Elementary School

Jim Colby

National Science Foundation

Sue Collins

Apple Computer, Inc.

Mike Connell

University of Utah

James Cooper

University of Virginia

Sheila Cory

Chapel Hill-Carrboro City

Schools

John Cradler

Far West Laboratory

Wendy Cullar

Center for Educational

Technology, Florida State

University

Joseph Cunningham

Peabody College at Vanderbilt

University

Kay Cutler

University of Virginia

Janet Dean

Compaq Computer

Christopher Dede

George Mason University

Bill Dempsey

Texarkana Arkansas Schools

Neil Doherty

The Options School

Lee Droegmueller

Kansas State Board of Education

Margaret Dwyer

U.S. Department of Energy

Suzanne Edger

National Education Association

Carol Edwards

National Foundation for the

Improvement of Education

Jan Eveleth

NorthWestNet

Christy L. Faison

Rowan College of New Jersey

Linda Farley

ACT Academy

Pamela Farr

North Thurston School District

Leslie J. Flanders

Scott County Schools

Raymond Fox

Society of Applied Learning

Technologies

Edward A. Friedman

Stevens Institute of Technology

Michael Fullan

University of Toronto

Bruce Furino

University of Central Florida

Linda Garcia

Office of Technology Assessment

Cheryl Garnett

U.S. Department of Education

Ron Gillespie

Central Kitsap School District

Thomas K. Glennen, Jr.

RAND

Milton Goldberg

National Commission on Time

and Learning

Elizabeth Goldman

Peabody College at Vanderbilt

University

Shelley Goldman

Institute for Research and

Learning

Jinny Goldstein

Public Broadcasting System
Appendix D Workshop Participants, and Reviewers and Contributors | 275

Emilio Gonzalez

U.S. Department of Commerce

John I. Goodlad

University of Washington

Lee Gough

Arlington, VA

Neal Grandgenett

University of Nebraska, Omaha

Judy Gray

Issue Dynamics

Barbara T. Hakes

Wyoming Centers for Teaching

and Learning Network

Michael Haney

National Science Foundation

Jeanne Harmon

Central Kitsap School District

Dennis Harper

Olympia School District

Judi Harris

University of Texas at Austin

John Harwood

Peabody College at Vanderbilt

University

Ted Hasselbring

Peabody College at Vanderbilt

University

Jeanne Hayes

Quality Education Data

Nancy Hechinger

The Edison Project

Sharon Hemphill

The Options School

Jacqueline Hess

National Demonstration

Laboratory

Norman E. Higgins

Piscataquis Community High

School

Nana Hill

ACT Academy

Anna Hillman

Mississippi State University

Don Holznagel

Northwest Regional Education

Laboratory

Margaret Honey

Center for Children and

Technology

Maia Howes

International Society for

Technology in Education

Jonathan Hoyt

U.S. Department of Education

Larry Hugick

Princeton Survey Research

Associates

Leah Hur

Nimitz Academy Middle School

Catherine A. Hutchins

Webster Elementary School

David Imig

American Association of

Colleges for Teacher Education

Lori M. Ingwerson

Educational Testing Service

Christine Jackson

U.S. Department of Education

Mary Jaeger

Lockwood Schools

David Jensen

Office of Technology Assessment

Beau Fly Jones

North Central Regional

Educational Laboratory

Julie Kaminkow

U.S. Department of Education

Cheryl M. Kane

National Commission on Time

and Learning

Margaret Kelly

California State University,

San Marcos

Peter Kelman

The Edison Project

Brenda Kempster

National Coordinating Council

on Technology in Education

and Training

Henry S. Kepner, Jr.

National Science Foundation
276 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

John Kernan

The Lightspan Partnership, Inc.

Kathryn Kilroy

Arizona Department of

Education

Lynn Klem

Educational Testing Service

Kenneth Komoski

Education Products Information

Exchange

Barbara Kurshan

EDUCORP Consultants

Corporation

James S. Lanich

Educational Telecommunications

Network

Sandra Lapham

Los Angeles County Office of

Education

Jane Leibbrand

NCATE

Jenelle Leonard

Prince William County Public

Schools

Mary Jean LeTendre

U.S. Department of Education

James Levin

University of Illinois, UrbanaChampaign

Lawrence A. Levin

Bethesda-Chevy Chase High

School

Karen Levy

District of Columbia Public

Schools

Ann Lewin

Capital Children’s Museum

Mark Lewis

American Association of

Colleges for Teacher Education

Harvey Long

American Federation of Teachers

Beth Lowd

Massachusetts Corporation

for Educational

Telecommunications

John T. MacDonald

Council of Chief State School

Officers

Jim Maddox

Breadloaf School of English

Jerry Malitz

National Center for Education

Statistics

Helen Malone

Arlington, VA

Diane Manuel

Southwest Regional Laboratory

Robert Martin

West Nyack BOCES

Kam Matray

Monterey Penisula Unified

School District

Samuel M. Matsa

IBM

Ken Mayer

TERC

Leah K. McCracken

Lockwood Schools

John McMillin

Charlottesville, VA

Barbara Means

SRI International

Andy Mekelburg

Bell Atlantic

Arthur Melmed

George Mason University

Harry R. Miller

New England Telephone

David Mintz

National Center on Education

and the Economy

Andrew Molnar

National Science Foundation

Geoffrey A. Moore

Palo Alto, CA

Greta Morine-Dershimer

University of Virginia

Max Muellar

U.S. Department of Education

Richard Murnane

Harvard Graduate School of

Education

John Newsom

Bellevue Public Schools

Gary Obermeyer

Learning Options
Appendix D Workshop Participants, and Reviewers and Contributors | 277

Roy Pea

Northwestern University

James Pellegrino

Peabody College at Vanderbilt

University

John Pisapia

Metropolitan Educational

Research Consortium

Stephen Paul Plaskon

University of Virginia

Amanda Podane

University of California,

Los Angeles

W. Curtis Priest

Center for Information,

Technology, and Society

Michael Radlick

New York State Department of

Education

Paul A. Reese

Ralph Bunche School

Jane S. Retter

Educational Testing Service

Lewis Rhodes

American Association of School

Administrators

Annette Rice

Center for Educational

Technology, Florida State

University

Pam Richau

Lockwood Schools

James Ricks

H.D. Woodson High School

Dick Riedl

Appalachian State University

Peter Rizza

Princeton Center, Inc.

Jerry Robbins

Eastern Michigan University

Nancy Robbins

Education Service Center—

Region 20

Linda Roberts

U.S. Department of Education

Nancy Roberts

Lesley College

Ilene Rosenthal

The Lightspan Partnership, Inc.

Jaime Roybal

C.E. Rose Elementary School

Andrew Russell

Corporation for Public

Broadcasting

Nora Sabelli

National Science Foundation

Doris Sandoval

Montgomery Blair High School

Sharon Sanford

Market Data Research

Vonnie Sanford

Ohio Arts Council

Marilyn Schaffer

University of Hartford

Karen Schlosberg

Massachusetts Corporation

for Educational

Telecommunications

Jay Sivin-Kachala

Interactive Educational Systems

Design, Inc.

David Snyder

U.S. Department of Education

Roger Soder

University of Washington

Gwen Solomon

U.S. Department of Education

Elliot Soloway

University of Michigan

Nancy Songer

Colorado University, Boulder

Linda Spoales

Montgomery County Public

Schools

Charles Stalford

U.S. Department of Education

Julia Stapleton

New Jersey Department of

Education

Frank Stasio

The Options School

Carolyn Staudt

Copley High School

Julie Stogsdill

Buddy System Project
278 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Dena G. Stoner

Council for Educational

Development and Research

Connie Stout

Texas Education Network

Neal Strudler

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Rosemary Sutton

Cleveland State University

Thomas Switzer

University of Northern Iowa

Rosemary Taub

Kansas State University

Neal Topp

University of Nebraska, Omaha

Naida Tushnet

Southwest Regional Laboratory

Stephanie S. Van Deventer

Florida Center for Instructional

Technology

Donna Vigue

Piscataquis Community High

School

Mike Waggoner

University of Northern Iowa

Casey Wainwright

John Ross Elementary School

Gary Watts

National Education Association

Sandra H. Welch

Public Broadcasting System

Michael Wesley

Colorado Department of

Education

Christina Whitcomb

National Science Foundation

James White

University of South Florida

Vera White

Jefferson Junior High School

Jane Wigglesworth

John Ross Elementary School

Frank Withrow

Council of Chief State School

Officers

Steve Witter

Educational Service District 101

Fred Wood

Office of Technology Assessment

Colleen Wozniak

Delaware Department of

Education

Ron Wright

Alabama State Department of

Education

Anne Wujcik

Wujcik and Associates

David Wye

Office of Technology Assessment

Keith Yocam

Apple Computer, Inc.

John Yrchik

National Education Association

Leigh Zeitz

University of Northern Iowa

Note: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the reviewers and contributors.

The reviewers and contributors do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.
Appendix E:

Contributing

 Sites

Throughout the course of this assessment, OTA received information and assistance from many

schools, districts, and educational institutions across the United States. The following is a listing of sites

that participated in OTA’s case studies, served as the focus for the video report, and were visited by OTA

staff.

Case Study Sites

Curry School of Education, University of

Virginia and Jackson-Via Elementary

School

Peabody College at Vanderbilt University and

Carter Lawrence Middle School

University of Northern Iowa and Price

Laboratory School

University of Wyoming and The Wyoming

Center for Teaching and Learning at Laramie

Bellevue School District

Bellevue, WA

Jefferson County Public Schools

Jefferson County, KY

Monterey Model Technology Schools

Monterey, CA

Manzita Elementary School

Martin Luther King Middle School

Monterey High School

Ord Terrace Elementary School

The Texas Education Agency

Austin, TX

Video Sites

Central Kitsap School District

Silverdale, WA

Brownsville Elementary School

Emerald Heights Elementary School

Olympic High School

Ridgetop Junior High School

George Mason University

Alexandria, VA

| 279
280 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Lockwood Elementary School

Billings, MT

The Options School, Capital Children’s

Museum

Washington, DC

Piscataquis Community High School

Guilford, ME

Shelby County High School

Shelbyville, KY

Webster Elementary School

St. Augustine, FL

Other Sites

Ashlawn Elementary School

Arlington, VA

Carver Educational Services Center

Montgomery County, MD

Challenger Center for Space Science Education

Washington, DC

Jefferson Junior High School

Washington, DC

National Demonstration Laboratory

Washington, DC

Science, Mathematics, and Computer

Science Magnet

Montgomery Blair High School

Silver Spring, MD
Appendix F:

 Contractor

 Reports Prepared

 for This

Assessment

Copies of contractor reports done for this study are available through the National Technical Information

Service, either by mail (U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, 5285

Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161) or by calling NTIS directly at (703) 487-4650.

Ronald E. Anderson, University of Minnesota, “State Technology Activities Related to Teachers,”

November 1994, 100 p., NTIS No. 95-184800.

Henry Jay Becker, University of California at Irvine, “Analysis and Trends of School Use of New

Information Technologies,” March 1994, 93 p., NTIS No. 95-170981.

James Bosco, Western Michigan University, “Schooling and Learning in an Information Society,”

November 1994, 43 p., NTIS No. 95-172227.

Larry Cuban, Stanford University, “Public School Teachers Using Machines in the Next Decade,”

October 1994, 42 p., NTIS No. 95-172243.

Melinda Griffith, “Technology in Schools: Hearing from the Teachers,” October 1993, 94 p.,

NTIS No. 95-170973.

Beverly Hunter and Bruce Goldberg, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., “Learning and Teaching in

2004: The Big Dig,” December 1994, 41 p., NTIS No. 95-171005.

Nancy Kober, “Teachers and Technology: The Federal Role,” May 1994, 136 p., NTIS No.

95-170965

John R. Mergendoller et al., Beryl Buck Institute for Education, “Exemplary Approaches to Training Teachers to Use Technology, Vol. 1,” September 1994, 210 p., NTIS No. 95-170932.

| 281
282 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

John R. Mergendoller et al., Beryl Buck Institute for Education, “Exemplary Approaches to Training Teachers to Use Technology, Vol. 2, Appendices,” September 1994, 135 p., NTIS No.

95-170940.

Margaret Riel, Interlearn, “The Future of Teaching,” January 1994, 31 p., NTIS No. 95-172219.

Center for Technology in Learning, SRI International, “Year 2005: Using Technology to Build

Communities of Understanding,” November 1994, 42 p., NTIS No. 95-172235.

TERC, Cambridge, MA, “Review of Research on Teachers and Telecommunications,” May 1994,

70 p., NTIS No. 95-170957.

Jerry Willis et al., University of Houston, “Information Technology in Teacher Education: Surveys

of the Current Status,” March 1994, 300 p., NTIS No. 95-170999.
ndex

A

AACTE. See American Association of Colleges for

Teacher Education

Acceptance of new technologies theory, 133

Access to technology

colleges of education, 187-189

federal policy and research issues, 29, 31,

121-127

introduction, 90-91

issues, 18-21

state policies, 119-121

summary of key findings, 89-90

technologies currently owned and used by

schools, 9-10, 91-118

ACOT. See Apple Classroom of Tomorrow Teacher

Development Center Project

Administrative duties technology potential, 8, 12, 54

Administrators’ technology training, 153-154

“The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury,” 58-59, 201

Alabama, technology training requirements, 138

America Online

availability in schools, 10

communications potential for teachers, 60, 86,

110, 113

LabNet main screen, 118

American Association of Colleges for Teacher

Education, 171

Appalachian project, 246

Apple Classroom of Tomorrow Teacher Development Center Project, 29, 153-154

Assessment of student learning and technology

potential, 12, 19, 73-75

Association for Teacher Education, 171

AT&T Learning Circles, 60, 113, 117

B

Bank Street College of Education, 237

Bilingual Education Act, 35, 214, 216

Boulder Valley Internet Project, 115

Bureau of Educational Personnel Development, 242

C

Cable television access and use, 10, 17, 89, 105-106

California. See also University of Southern

California

California Technology Project, 180

Educational Telecommunications Network, 44,

233

Los Angeles’ Open Charter School, 69, 76

Los Angeles’ satellite uplink facility, 233

Los Angeles teachers’ continuing education, 16,

83

Monterey Model Technology Schools, 28, 148,

150, 151, 160, 163

San Diego school’s “Microworlds” project, 68

Technology Awareness Days, 149

technology certification requirements, 175

WAN access, 113

California State University, 180

Camcorders, 39, 107

Carnegie Forum

report on education and the economy, 170

Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, 171

Case Western Reserve University, 116

CD-ROM

current access and use, 1, 10, 11, 89, 90, 96, 97

history class use, 67

music instruction, 61

reference works, 59, 65

student-maintained records, 75

Censorship versus students’ right of access to information, 27-28, 46

Center for Technology in Education

survey of accomplished computer-using teachers,

52-53

survey of current use of telecommunications by

teachers, 55-56

Certification for teaching

alternative certification programs, 173

Master Teacher requirements, 83, 143, 173, 178

state requirements, 172-173, 174-175

| 283
284 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

technology and, 175-176

Channel One project, 106

Children’s Television Workshop, 245

Christa McAuliffe Fellowships, 216, 236

Cleveland FreeNet, 116

COEs. See Colleges of education

Colleges of education

barriers to technology use, 18, 187-191

case example for redefining preservice, 182-183

faculty and technology, 189-191

faculty as role models for teacher education

students, 193-194

federal support for teacher education, 42-43,

241-242, 247, 250, 252

K-12 reforms and technology, 179-181

models of change, 191-206

number of, 166

technology preparation, 17-18, 184-185

Colorado

Boulder Valley Internet Project, 115

students’ use of the Internet, 27

Columbia University, 233

Communication. See also Telecommunications

potential benefits of technology, 1, 8, 12, 50,

77-79

Communications Survey of Member Teachers of the

National Education Association, 91

Community-based networks, 115-117

Community support for technology, 162-163

CompuServe, 10, 113, 117

Computer labs in schools, 90, 97, 98

Computer modification for special education

students, 68

Computer networks. See The Internet; Local area

networks; Wide area networks

Computer use

barriers to use by teachers, 19, 130-133

basic skills practice, 90, 103

changing views of best use, 104

current use by students, 101-102

current use by teachers, 102-105

instructional areas of use, 103-105

requirements for effective use, 20

teaching changes survey, 52-53

word processing, 90, 97, 104

Computers

computer age and power inventory, 89, 94-96

a computer for every teacher concept, 71, 72,

152-153

current access, 92-101

distribution, 98-101

number installed in schools, 1, 9, 89, 93

Computers in Education Study, 91, 94

Consortium for School Networking, 113

Copyright and intellectual property issues, 25-26,

44, 46

Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 38, 91, 105,

107

Costs of technology, 21-24, 123-125

Council of Chief State School Officers, 179

CPB. See Corporation for Public Broadcasting

CU-See Me software, 59

Curry School of Education

dean’s role, 193

faculty as role models, 193-194

field experiences, 194-195

lessons learned, 195-196

technology training, 192-193

Virginia Public Education Network and, 17-18,

195

D

Daily tasks of the teacher, potential benefits of

technology, 8, 12, 13, 50, 54, 71-79

Delphi, 113

Department of Agriculture, 214, 218

Department of Commerce. See also Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance

Program

Advanced Technologies Program, 38

educational networking programs, 208

federal policy levers, 38

key programs, 217

Public Telecommunications Facilities Program,

38

technology education programs, 214, 224

telecommunications infrastructure programs, 38,

232-233

Department of Defense, 40, 214, 218

Department of Education. See also Office of Educational Technology

additional sources of support, 218

cost estimate of technology, 21-23

data on teachers’ weekly allocation of time, 71

Director for Educational Technology, 213

educational technology programs, 40, 46, 209,

214, 218, 244, 251

federal policy levers, 36-37

funding for teacher education materials, 201

key programs, 216-217

program coordination, 219, 220, 253

technology-related training programs, 39,

224-230

Department of Energy

Summer Teacher Enhancement workshops, 212,

236-237, 250, 251
Index | 285

technology-related programs, 40, 212, 214, 217,

219, 237, 238

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

245-246

Department of Health and Human Services, 214,

219

Department of Transportation, 214, 219

Desktop publishing, 90, 97

Dialog, 117

Digitizing cameras, 59

Direct broadcast, instructional use, 89

Discovery Channel, 106

Distance learning. See also Star Schools

current access and use, 10, 90, 109-110

Jason Project Curriculum, 236

for student teachers, 186

for students, 88

for teachers, 16, 83

telecommunications infrastructure, 232-233

District of Columbia, technology training

requirements, 138

DOE. See Department of Energy

Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development

program. See Eisenhower Professional Development program

E

E-mail. See Electronic mail

Earth Lab project, 232

EcoNet, 110

ED. See Department of Education

Edison Project School Design, 79

Education for Economic Security Act, 224

Education of the Handicapped Act, 243

Education Professions Development Act, 239,

241-242

Educational database access by telecommunications,

55

Educational Research Information Center, 55

Educational Technology Initiative, 136

Eisenhower Clearinghouse for Mathematics and

Science Education, 77, 250

Eisenhower National Program, 215, 216, 236, 238

Eisenhower Professional Development program, 35,

42, 208, 209, 212, 215, 224-226, 235

Electronic mail

availability in schools, 9-10

classroom use, 90

general population use, 4

student-to-student, 57

teacher-to-teacher, 57

teachers’ potential uses, 12, 78-79

Electronic searches

CD-ROM reference works, 59

telecommunications use, 59

Elementary and Secondary Education Act

amendments, 34-35

Title I programs, 35, 214, 216, 227-228, 244-245

Title II programs, 224-225. See also Eisenhower

Professional Development program

Title III programs, 6, 208, 212, 216, 220,

222-223, 244. See also Star Schools

Title VI programs, 228-229

Emergency School Aid Act, 245

Environmental Protection Agency, 217

EPDA. See Education Professions Development Act

Equality of education, technology potential, 60

ERIC. See Educational Research Information Center

ESEA. See Elementary and Secondary Education

Act

F

Facsimile machines

in classrooms, 78

in schools, 39, 90, 108

Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, 27

Fax machines. See Facsimile machines

Federal grant programs. See specific programs by

name

Federal role in technology and teacher development

background, 209, 212

current support and commitment, 42, 212-220

educational research and development, 39-41

historical precedents for technology-related professional development, 32-33, 239-246

introduction, 208-209

key current programs for technology-related

teacher development, 216-217

key issues for future federal policies, 34, 47,

250-254

leadership, 31-46, 220-224

legislation, 36-38

lessons from the past, 246-250

magnification of impact of federal support, 239

major technology-related training programs,

224-234

past major federal programs, 210-211

policy levers, 36-38

summary of federal emphasis in technologyrelated training services and activities, 234-239

summary of key findings, 207

support for professional development, 2-3, 29,

42, 45, 235-238, 246-250

Fellowships and scholarships, 212, 241-242

FERPA. See Family Education Rights and Privacy

Act

FIE. See Fund for Innovation in Education

Florida. See also University of Central Florida
286 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

FIRN network, 114, 176

implementation process, 163

internal networks in schools, 78

model technology school, 146

preservice technology training, 180

School Year 2000 Initiative, 74

technology certification requirements, 176

technology training policy, 28, 137

Florida State University Center for Educational

Technology, 74

FreeNets, 116

Fund for Innovation in Education, 215

Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary

Education, 42, 201, 236

G

Geological Information Service database, 237

George Washington University, cable television

teacher education program, 17

Georgia

ClassConnect project, 88

telecommunications for schools, 44

Gifted and Talented Education program. See Javits

Gifted and Talented Education program

Global Exchange project, 66

Global information infrastructure, 43-46

Global Laboratory Project, 61, 62-64, 113, 232

Global Schoolhouse project, 59

GLOBE Program, 219

Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 3, 6, 31, 32-33,

119, 208, 209, 216, 220, 221, 253

Goals articulation, 142

H

Hawaii’s Global Lab participation, 62

Higher Education Act, 212, 241

Holmes Group, 171

HyperCard software

Lifestyle Change Project, 153

“Microworlds” projects, 68

music instruction, 61

programming, 70

social studies class, 65

in teacher education, 202

Hypermedia software, 107. See also HyperCard

software

I

IBM’s Teacher Preparation with Technology Grant

Program, 188-189, 193

Idaho, technology certification requirements, 176

IDEA. See Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act

IEA. See International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement

Implementation

case examples, 28-29

a computer for every teacher, 152-153

conclusions, 163

establishing technology resource centers,

154-155

lessons, 30

model technology schools, 148-151

overview, 144-145

technology resource personnel, 146-148

training administrators, 153-154

training the trainers, 145-146

Implementation issues

access, 155

case example, 156-157

human resources, 158-159

instructional vision, 158

sustainability, 158

Improving America’s Schools Act, 3, 6, 34-35, 209,

219, 220, 223, 224

Indiana

“A Computer for Every Teacher” project, 29, 71,

72, 152

Ideanet, 114

Intelnet, 114

Principals’ Technology Leadership Training

Program, 154

productivity software, 75

Individualized student learning, 66-69

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 35, 214,

216, 218, 229-230, 243

Information services. See Online services

Inservice training. See also Professional

development

administrative and community support, 162-163

availability, 1-2, 41-43, 135-137

barriers to technology use, 19, 130-133

federal funding for librarians, 241

federal role, 45, 208, 209

hands-on training, 159

incentives, 162

introduction, 130

nature of training, 137-138

onsite support and assistance, 25, 139-141

potential applications, 8, 12, 16, 79-81, 134-135

redefining, 159, 161

state requirements and resources, 138

summary of findings, 129-130

systemic factors influencing technology use,

141-144

technical and pedagogical assistance, 161-162

time requirements, 19, 24-25, 41, 131, 137
Index | 287

Instruction with the aid of technology in the

classroom

development of new forms, 61-65

effectiveness assessment, 14, 19, 20, 126-127,

142-144, 249-250

individualized student learning, 66-69

methods of teaching with and about technology,

185-186

motivating learners, 65-66

potential benefits of technology, 8, 12, 57-71

redefining teachers’ roles, 69-70

INTASC. See Interstate New Teachers Assessment

and Support Consortium

Integrated Services Digital Network, 110

Integration of technology into the curriculum, 2,

130, 134, 142-144, 158, 189, 234-237

Interactive compressed video, 196-197

International Association for the Evaluation of

Educational Attainment

study, 91, 94, 102, 103, 109, 117

International Poetry Guild, 60-61

International Society for Technology in Education

accreditation guidelines, 176, 177, 179

Internet

access by schools, 1, 9-10, 110

description, 112

Edison Project School Design, 79

equality of education potential, 60

student use and limitations, 27-28

weather data, 66

Interstate New Teachers Assessment and Support

Consortium, 179

Investing in technology. See also Costs

human resources issues, 158-159

instructional vision, 158

key issues, 155, 158

sustainability, 158

Iowa. See also University of Northern Iowa

electronic music keyboards project, 236

Iowa Communications Network, 198

network courses for teachers, 16

Iowa Test of Basic Skills, 143

ISDN. See Integrated Services Digital Network

ISTE. See International Society for Technology in

Education

J

Javits Gifted and Talented Education program, 235,

236

K

K-III Communications Channel One project, 106

Kansas, technology certification requirements, 175

Kentucky

history class project, 67

Jefferson County technology resource personnel,

147, 149

master plan for education technology, 123

multimedia lessons, 64-65, 236

New Kid in School Project, 145-146

teacher’s use of online services, 86

Kid Link, 60

Kids as Global Scientists, 61

Kids Network. See National Geographic Society’s

Kids Network

L

LAN-Internet with video, 111, 113-114

LAN-Internet without video, 110-111

LANs. See Local area networks

Laptop computers, 97

Learning Channel, 106

Legislation. See also specific legislation by name

major federal legislation for enhancing technology and professional development, 36-38

Lesson planning

teachers’ time, 41, 71

technology role, 54, 75-77, 235

Libraries. See also School media centers

electronic catalog searches, 59, 76

federal support programs, 223

personnel training in the technologies, 241

Library Personnel Development program, 216

“Listservs,” 60

Local area networks

case examples, 78-79

current access and use, 9-10, 55, 89, 96

description, 112

percent of schools restricting LANs to one room,

55

Location of technology equipment within schools,

20, 90, 97-98

Louisiana

Summer Teacher Enhancement Program, 237

technology resource center, 154

M

Maine, policy on technology access and use, 119

Maryland

interactive computer and video system for

teachers, 228-229

Montgomery County social studies class, 64, 65

Master Teacher certification requirements, 83, 143,

173, 178

Mathematics instruction

Algebra Tutor, 68

computer applications, 16, 90, 97

electronic catalog of instructional plans, 77
288 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

federally funded teacher training, 209, 214

Mathline for teachers’ professional development,

16, 84-85

Star Schools telecourse for teachers, 236

technology potential, 58-59, 61

telecommunications demonstration project, 223

video support, 58-59, 201

Media centers. See School media centers

Meetings

meeting scheduling study, 77-78

time savings by effective use of technology, 71

video network, 16

Michigan

school media specialist role, 236

technology certification requirements, 175

Weather Underground project, 61

Middlebury College, 87

MIDI. See Musical instrument digital interface

Minnesota’s math and science studies using

technology, 237

Minority students’ technology access and use,

99-100

Minority teacher recruitment programs, 212

Mississippi

professional development, 81

technology training requirements, 138

Model technology schools, 145, 148-151

Modem access and use, 9, 89, 108-109, 110

Montana

METNET network, 114, 138, 233

technology training requirements, 138

telephones in classrooms project, 78

Monterey Model Technology Schools, 148, 150,

151, 160, 163

Motivating effects of technology, 14, 50, 65-66

Multimedia

current access and use, 92

lesson development by teachers, 64-65, 159, 235,

236

reports by students, 11, 64

Music, technology potential, 61, 236

Musical instrument digital interface, 61

N

NASA. See National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASDTEC. See National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification

A Nation at Risk, 170

A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century,

171

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Aerospace Education program, 212

Spacelink, 113

technology-related programs, 214, 218

National Association of State Directors of Teacher

Education and Certification, 178, 179

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards,

83, 143, 170, 173, 178

National Center on Educational Materials and

Media for the Handicapped, 245

National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education, 225

National Commission on Teaching and America’s

Future, 170, 173, 177-178

National Commission on Time and Learning, 81,

131

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher

Education, 170, 173, 176, 179

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 58,

84, 232

National Defense Education Act, 209, 240-241

National Diffusion Network, 230

National Education Association communications

survey, 91, 117

National Education Goals, 42

National Education Standards and Improvement

Council, 33-34

National Endowment for Childrens’s Educational

Television, 217, 234

National Endowment for the Arts, 214, 219, 234

National Endowment for the Humanities, 214, 219

National Geographic Society’s Kids Network, 41,

61, 69, 117

National Information Infrastructure, 208, 223-224,

232-233

National Science Foundation

Applications of Advanced Technologies program,

38, 231-232

Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation, 231

educational networking programs, 41, 208

educational technology development, 243-245

funding for teacher education, 193, 201

funding for technology applications, 40, 61

Global Laboratory Project, 61, 62-64, 232

key programs, 217, 218

networking infrastructure for education project,

38, 232

Teacher Enhancement program, 29, 38, 212, 217,

230-231, 237, 238

teacher preparation, 38

teacher institutes, 209, 240

technology-related training programs, 224

National Science Teachers Association, 232

National Study of School Uses of Television and

Video, 91

National Teacher Corps. See Teacher Corps program
Index | 289

National Technical Information Administration, 40

National Technology Plan, 31-32, 222

National Telecommunications and Information

Administration, 232

National Writing Project, 218, 234

NBPTS. See National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

NCATE. See National Council for the Accreditation

of Teacher Education

NCTM. See National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics

NDEA. See National Defense Education Act

NDN. See National Diffusion Network

NEA. See National Education Association

NESIC. See National Education Standards and Improvement Council

New Hampshire, student-computer ratio, 99

New Jersey

NJLink network, 114-115, 232

state planning for technology, 156-157

technology certification requirements, 175

New teacher preparation. See Preservice training

New York

Harlem Economic Empowerment Zone, 233

master plan for education technology, 123-125

meeting scheduling study, 77-78

teacher certification, 173

teachers’ professional development, 84

NII. See National Information Infrastructure

Normal schools, 168

North Carolina’s policy on access and use, 120

NSF. See National Science Foundation

O

Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

213

Office of Educational Technology, 31, 35, 207

Oklahoma

SpecialNet network, 114

teacher certification, 173

Online services

current access and use, 4, 92

description, 112

for professional development, 86

Onsite technology support and assistance

availability, 140-141

for instructional television and video, 141

teachers’ perceptions, 139-140

P

Paul Douglas teacher scholarships, 212

PBS. See Public Broadcasting System

Peabody Integrated Media Approach, 17, 202, 205

Perkins Loan Cancellations, 212

Perkins Vocational Education Basic Grants program,

215, 218

Policy issues, 29-47, 121-127

Potential benefits of technology for teachers

conclusion, 88

daily tasks, 8, 12, 13, 71-79

instruction enhancement, 8, 12, 57-71

introduction, 50-54

job of the teacher, 12, 54-57

professional development, 8, 12, 79-88

Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning, 5,

215

Precollege Teacher Development in Science

Program, 244-245

Preservice training. See also Colleges of education

accreditation of colleges of education, 176-179

certification and licensure, 172-173

current challenges, 2, 41-43, 45, 169

federal funding for librarians, 241

history, 167-169

introduction, 166-167

K-12 reforms, 179-181

models for teacher education, 191

preparing new teachers with technology, 17-18

reform in teacher education, 169-181

state requirements for entrance to teacher education programs, 174-175

summary of key findings, 165-166

technology and certification, 175-176

technology in teacher education, 2, 12, 181-191

technology integration into teacher preparation in

federally funded projects, 236-237

Principals

role of in promoting school technology, 162

technology training for, 153-154

Printers

dot-matrix, 97

laser, 90, 96, 97

Privacy of student records, 26-27, 44, 46

Private sector programs, 40-41, 43

Prodigy, 10, 86, 113, 117

Productivity enhancement

software case example, 74-75

technology potential, 8, 12, 57, 71, 72

Professional development. See also Continuing

education

collegial exchange, 55, 85-88

followup strategies in federally supported

programs, 238

historical precedents, 239-246

key issues for future federal policies, 250-254

lessons from past and present federal efforts,

246-250

roles for technology in federally funded projects,

235, 236-237
290 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

technology potential, 8, 12, 13, 50, 54, 56-57, 71,

72, 79-88

using distance learning, 83, 110

Professional development schools, 171

Public Broadcasting System, 106

Mathline project, 16, 84-85

teachers’ professional development, 84-85

Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, 215,

217, 232

R

Rand Change Agent study, 249

Recordkeeping, potential benefits of technology, 12,

50, 54, 71, 73

Research skills enhancement, technology potential,

12, 59-61

S

Satellite connections

current access and use, 10, 105-106

instructional use, 11, 89

Scanning devices, 59, 68

Scholarships and fellowships, 212

Scholastic Network, 86

School district networks, 115

School media centers, 20, 75-77

Science projects, 61, 62-64. See also Weather

projects

Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary

Skills, 4

Smithsonian Institution, 214

Software Publishers Association, 41

Special education

federal programs, 29, 214, 216, 242-246

goals, 249

network, 114

technology potential, 11, 17, 67-68

Special Educational Instructional Materials Centers,

243

Star Schools, 31, 39, 212, 215, 216-217, 223,

226-227, 236

State-level networks, 110, 114-115, 232

States

certification requirements for teachers, 172

planning example for technology, 156-157

policies on access and use, 119-121

requirements for entrance to teacher education

programs, 174-175

technology training requirements for teachers,

175-176

Stephen F. Austin University, 182

Student-centered instruction, 1, 12, 13, 49, 132

Student computer competency requirements, 119

Student motivation as potential benefit of

technology, 8, 50, 65-66

Student teachers

benefits of electronic mail/conferencing system,

199

distance-learning course, 186

technology and, 186-187

Student-technology ratios, 90, 98-101

Study methodology of potential benefits of technology for teachers, 51-54

Substitute teachers, 28, 160

Summer Teacher Enhancement workshops, 212,

236-237

SuperSubs, 28, 160

T

Teacher-centered instruction, 1, 49

Teacher Corps program, 42, 208, 242, 249

Teacher education. See Inservice training; Preservice training

Teachers. See also Student teachers; Substitute

teachers

current computer access and use, 102-104

distance-learning programs for, 110

factors affecting the demand for new teachers,

166-167

redefinition of role as facilitator, 69-70

timeline of changes in prevailing wisdom of “experts” about how teachers should use computers

in schools, 104

training. See Inservice training; Preservice

training

Technology certification requirements, 175-176

Technology for Education Act, 35, 36, 40, 220-223

Technology resource centers, 154-155

Technology resources

costs, 21-23

current availability in schools, 1, 9-10, 91-118

goals and rationale for use, 24-25

Telecommunications. See also The Internet

access and use data, 9-10, 91, 117

access to information resources via, 25-26,

59-61, 76

barriers to use by teachers, 19, 20, 56

capability, 90

cost estimates, 21-23

current use by teachers, 55-56, 76, 78

legislation, 223-224

potential benefits, 1

software, 117-118

terms and concepts, 112-113

use for student learning, 55-56, 60

Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure

Assistance Program, 232-233
Index | 291

Telephones in classrooms, 1, 9, 39, 77, 90, 108

Television for instructional use, 1, 10, 39, 89, 107,

217, 233-234, 242, 245

Telstar 401 satellite, 84

TENET. See The Texas Education Network

TERC, 41, 62, 113, 117. See also Global Laboratory

Project LabNet workshop, 143

Texas. See also University of Houston

Global Lab participation, 62

One Computer Classroom program, 229

preservice training, 182-183

technology certification requirements, 175

technology resource centers, 154

technology training policy, 137, 180

technology training requirements, 138

TENET, 29, 86, 110-111, 114, 116

Texas Education Agency, 42

The Texas Education Network, 29, 86, 110-111, 114,

116

Textbrowser software, 68

TIIAP. See Telecommunications and Information

Infrastructure Assistance Program

Tomorrow’s Teachers, 171

Training. See Inservice training; Preservice training

Two-way communication equipment. See also Distance learning; Facsimile machines; The Internet;

Local area networks; Modem access and use; Online services; Telecommunications; Telephones in

classrooms; Wide area networks

current access and use, 9, 108-118

importance, 122, 125

TychoTM Teacher Information Manager, 74-75

U

University of Central Florida, 180

University of Houston, 181

University of Kentucky, 246

University of Northern Iowa

Iowa Communications Network and, 198

technology and student teaching, 18, 198-200

University of South Carolina, 17

University of Southern California, 184

University of Utah, 181

University of Virginia

PEN collaboration, 180, 195

School of Education, 192-196. See also Curry

School of Education

University of Washington, 180-181

University of Wyoming

interactive compressed video, 196-197

laboratory schools, 197-198

lessons learned, 198

model schools, 197

teacher education in technology programs, 196

Utah

access and use policy, 119

“Lifestyle Change” Project, 152-153

technology training policy, 136

V

Vanderbilt University

Cognition and Technology Group, 58

constructivist learning base and technology,

201-202

Peabody Integrated Media Approach, 17, 202,

205

teacher education program, 200-201

virtual professional development, 202-204

VCRs. See Videocassette recorders

Vermont

BreadNet, 87

first documented school for teacher training, 168

policy on access and use, 120

technology training requirements, 138

Video-based instructional materials, 10, 58-59

Video cameras, 10, 57

Video conferencing, 59, 110

Video equipment. See also Television for instructional use; Videocassette recorders

current access and use, 10, 105, 107-108

distribution patterns among schools, 99

installed base of computer and video technologies in typical schools in 1991-92, 93

instructional use, 89-90, 107-108

Videocassette recorders

availability in schools, 1, 10, 39, 57

instructional use, 89

teacher-VCR ratio, 105

Videodiscs

current access and use, 10, 89, 90, 92, 105,

106-107

potential for instructional use, 58, 64-65, 159

in teacher education, 202

Videotaped programming

instructional use, 89

Virginia, PEN network, 77, 86, 114, 180, 195. See

also University of Virginia

Vocational Education Basic Grant program, 29

Voice mail, 1, 8, 39, 78, 159

W

WANs. See Wide area networks

Washington. See also University of Washington

Bellevue’s Integrated Technology Classrooms,

150

Belnet, 86-87
292 | Teachers and Technology: Making the Connection

Olympia school district, 70

technology certification requirements, 175

technology training policy, 137

Weather projects

Global Exchange project, 66

Kids as Global Scientists project, 61

technology potential, 11, 59

Weather Underground study project, 61

Weather Underground study project, 61

White House Office of Science and Technology

Committee for Education and Training, 213

Whittle Communications’ Channel One project, 106

Wide area networks

availability in schools, 9-10, 79, 110

description, 112

Wisconsin’s technology certification requirements,

176

Workplace technology competencies, 11, 50

Workshops, 159

World Wide Web, 110, 111, 118

Wyoming. See also University of Wyoming

compressed video network, 16

student-computer ratio, 99

technology certification requirements, 175