Hardware Versus Brainware: Where Are Technology Dollars Being Invested?

The literature suggests that technology is the promise for transforming teaching and learning. However, investment in classroom computers and online capabilities significantly surpasses investment in intellectual capital. The purpose of this study was to identify large regional public school districts' funding patterns for technology, hardware, and professional development. Educators' interest and confidence levels regarding the use of hardware, software and telecommunications were also studied. Results indicated that a discrepancy exits between major capital investments versus intellectual capital. It is suggested that a paradigm shift is required in investment from hardware to brainware. Yet, recalling that the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" routinely believed five impossible things before breakfast, we may pause to ponder whether one of them might be the technology revolution in education. After all, where is it? (Salomon & Perkins, 1996) Recent educational and technological developments are challenging educators to redefine traditional approaches to teaching and learning. In response, virtually all American public schools (97%) have computers in their classrooms, libraries, labs, or media centers (National Center for Education Statistics [NGES], 1999). Increasing numbers of schools are connecting to the Internet or "information superhighway" (Gallo & Horton, 1994). From 1994 to 1998, the Internet access in public schools nearly tripled from 35% to 89% (NCES, 1999). Accordingly, the potential for new partnerships, distance learning programs, global classrooms, and other innovative educational approaches is there for many classroom teachers. The success of each technological classroom will be determined by the computer skills of the teachers (Gallo & Horton, 1994), but the majority of preservice and inservice teachers feel unprepared to teach with computers (Simonson & Thompson, 1990). Although access to millions of state and federal dollars aimed at adding classroom computers and technological infrastructures for online capabilities continues to increase dramatically, investment of time and money for professional development is significantly limited (Ciolli, 2000; NCES, 1999). A paucity of school districts and teacher training programs is offering sufficient coursework to prepare educators to effectively use computers and the Internet to enrich their classroom instruction and contribute to their own professional development (Honey & Henriquez, 1993; Morrison, Lowther & DeMeulle, 1999; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Siegel, 1995). The literature is replete with studies suggesting that computer technologies are the promise to transform teaching and learning (Means, 1994; Office of Technology and Assessment, 1995). However, most of the research on the impact of computer training on teacher preparation has focused on the effects of computer access and usage, and teachers and students' attitudes (Delcourt & Kinzie, 1993; Farenga & Joyce, 1996; Hunt & Bohlin, 1993; Knapp & Glenn, 1996; Morrison et al., 1999; Siegel, 1995). Findings suggest that developing computer skills increases communication and collaboration, improves the quality of lesson plans and classroom instruction, and contributes to positive perceptions regarding the usefulness of the computer as a teaching tool. The purpose of this study was to identify (a) public school districts' funding patterns/profiles for technology software, hardware and professional development, and (b) educators' interest and confidence levels regarding the use of hardware, software and telecommunications. METHODOLOGY Subjects Long Island, New York public school educators were sent mail surveys (n = 4500) that were returned by 1114 respondents (return rate of 25%). A sample of 702 classroom teachers was drawn from the pool of returned surveys. Instrument The Global Assessment of Technology in Education (GATE) was designed to evaluate (a) hardware/software availability, (b) skills/confidence levels, (c) home/school computer capability, (d) professional development interests, and (e) demographics and funding profiles (Joyce & Farenga, 1997). …