:HEH!‘ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled IMPLEMENTING A COMPUTER LITERACY PROGRAM WITHIN TWO INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT presented by Thomas Matthew Kandl Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Teacher Education owfé’k Major professor Date August: 13, 1986 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 , WWW!WNWWWW 93 00633 9018 RETURNING MATERIALS: )VIESI_J Place in book drop to LJBR R1 remove this checkout from ‘55.;;.:E:_ your record. FINES wii] be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beiow. ms 2 2 '991' 74?; 1 1 IMPLEMENTING A COMPUTER LITERACY PROGRAM WITHIN TWO INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT BY Thomas Matthew Kandl Jr. A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1986 $37—$61 E) Copyright by THOMAS MATTHEW KANDL JR. 1986 ABSTRACT IMPLEMENTING A COMPUTER LITERACY PROGRAM WITHIN TWO INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT BY Thomas Matthew Kandl Jr. The processes of defining computer literacy and then developing and implementing a computer literacy program in public schools are topics frequently found in recent educational literature. This study was conducted using a fieldwork methodological approach lasting two years, and resulted in a description of such processes in one school district and with a focus on the implementation process within two intermediate schools in that district. In one of these intermediate schools, the teachers of Mathematics seemed to be the implementation leaders and, in the other intermediate school, teachers of English seemed to take on that role. This investigation was concerned with: how the innovative curriculum processes began; how the computer literacy program was implemented; what differences, if any, existed in the two schools' implementation processes; what teachers did to implement such a program; how teachers learned to implement such a program; and, which aspects of the processes helped or hindered the implementation of the program. The conclusions speak to: the lack of administrative attention given to the implementation/integration process at the classroom level; the human complexities found within schools which tended to encourage/discourage implementation; the capabilities in the use of the computer-as-word-processor by teachers as a smooth transition to adoption and implementation of the program; the program's student objectives not being equally implemented or met, both within a school and across schools; the discounting of teachers as teaching resources for one another; and, the operational difficulties encountered by teachers and administrators in attempting to attend to the Copyright Laws as they pertain to software. To Lynne, Heather, Alison, Gretchen and Mitch, your patience and support made this endeavor possible. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to Dr. William L. Cole, dissertation Chair and Chairman of the doctoral committee, for his continual support, understanding, invaluable assistance and expert guidance throughout this study. Sincere gratitude is also extended to Dr. Frederick Erickson, research advisor, for his continual support, understanding, invaluable assistance and expert guidance throughout this study. Sincere gratitude is also extended to the other members of the doctoral committee, Dr. Benjamin Bohnhorst, and Dr. Castelle Gentry for their support. The author also wishes to express his heartfelt gratitude to Dr. and Mrs. James J. Gallagher for their continual support, understanding and advice throughout this study. A special thanks to Andre K. and Ping G. for their willingness to listen and respond to the author's thoughts during this study. iii CHAPTER I II TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE RATIONALE, PURPOSE, AND RESEARCH METHomIJOGYo O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l I. NeedOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000...0.0.0.000... 1 II 0 ResearCh questions 0 O O O O O O I O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 8 III. Description of the Research.............. 9 IV C SpeCific MethOds O O O O O I O O O I O O O O O O I O I O O O O O O 1 l V. Appropriateness of Field Work............ 13 VI. Changing Questions and Focus............. 17 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.......................... 21 COMPUTER LITEMCY...OOCOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOI.0... 22 IMPLEMENTATION AND INNOVATION RESEARCH......... 33 Innovation Models............................ 34 Havelock's Three Models................... 34 The Research-Development- Diffusion Model........................... 34 Social-Interaction Model.................. 35 Problem-solving Model..................... 35 Innovation-Decision Models................ 36 The Concerns Based Adoption Model............................ 38 Aspects of Study of Innovation............... 39 Characteristics of Innovations............ 40 Characteristics of Educational Systems and Innovative Leadership................................ 41 The Change Process and Barriers to Change........................ 42 iv Fate and Consequences Of InnovationSCOOOOOO00......0.0.0.000...O Results of Implementation Processes .......... Implications for This Research........ ....... III CENTERVILLE: THE CITY, THE SCHOOLS AND THE COMPUTER LITERACY PROGRAM.. ............ The Research Site Description................ The Community............................. The School District....................... The Teachers................ .......... .... The Entq ProceBSOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000...O. Site Selection..... ....... . ............... Gaining EntrYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....O. The Beginning of the Computer Literacy Curriculum Development Process............... The Building Computer Contact Person...’OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0...... The Computer Coordinator and the Teacher-Consultants for Computers.................... ......... ....... The Mathematics-Computer coordinatorOOOO00.0.0000...I.0.00.00.00... Duties of the Coordinator............... The Teacher-Consultants for computerBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00....000.0. Teaching Half-Time......... ....... ...... Responding to 'Calls'................... Providing Inservice for District Staff................... ...... . Publishing of Newsletter and Reference Material...................... Keeping Abreast of New Developments Involving Computers............................... 43 45 46 48 51 51 54 57 59 59 6O 69 81 82 82 85 85 89 89 93 94 96 Hardware/Software Evaluation and Purchasing Involvement.............. 98 Configuring Hardware and Software for Use by Staff...............101 Repair of Hardware and Software................................106 Holding Meetings Among Themselves..............................108 The workShOPSOOOOO0.00.00.00.00...0..0..0.111 1983-84 School Year Workshops...........111 Summer 1984 Workshops...................113 1984-85 School Year Workshops...........115 Summer 1985 Workshops.......... ...... ...117 Word Processing.......................118 PFS File and Report...................121 The Two Schools...........................124 A Note About the District's Course Numbering System.................126 Scheduling the Computer Laboratories for Use........... ........ .126 The English School................ ........ 129 The Administration of The English SChOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.....000000132 The English School Computer Contact Person..........................133 The English School Audio- Visual Technician.......................l33 The Computer Committee..................134 Lab Use by English Teachers in The English School......................137 Seventh-Grade English.................138 Teacher B.............................139 Eighth-Grade English..................143 Journalism............................144 Ninth-Grade English...................144 Teacher G.............................145 vi Lab Use by Math Teachers in The EngliSh SCh°°100000000000000000.00.0147 Thenath SChOOIOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00000152 The Administration of The Hath SChOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ...... 00......154 The Math School Computer Contact Person................. ...... ...155 The Math School Audio- Visual Technician....... ........ . ....... 165 The Computer Committee......... ......... 170 Lab Use by Math Teachers in Themath SChOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.0172 The Math Department........... ........ 174 Seventh- and Eighth-Grade Mathematics...........................175 Ninth-Grade Mathematics...............178 Lab Use by English Teachers in Themath SCh°°100000000000000000 ....... .180 JournalismOOOOOOOOOIOO0.00....0.00.0.0180 The Copyright Laws Conflict........ ...... .183 Multiple Booting in the computer LabOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO0.0.0.183 The District Administration's View......184 The Teachers' View......................186 IV ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGSOIOOOOOOCIOOIO...0.0.0.192 The District's View of Computer Literacy.....194 Defining Computer Literacy................194 Developing Goals and Objectives...........196 Toward a Working Definition of Computer Literacy.........................198 Implementation In The Two Schools ........... .200 Building Leadership During the Implementation Process.. ...... ........200 vii Themath SChOOIOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000...O....200 The EngliSh SChOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.202 The Building Computer Committees........203 Implementation By English Teachers........205 Implementation By Mathematics Teachers....208 Drill-and-Practice Programs.............209 Simulation Programs.....................211 Student Programming.....................212 Differing Teacher-Views of computer useOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000......215 Teacher Sources for Computer Information.00.000.00.000.00.00.00.00.0000217 The Copyright Laws Conflict...............218 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................221 RecommendationSOOOOOO...OOOOOIOOOOOOO0.0....0228 Recommendations for Further Research.........230 Concluding Comments..........................231 APPENDICESOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO...0.0.0.0000000232 BIBLIOGMPHYOOOOOO0.0.0.0....0.0.0.0000...0.0.0236 viii LIST OF TABLES Ta glg 1...................................... .......... 128 Utilization of the Computer Laboratories in Hours for Different Subjects During Two School Years in the Math and English Schools Tablg_g................................................131 Number of Full- and Part-time Teachers in The English School, Giving Part-time Status and Number of Course Sections Taught by Subject Area Table :0...OOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. ........ 139 English Sections Taught in The English School and Amount of Computer Lab Time Scheduled for Each Section 0.0.0.0......OCOOOOOOOOIOCOOOO0.0.0.0...0.0.0....148 Table—4. Math Sections Taught in The English School and Amount of Computer Lab Time Scheduled for Each Section Tablg_§.......................................... ...... 153 Number of Full- and Part-time Teachers in The Math School, Giving Part-time Status and Number of Course Sections Taught by Subject Area ...OCOOOOOOOCOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0000....173 131121 Math Sections Taught in The Math School and Amount of Computer Lab Time Scheduled for Each Section 70.0.00......OOOIOOOOOO0.0.0.000...COO... 13219— English Sections Taught in The Math School and Amount of Computer Lab Time Scheduled for Each Section 0.0.0.00181 ix LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 0.00.0000...00.000.00.00...0.0.0.0000...0...... 20 mm]. Matrix Indicating the Relationship Between Data Sources and Sample Mid-Range Research Questions F 0.0.0.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI...OOOOOOOOOOOO... 67 .mm The Administrative Hierarchy of the Centerville Public School District CHAPTER I RATIONALE, PURPOSE, AND RESEARCH METHODS I. Need The computer is a relatively new technology that pervades much of American society today. Much of this technology, and its possible uses, are little understood by the general public. Well respected future forecasters, such as Toffler (1975), Naisbitt (1982), and Cetron (1985) predict that people who lack the competence to use and understand computer technology may find themselves at or near the bottom of the American social, political, and economic scales in the immediate and long term future. Not only is the computer a new technology itself, but it can create new technology--e1ectronic banking, self-diagnostic/self correcting machines (e.g., automobiles, aircraft, robotics), massive data storage and retrieval. Criminal mis-use of this new technology (such as in electronic theft of bank funds or stocks and commodities, or electronic prying into classified data banks) is seen as a potentially great threat 1 2 to our social, political, and economic system. Life in modern America has been profoundly altered by this technological change and its importance in our society seems destined to increase. Robotics are replacing manpower along the industrial age's assembly lines and as a result new, more highly skilled jobs are being created in the robotics research, design, development and maintenance fields. In medicine, physicians are able to receive diagnostic and treatment assistance for their patients via computer links to disease control centers. Without leaving their homes, consumers can now purchase, via computer links, most anything from Godiva chocolates to automobiles. Consumers, using computer links, can manage their financial resources, pay bills, shift monies among accounts, obtain loans and credit, and make airlines or restaurant reservations without leaving their homes. Attorneys can search through an electronic database, which contains an entire legal library, in order to receive almost instantaneous information about cases, judgments and appeals. Though these are exciting and appealing realities for some, many Americans are less secure with these realities and pose questions such as: What happens to workers displaced by robotics?; How can people be certain of receiving the best medical treatment available?; Who will benefit from electronic shopping, and how?; Are individuals' financial 3 resources secure from electronic theft?; Will the balance of justice be tipped too far by lawyers with database access? Answers to these questions pose even more questions, and, almost daily, the list of questions grows. It is certain that a knowledgeable public will be more able to deal effectively with both the technological progress and its resultant problems. Many of the insecurities felt by the population result from a lack of understanding, and feelings of loss of control over their present and futures. Educating people to understand, control, and use computers is clearly a key national need if America is to maintain preeminence and if none of its citizens is to be disenfranchised from full participation in our national life (Luehrmann, 1983, p. 24). Public schools in the U.S. are being confronted by pressures, both from within and without, aimed at increasing the effectiveness with which they prepare the youth of today to meet the challenges of the future. One of these future challenges involves the increasing use of, and the resulting reliance upon, computers in our technologically advancing society. As a result of increased use of computers in society, coupled with an increased awareness (whether 'perceived' or 'real') of a coming "information society," the American public is exerting a pressure on public schooling not unlike the pressures put forth during the post-Sputnik era which placed emphasis on science and 4 mathematics. Today the concern is with the acquisition of computer literacy, and many schools are beginning to develop new curricula, and/or modify existing curricula, toward that end. For many educators today, the process of determining what makes someone computer literate, then creating a curriculum which will create computer literates, and finally successfully implementing this curriculum, is both an exciting challenge and a serious problem. While, generally, the process of curriculum work is iterative (e.g., examining new teaching methods, trying different content order), the subject matter or content remains relatively static. The subject matter found in today's mathematics classes is relatively the same as it was a half-dozen years ago. This is not true of computer technology, yet the creation and successful implementation of a computer literacy curriculum seem dependent upon the development of a successful working definition of computer literacy--a definition which concerns a field that seems to be in a constant state of flux. The term 'computer literacy' is commonly found in much of the current practitioner-oriented literature in the field of education. Computer literacy is frequently seen in print or heard in verbal communication, but it may not hold the same meaning to all individuals. There seems to be much of the same confusion in the interpretation of computer literacy 5 today as there was in the interpretation of 'modern math' in the 1960's and '70's (Simon, 1983; Anderson, 1980). Often the term 'computer literacy' is used as a pointedly significant, yet frequently undefined term, by authors whose aim is to lend curricular assistance to the classroom use of the microcomputer (Abruscato, 1986; Mehan, 1985). Other authors lend their own defining attributes to computer literacy in an attempt to expedite their messages toward practice in the classroom. In the former instance, the readers are left either to research and find, or formulate on their own, the meaning of the term, and frequently they will turn to articles authored by others. If more than one author is read, the likelihood of multiple definitions, perhaps even to the point of reader dissonance, is great. Not only is there presently a lack of agreement on needs and goals but many use the term 'computer literacy' differently. The underlying issues are more significant than semantic confusion (Anderson, 1980, p. 112). Direction toward defining computer literacy emanates from federal, state, and local governmental authorities; from the private business sector; from state and national professional education associations; from state and local boards of education; from subject-matter-specific teacher organizations; from colleges of education; from local groups such as Parent-Teacher Organizations: from computer hardware and software manufacturers and marketers; from the various 6 media forms: from individual parents and teachers; and from the public school students themselves. This direction, aimed at school improvement but emanating from these diffuse sources, can result in mixed-messages being received and practiced by both administrators and teachers in the public schools, and by those who educate them in universities. It is not uncommon to think ...that schools can best be improved by re- examining the nature of teaching, by emphasizing and building on the uniqueness and diversity of teachers, and by appreciating the culture frgm yhigh and in which teaching and learning occur (Hopkins & Wideen, 1984, p. 1). With the introduction of the microcomputer into the classroom it is likely that this culture and social organization has undergone, and is undergoing change. The magnitude of this change will undoubtedly reflect, in part, the perceptions of those individuals who contribute to this 'culture.' These perceptions include a personal 'vision' concerning the future of the computer and the role it will play in the lives of those individuals contained in this culture and social organization. This visionary perception is a determinant for one's conception of computer literacy, or how one might view the use of computers in an educational setting as a form of preparation for the future. Within this social organization called 'school,‘ there exist formal curricular experiences common for all students (e.g., 7 certain proficiencies in the English language, in mathematics, in science, in civics, in health and physical education). There are definite curricular differences with respect to depth of subject matter in many areas, depending upon the group or 'track', in which a student is placed. Nevertheless, these common experiences are designed to ready the student body for meaningful participation in our democratic society. One of the more recently added 'common experiences' found within many public schools are programs which nurture computer literacy. Many schools are attempting to make their students proficient in the area of computers in one way or another. It would, therefore, be useful to examine this school culture and social organizations...its systems and subsystems...to describe the intended outcomes, the actual programs, school staff competence and intentions, and students' achievements in the domain of computer literacy. Also it would be useful to determine which individuals (i.e., teachers, students, administrators, parents) have the most pronounced effect upon the classroom milieu with respect to how the concept of computer literacy is effected. II. Research Questions The purpose of this research was to examine how school administrators, teachers and students plan for, and work with, this new technology. The broad question which this study proposed to answer was: "How does a school system define, develop, and implement a computer literacy program?" In order to provide organization to the conceptual framework of a study of this type, the following guiding questions were used to begin this investigation (although it should be noted that as the study progressed the questions changed somewhat, as did the figure-ground relationships among them): 1. What is the literal (intended) curriculum regarding computer literacy? 2. What is the implemented curriculum regarding computer literacy? 3. What is the perceived curriculum regarding computer literacy? The broad question was addressed in terms of many component questions, several examples of which are listed below: 1. What are the processes involved in arriving at a definition of computer literacy and developing a curriculum to teach computer literacy? 2. How pervasive is the commitment (among any of the following: students, teachers, administrators, parents, etc.) to a shared definition of computer literacy and its resulting curriculum? 3. What are the intended outcomes of a computer literacy curriculum? 4. Who is responsible for implementing the curriculum, and how is this decision reached? 5. Is there explicit agreement on method used and content covered in teaching computer literacy? 6. How do students engage in computer literacy courses? What is the activity structure of the classroom? 7. Are all students served equitably with respect to computer literacy? III. Description of the Research The approach was ethnographic. That is, the researcher applied the techniques of an anthropologist using a school district as the social system and culture under study. The investigation began with a review of the district's formal documents which exist as written policies regarding the teaching of computer literacy. As part of the entry process, the researcher interviewed some of the school officials, such as the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Computer Coordinator, and the Teacher Consultants for Computers, in order to develop both a sense of history and of current practices. Most of the data were gathered using participant observation techniques. To achieve this, the researcher became a regular visitor within the schools, 10 observing classes, entering into discussions with teachers and students, attending meetings, assisting in computer laboratory sessions, talking with teachers in the faculty lounge, and using any other approaches that seemed appropriate to acquiring information about actions, values, and belief systems which might affect the computer literacy program in this district. Initial interviews of those cited above began in early April 1985, shortly after permission to study within the district had been obtained. The district administration supported the study and showed considerable interest in the potential findings which were shared with them periodically throughout the study. Interviews with administrators, coordinators, consultants, faculty and staff; review of documents; and participant observation in classrooms, in computer laboratories, and during meetings, which were begun in April 1985, continued through June 1986. Since the researcher's professional background was primarily in secondary education, his initial focus was concerned with the intermediate schools (grades 7-9) and the high schools (grades 10-12) in the district. Shortly after the research commenced, focus concentrated on the two intermediate schools. The seeds of the computer literacy curriculum implementation seem to have emanated from different subject areas within these schools, with the English Department 11 leading the way in one school and the Mathematics Department leading the way in the other. The two schools are referred to, by the researcher, as The English School and The Math School. These two schools each have a computer laboratory set aside for general use by any teacher in the building who wished to reserve this space by filling out a scheduling sheet. The data found in these scheduling sheets provided a resource for determining teacher use and non-use of computers. IV. Specific Methods The following methods of inquiry were used in this study in order to establish data sources: 1. Review of official sehool documents containing minutes of meetings, or concerned with policies, programs, requirements, etc. that were available through the Superintendent, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Computer Coordinator, and Principals. These documents provided important information about the stated purposes and procedures in the District. They also provided a sense of history concerning the program, and an important framework for seeking and interpreting data 12 by other means. 2. Interyiews of teechers, administrators, and students. These provided data to help answer questions that could not be answered in other ways. Interviews were also used to make contact with people who might not have been approachable in less formal ways. Interviews were conducted later in the study and were used to help fill in details and clarify questions, especially those regarding institutional norms and statuses, which were raised through document review and participant observation. 3. Peggieipant observation was a major vehicle for data collection. The researcher observed classes and laboratory situations, talked with teachers during free time, participated with teachers and students in laboratory situations, attended meetings, and, generally, became a temporary member of the school culture. In this way, data was assembled on an array of incidents that related to the questions which comprised the study. 4. s 0 an was another important source of data. A rapport was established between the researcher and many people engaged in the computer literacy program, and he was able to talk freely and easily about a wide range of topics with these individuals. Frequently these individuals were very open about their own views and were willing to share ideas about the history and present status of the school and its programs. 5. Anelyeie ef compete; laboretory use yielded some empirical data which was used in answering questions such as #2 (commitment to curriculum). #4 (who implements the curriculum), and #7 (which students were being served). Throughout the study it was necessary to make careful field notes and to use the data therein to guide the subsequent search for information. Thus, the study may be affected in 13 its scope and method by the data collected and the interpretations that are made from them. V. Appropriateness of Field Work A review of the literature established that no studies concerning the development and implementation of a computer literacy curriculum have been conducted using fieldwork as an approach. Because of the heavy emphasis on hypothesis testing and quantification that characterizes much educational research, many researchers have eschewed fieldwork as 'pre-scientific' in favor of the more empirical statistical studies. As recently as the early 1970's, fieldwork studies were routinely rejected by major research- funding organizations because they did not conform to the statistical paradigm. The studies of science, mathematics, and social studies programs in eleven districts, reported by Stake and Easeley (1978) represent one of the best known attempts at employing fieldwork in studying school culture. Though these studies provide a useful description of the state-of-the-art in these three programs, many critics maintain that the studies suffer from superficiality since too much was studied in too short a time by some observers who were not adequately trained in fieldwork. The studies did, however, legitimize l4 fieldwork as a research technique if only because they received National Science Foundation funding. As a consequence, many research-oriented organizations now accept fieldwork methodology. Generally speaking, the issues which surround the study proposed here require a phenomenological approach. In order to find out how a school system defines, develops and implements a computer literacy program, a researcher must apply the operational rules of phenomenology. That is, the researcher should (I) attend to the phenomena of experience as they appear, (2) describe, do not explain, (3) horizontalize or equalize all phenomena and, (4) seek out structural or invariant features of the phenomena (Ihde, 1979, p. 34-39). Meaningful fieldwork research gives rise to rich case descriptions of complex cognitive and social processes representing the perspectives of those studied and linking their experiences to a growing knowledge base about the phenomena of interest (Erickson, 1984). Fieldwork research is hoiistic, studying phenomena in their wider social context; Fieldworkers typically collect Qeseriptive gete from multiple sourees such as direct observation of everyday life, informant self report, naturally-produced written documents, and interview: Fieldworkers begin with initial_breadl_guidins 15 QBQBLiQDS about a particular phenomenon and proceed to subject those questions to data as they are collected; By generating ehogt and lope-rang working hypotheses both during and after fieldwork, researchers are able to refine their questions and modify their accounts of the phenomena of interest: Such hypothesis testing and building of grounded explanations is accomplished by the constant eomparisop e: explenatiops with instances of new de;e and by the cross-checking of inferences across multiple types of data (triangeiation); In framing their descriptive accounts, fieldworkers continuaily seek eisconfigming evidence--instances that do not fit their explanations. Ultimately, they hope to ground their explanations in the behaviors recorded and develop and explanatory model that accounts for all the cases observed; During the ongoing deliberative process of data reduction and analysis, the pegspectives of the researcher end ef the informagts studied are actively sought. In addition to these perspectives, ipsights from various reieyene literaturee are applied to the data as 'conceptual levers' helping the researcher to view the data in new and insightful ways and to generate analytic categories (Clark and Florio, 1983). A question treated in Agar (1980, p. 7) and Schatzman and Strauss (1973, p. 134), is: Will another ethnographer, viewing the same setting, produce a similar description of events or will the description be dramatically different? .Agar maintains that in order to avoid this problem, the researcher must make the experiential base of the ethnography very explicit. However, Agar further states that the danger in becoming more explicit is trivialization. The subject was too important to allow choice of methodology 16 to push its scope toward the trivial. Therefore, fieldwork techniques were appropriate since they allowed the researcher to address the richness and complexity which was inherent in the subject. Concerns for verification were not ignored. They were partly resolved by seeking multiple data sources and continually examining data from a poly-morphic perspective (Ihde, 1979). ...the field method is not an exclusive method in the same sense, say, that experimentation is. Field method is more like an umbrella of activity beneath which any technique may be used for gaining the desired information, and for processes of thinking about this information (Schatzmann and Strauss, 1973, p. 14). In this study the major focus was to learn about the processes by which computer literacy programs were conceived and implemented in a school district. This included examination of the values and belief systems of teachers and administrators and their relationship to actions such as information acquisition and interpretation and interactions with students. The researcher attempted to (l) acquire information regarding institutionalized norms and statuses and (2) establish the validity of perceived interpretations of these norms and statuses through study of incidents and histories (Zelditch, 1979, p. 17). To gather this information, Zelditch recommends interviewing informants and participant observation as the most effective and efficient methods. Thus, the proposed methods were appropriate for the specific task. 17 VI. Changing Questions and Focus In the early stages of this type of research, it was difficult and perhaps unwise to limit oneself to the initial research questions such as those listed above. When we consider fieldwork as a process of deliberate inquiry in a setting we can see that the participant observer's conduct of sampling, hypothesis generation, and hypothesis testing go hand in hand. The fieldworker's daily presence in the setting is guided by deliberate decisions about sampling and by intuitive reactions as well. When and where the observer goes, who she talks to and watches, with whom she participates in daily activities more actively and with whom she participates with a more distanced observational stance--all these involve strategic decisions about the nature of the key research questions and working hypotheses of the study (Erickson, 1986, p. 97). Owing perhaps to the researcher's naivete during the formulation of this research, his initial focus was on the development of computer literacy in students. Soon after beginning this research, however, it became evident that the process of implementing the computer literacy curriculum in The English School and The Math School was of more interest and importance to the researcher. Thus, a decision was made to shift the focus of the research to the curriculum implementation process within these two schools. The administration of the school district under study felt that they: had involved a representative sample of 18 administrators, faculty and staff, students, board of education members, and citizens throughout the decision— making process; that they had developed a district definition of computer literacy; that they had developed a set of district student objectives, the satisfaction of which they felt could produce computer literate students; that they had provided the hardware and software necessary to accomplish the student objectives; and, that they had provided faculty and staff training designed to help integrate the computer into the 'main' school curriculum (the computer literacy objectives were to become a part of all curricula, in all subject areas). Why then, were some teachers actively involved in attempting to accomplish the student objectives for computer literacy, and some not? This question led the researcher to some of the theory and research which was concerned with implementation of innovations, and which, hopefully, would provide a cognitive framework that would allow him to more capably seek an answer to it. Thus, in Chapter II the reader will find both a review of the defining characteristics of computer literacy, and a review of implementation and innovation research. As the researcher became more involved in examining the implementation process in the English and Math Schools, the study became teacher-focused. As a result, the guiding 19 questions which the researcher used, shifted in direction. These new questions were: 1. What, in the district's view, were the defining characteristics of computer literacy? What are these characteristics in the teacher view? Who, specifically, were the curricular leaders of The English School and The Math School? How did the teachers in these two schools implement the computer literacy curriculum? Why did the teachers do what they did to implement the computer literacy curriculum? How do teachers learn how to implement a computer literacy curriculum? These questions replaced the sample questions on pages 9 and 10. A matrix in Eige;e_i relates these questions to the data 801111368 0 20 Figure 1 Matrix Indicating the Relationships Between Data Sources and Sample Mid-Range Research Questions 6. 7. 8. 9. MID-RANGE RESEARCH QUESTIONS . Processes involved . Commitment . Intended outcomes . Implementation responsibility . Method/content agreement Student engagement Equitable service of all Teachers' active involvement Teacher interest 10. What teachers do 11. What administration does DATA SOURCES Review of school documents Interviews Participant observation Information Analysis of lab use x x x x x L t CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The task of this chapter is to present the literature that established a theoretical framework for this inquiry. This review of the literature will be presented in two parts: first, the more recent literature on computer iitepaey: and second, the literature related to implementation apd inpovation peseapch. Both parts provided the theoretical background which was used to give direction to the inquiry undertaken for this study. 21 Computer Literacy In 1972, the Conference Board on the Mathematical Sciences concluded that: The average U.S. citizen hasn't the foggiest idea of how computers work and how pervasive their influence actually is. Consequently, he has no idea of what to do when a computer makes a mistake; he has no idea of how to vote on local, state, or national issues involving computers (e.g., the establishment of a national data bank); he is, in short, culturally disadvantaged. It is therefore essential that our educational system be modified in such a way that every student (i.e., every prospective citizen) become acquainted with the nature of computers and the current and potential roles which they play in our society. It is probably too late to do much about adults, but it would be disastrous to neglect the next generation (p. 21). The committee recommended that at least one course in computer literacy be provided at the secondary level, and that course should encompass: the ways computers are used; the impact that these uses have on individuals and society; the capabilities and limitations of computers; and, the concept of algorithm and its application in flowcharting and programming. It was during this time period that the study of computers, and the resultant computer literacy gained, was found almost entirely at the college level Computer literacy was 22 r. 22a largely accomplished through selected study of a computer language (through programming) using a mainframe computer. Indeed, for many students of computers during this era, their first course was a FORTRAN programming course. The academic majors of those college students enrolled in a course of this type were largely in mathematics, science or engineering areas. It is probably not coincidental that the earliest inroads of the study of computer literacy into the public school curriculum were made by teachers of mathematics and science. In 1976, David Moursund described computer literacy for schools as something woven into the curricula of mathematics and whose objectives include general, nontechnical understanding of the capabilities and limitations of computers. The National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (1978) referred to computer literacy as one of its ten basic skill areas: It is important for all citizens to understand what computers can and cannot do. Students should be aware of the many uses of computers in society, such as their use in teaching/learning, financial transactions, and information storage and retrieval. The mystiqpe surrounding computers is disturbing and can put persons with no understanding of computers at a disadvantage. The increasing use of computers by government, industry, and business demands an awareness of computer use and limitations (p. 150). 23 Baker (1982) writes that "Originally computer literacy meant learning about computers through reading and study" (p. 10). She is referring to the period of time, during and after the late 1960's when, because of the lack of hardware, there was little or no 'hands-on' interaction between student and computer. Baker continues "...today the term eomputer iiteracy has broadened its scope to include knewiedge er and experience with computers" (p. 10). Within this new broadened scope she includes experience with Computer Assisted Instruction, programming, entertainment, and futures-awareness concerning computers. Andrew Molnar (1978) described computer literacy as education's next crisis. Three years later, Molnar (1981) reported that the tenet of the computer literacy programs in effect at that time included in their definition of computer literacy: skill in writing algorithms and in programming, knowledge of computer applications in one's own field, and an understanding of computers and their impact on society. Ikapez (1981) deferred to others "to define ereeriy what computer literacy means", but added that the term "...implies knowledge of the capabilities, limitations, applications, and implications of computers" (p. 17) . Morsund (1984-85) wrote that "there is little national agreement about the specific meaning of computer We CC '1: '1 Vi ti F: 24 literacy...” (p. 3). Weizenbaum (1984) conjectured that, for most people, computer literacy means "...the ability to communicate with computers, to operate them and to be able to correctly interpret their output." He interpreted this to mean ”knowing a computer language or two, and probably involving facility with the computer's keyboard" (p. 225). The Minnesota Educational Computer Consortium has described computer literacy as knowledge of hardware and software, competence in programming, knowledge of applications of computers, recognition of the impact of computers upon society, and the development of positive attitudes and values toward computers with the motivation to utilize them. For Watt (1980), computer literacy is a collection of skills, values, and relationships that allow a person to function comfortably as a productive citizen of a computer- oriented society. He stated that there exist four areas of computer literacy: 1. The ability to control and program a computer to achieve a variety of personal, academic, and professional goals; 2. The ability to use a variety of pre-programmed computer applications in personal, academic, and professional contexts; 25 3. The ability to understand the growing economic, social, and psychological impact of computers on individuals, on groups within our society, and on society as a whole; 4. The ability to make use of ideas from the world of computer applications as part of an individual's collection of strategies for information retrieval, communication, and problem solving (p. 4). Diem (1982) described three major issues which must be addressed when speaking about computer literacy: 1. What do people in schools need to know about computers? 2. How does one apply computer technology in educational settings? 3. What will be the impact of technology on society (p. 20)? He indicated that, by addressing these issues, those individuals concerned with defining computer literacy will more easily be able to do so, though he failed to explain any further. Gress (1982) stated that "computer literacy is distinct from computer programming and computer-based education in that it is teaching epppp the computer, as opposed to teaicflt'iing the use of the computer" (p. 46) . For others (Walker, 1983; Noble, 1984; McGhan, 1985), computer literacy is simply the ability to utilize the capabilities °f computers intelligently. 26 In a report of their study of computer literacy and student values, D'Onofrio and Slama (1984) state: Perhaps the most comprehensive view of computer literacy is stated by Anderson, Klaussen, & Johnson (1982). This view of computer literacy emphasizes an understanding of computers that makes an individual capable of evaluating computer applications as well as performing the applications. According to this view, individuals 'should be taught more than simply how to operate or program a machine. They also need to know how computers can be productively used and what the consequences of computerization are' (p. 108). Eisele (1980) identified five broad areas which contribute to <=<>mputer literacy. His approach to computer literacy empmaaasizes practical knowledge of computers and includes skills all individuals must have to function in society. Eisele's five categories include: 1. Computing skills for real-life problem solving; 2. Computing skills for vocational and home use: 3. Ethical attitudes toward producing computer services: 4. Ethical attitudes toward consumption of computer services: 5. A positive attitude toward the role of the computer in society (p. 39). E18ale (1983) reexamined his five categories and compared them to the defining characteristics espoused by other writers concerned with computer literacy. He combined these separate 'lists' and placed the characteristics in Order of frequency of mention, and then constructed a 27 hierarchy of skills which can be used to define a curriculum toward computer literacy. Level I : Awareness/Knowledge Level II : Ability to Use Level III : Appreciation Level IV : Ability to Effect Use By Others Level V : Ability to Create (p. 35). Within each of these skill levels, Eisele included the following topics (gathered from his 'frequency of mention' list): applications/software: programming; role in society: hardware: problem-solving: ethics/values: usage; limitations: and, use in learning. He concluded: ...let us define a curriculum that would foster the five levels of competence... We might introduce each of the topics in the primary grades at Level I, upper elementary at Level II, middle grades at Level III, in high schools at Level IV, and in college at Level V (p. 36). Sclafani, Smith, and Arch (1984), reporting on a Texas school system's computer literacy project, state that the project divided computer literacy into four 'strands': 28 l. Ba§1g_§3111§ which includes problem-solving skills and working with the keyboard: 2. Compgt§;§_a§_tgglg which involves learning about the most relevant societal uses of computers, and introduces the students to word processing and programming: 3. Computers in society which includes a wider range of computer applications in society--such as in business, in law, and in medicine (Ethical issues and employment opportunities are also explored): 4. Future trends speaks to such things as artificial intelligence, interactive video, robotics, telecommunications, and future trends predicting (p. 40). A Content Recommendation from "A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform" (1983) stated: "The teaching of computer science in high school should equip graduates to: (a) understand the computer as an information, computation, and communication device: (b) use the computer in the study of the other Basics and for personal and work-related purposes: and (c) understand the 'world of computers, electronics, and related technologies" (p. 23). Baird (1984) maintained that "a clear working definition Should always precede use of the phrase 'computer literacy'. If 'computer literacy' exists at all, then its acquisition, like that of reading literacy, is a process-- :not.an event” (p. 12). 'Process' implies 'time', thus, computer literacy probably will not be attained in a 29 semester--or a year--of study. Ernest Boyer (1984) wrote: "Schools should relate computer resources to their educational objectives. All students should learn about computers, learn with them, and, as an ultimate goal, learn from them. The first priority, however, should be educating students about the social importance of technology of which the computer is a part" (p. 39). The foregoing survey of this literature included the thoughts of public school teachers, teacher educators, computer scientists, and educational organizations.Within the body of current literature that speaks of 'computer literacy' there exist common threads: problem-solving, algorithms and programming: general knowledge about computers including its capabilities, limitations, applications, and the ethical constraints which surround its use: information storage and retrieval: and, using software or pre-programmed applications. One major tenet that appears to underlie these thoughts is the notion of an 'information age.‘ This notion can be both intriguing and frightening, simultaneously. Many of those who acknowledge ‘the existence of a 'information age' believe that in order for us to get the most out of life in this 'age,‘ individuals must be computer literate. 30 Hade (1982) spoke of literacy as being both active and passive--the sending and receiving of messages. To be literate, one must be informed and knowledgeable. To be literate, one must be able to analyse data (distinguish the meaningful from the noise) and synthesize information (form concepts)...Being able to read and write may not mean one is functionally literate in an information society... With the explosion of information, the computer has become an essential tool in an information society (p. 8). Today, there exists simply too much information to be handled, stored, and retrieved manually. Hade maintains that the key to productivity in this type society will be (is), not possession of information, but aggg§§_tg information. He predicts= Being computer illiterate means being unable to participate in an information society (p. 10). As the literature suggests repeatedly, hands-on involvement with computers is a necessary component of eventual literacy. For some, this may mean programming in one or more of the computer languages. For others, it may mean word processing or database management--interacting through some form of meaningful software. Implicit in this form of interaction is problem-solving. This may occur in the mathematical or scientific sense, but 'may also be found in the use of that meaningful software. Constructing a filing system, using a word processor or a 3l spreadsheet, or simply trying to utilize any software package can, in itself, be a problem. Another important component of computer literacy is the development of ethical attitudes and moral values concerning computers and computer services (such as data banks or financial services). The impact of computers upon society, presently and in the future, is also a consideration within the scope of computer literacy. Implicit in the defining characteristics of computer literacy is the context within which the process will take place: the public school. With this in mind, Stevenson (1983) cautions: ...The fact that we are rapidly becoming increasingly competent with computers does not justify our making "computer literacy" central to our educational efforts. Our task as teachers is to first return the focus of all education to the welfare of human beings: only then will we clearly understand how to wisely apply this marvelous new gift (p. 25). Perhaps Abruscato (1986) summed it up best: If you gather in a room three experts on computer education, you will get four opinions about what computer literacy is. The definition of computer literacy is the centerpiece of a larger debate about what the role of the computer in education should be. Some say that computer literacy means teaching children and youth how to program a computer. Others tell us that computer literacy means getting knowledge about what computer are, what they can do, and how they can be used (p. 7). 32 He goes on, however, to give his definition of computer literacy as: ...knowledge about computers, skill in using the computer to organize and manage information, and ability to use the computer as a problem solving tool (p. 7). Nobody really needs convincing these days that the computer is an innovation of more than ordinary magnitude, a one-in-several—century innovation and not a one-in-a-century innovation, or one of the instant revolutions that are announced everyday in the papers or on television. It really is an event of major magnitude (Simon, 1983, p. 37). IMPLEMENTATION AND INNOVATION RESEARCH This section examines the literature related to implementation and innovative research. Included is a review of innovation models followed by a discussion of aspects of innovation including: characteristics of innovation: characteristics of educational systems and innovative leadership: the change process and barriers to change: and, fate and consequences of innovations. This is followed by a discussion of research on outcomes of implementation processes. The concluding remarks of this section state the implications of this literature review for the proposed research . 33 34 INNOVATION MODELS Various conceptual approaches have been adopted for describing the process of innovatory change. One broad framework which is commonly used is the theoretical model. Beauchamp (1983) spoke about models as a useful language for explaining curriculum thinking. Models are also useful for describing the processes involved in innovation, and frequently are used prescriptively to assist those involved in bringing about desired changes. Havelock's Three Models Based on analysis of innovation processes in a variety of social environments, Havelock (1971) proposed three models by which it was possible to categorize various innovations. I The ggsgargh-Qevelgpment-Qiffusion Mode; .According to Havelock, innovation processes can be divided into three main stages. In the first stage, Research, the .innovation idea emerges and may take a variety of forms ranging from pure research to specific applied research relevant to the innovation itself. Based on this research, the innovation is developed in the second stage, 35 ngglgpmgnt. This may involve trials in which the innovation product is tested and modified so as to improve the final form of the product. In the third stage, Qiffggign, the innovation product spreads through the system. Diffusion may result from planned dissemination procedures or may occur in other less organized ways. This model is particularly applicable when a central organization is involved in developing ideas or physical products with the express purpose of bringing about changes in communities (e.g., curriculum packages). I; Social-Interaction Model This model focused on the ways information about innovations spread through communities. The key process was social interaction and Havelock suggested that this process effectively described how innovations diffuse through social systems. The emphasis on social interaction rather than other forms of communication was deliberate, implying that the rate at which change is likely to occur depends on the degree and nature of such interaction on a personal basis. Clearly the rate of diffusion would be affected by the structure of social systems and the degree of linkage between different groups in the system. - o v o e This model focused on the search for innovative solutions by the users, in contrast to the ROD model which relates an 36 innovation developed by a central group and diffused from the center outwards. In this Problem-solving model, the locus of activity is close to the user who has more control over the development of the innovation. Havelock characterizes the Problem-solving model as a flow of user processes beginning with a user need, then a problem diagnosis, then a resource search and retrieval, followed by a fabrication of a solution, and finally the application of the solution. Within this process may be found a catalyst such as an external change agent, or an outside process consultant. Innovation-Decision Models Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) used the term 'paradigm' rather than model in their conceptualization of the processes of innovation. They identified decision-making as a crucial part of the overall innovation process, and defined three major types of decision-making in relation to adoption of innovations: optionai decisions, which are made by individuals: collectixs_dsgi§ign§. which members of a social system make by consensus: s , which are forced on individuals by someone in a superordinate position (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971, p. 36). 37 They developed, in detail, models (or paradigms) for each kind of decision-making process, which were perceived as lying on a continuum. With respect to the relative effectiveness of these types of decision-making, they stated: Generally, the fastest rate of adoption of innovations results from authority decisions... In turn, optional decisions can be made more rapidly than the collective type. Although made more rapidly, authority decisions are more likely to be circumvented and may eventually lead to a high rate of discontinuance of the innovation (p. 37). Marsh and Huberman (1984) developed an Authority-Innovation— Decision Model, which was used to describe centrally managed change, as relatively effective. This model assumed that the user was in a subordinate role to those making decisions about innovations. Decision makers were in superordinate roles and it was they who initiated and developed the innovation which was subsequently transmitted down to the ‘users. In the case of curriculum innovations, the teachers and.schools were perceived as being subordinate users, while superintendents and other central administrators acted in super-ordinate roles. Marsh and Huberman suggested four ingredients for successful innovation: administrative advocacy, high prescriptiveness, good administrative 'engineering' of the implementation process, and strong back-up. 38 The notions of 'center-outwards' and 'top-down' have emerged as descriptions for innovation models in which the user is either a passive receiver or in a subordinate role in relation to decision-making. It is, however, important to distinguish between the two notions since the first does not denote explicit power relationships while the second clearly does. The Concerns Based Adoption Model Hall (1979) developed the Concerns Based Adoption Model which focused on the concerns and problems of users of educational innovations. He identified three dimensions of implementation as follows: a s o o . Users are perceived as having major concerns at one or more of seven stages from Awareness to Refocusing. These concerns change as the users become more experienced with the innovation. Lgveis of n g. Individuals move from one level of use to the next in a developmental fashion as they gain experience during the innovative process. There are eight levels of use, from Non-use to Renewal. Inngxatign_§_nfiguretign- The innovation may be implemented in a variety of ways by different users. Depending on the innovation, some configurations may be acceptable variations of the innovation while others may not. {This model was useful in a number of respects. First, its :focus on implementation by users made an important 39 contribution to an understanding of the complex processes involved. Second, it distinguished between affective feelings and attitudes on one hand, and actual behaviors on the other. Finally, it accounted for the fact that innovations are not usually implemented in a single configuration in accordance with the developer's plan, but are modified in practice, sometimes to the point where there is no resemblance to the original innovation. ASPECTS OF STUDY OF INNOVATION Since models of innovation represent attempts to provide theoretical constructs describing the complex processes involved in bringing about planned change, and each is a synthesis of research findings from a wide range of areas and contexts, Miles (1964) proposed the following five aspects for study: Characteristics of innovations: Characteristics of educational systems: Characteristics of innovative persons or groups: The change process: and, The fate and consequences of innovations (pp. 40-43). JFor Miles, these five aspects could be useful as a conceptual framework used to organize thoughts concerning 4O innovative study. Characteristics of Innovations Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) identified those characteristics or attributes which users perceived as being associated with successful adoption of innovations. The attributes were: relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it supercedes. The relative advantage may be increased by the use of incentives for adoption. compeEinility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with: a) sociocultural values and beliefs of clients b) previously introduced ideas c) client needs for the innovation. eenpienifiy is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use. grieieniiiEy is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. eneezyeniiiey is the degree to which the innovation is visible to others (p. 137). 'With the exception of eemnienity, for which few research findings were available, Rogers and Shoemaker found that each of the above attributes were positively related to the rate of adoption of innovations (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971, p. 137). 41 Characteristics of Educational Systems and Innovative Leadership Miles (1964, p.644) claimed that there were three elements of school systems which inhibit change. First, the allocation of energy and resources were mainly directed towards maintenence functions with little remaining for inneyeniye initiatives. Second, the hierarchical structures of school systems acted to discourage the development and spread of innovations among schools. Third, the communication feedback processes tended to reinforce existing practices and attitudes. He stressed the importance of organizational and structural factors within school systems throughout the entire process of innovation. Weick (1976), in describing educational organizations as loosely coupled systems, stated that: ...in the case of an educational organization, it may be the case that the counselor's office is loosely coupled to the principal's office. The image is that the principal and the counselor are somehow attached, but that each retains some identity and separateness and that their attachment may be circumscribed, infrequent, weak in its mutual affect, unimportant, and/or slow to respond...Loose coupling also carries connotations of impermanence, dissolvability, and tacitness all of which are potentially crucial properties of the "glue" that holds organizations together (p. 3). Thus, although innovation may be supported in principle by ‘the organization, certain structures and administrative 42 procedures may act in conflict with the needs of the innovation. The Change Process and Barriers to Change In their review of the research literature, Fullan and Pomfret (1977) indicated that the most comprehensive process-related research was the four-year Rand Change Agent Study (1973-75). In that study, the Rand researchers put forward the notion that educational innovations had to be adapted by the users. Berman, Greenwood, McLaughlin, and Pincus (1975, Vol. V), in their review of research findings of theories of planned change in organizations, concurred. ...these theories do not apply well to public education. The educational system is different from the agricultural system or the health care system... A new curriculum is not like a new lathe or a new variety of wheat because the curriculum is adapted by teachers, students and administrators to fit their need and perceptions (P- 7)- On the basis of their research studies, the Rand Study researchers proposed the concept of ua da at on as a necessary process by which innovations were effectively implemented: We hypothesize that effective implementation requires nutuei adentation between the project as planned and the institutional setting, in which each must adjust to the demands of the other (Berman, et al., 1975, Vol. IV, p. 3). 43 In situations where effective implementation did not occur, they identified three kinds of failure: co-o t t n so as to make the innovation fit traditional patterns: o- orma "implementation": bneakdown (p. 5). Administrators and project directors play key roles in the change process and many studies have focused on the role of these personnel within education systems and individual schools. Berman et a1. (1978) identified school organizational climate and leadership as major influencing factors relating to successful implementation: Three elements of a school's organizational climate powerfully affected the project's implementation and continuation - the quality of the working relationship among teachers, the active support of principals, and the effectiveness of project directors. The importance of the principal to both short- and long-run effects of innovations can hardly be overstated. The principal's unique contribution to implementation lies not in 'how to do it' advice better offered by project directors, but in giving moral support to the staff and in creating an organizational climate that gives the project '1egitimacy' (Vol. VIII, p. viii). Fate and Consequences of Innovations The second phase of the Rand Change Agent Study focused on the final aspect of implementation identified by Miles 44 (1964) in the context of federally funded projects where funding had ceased. Berman et a1. (1978) categorized the paths followed by change agent projects at this stage into four types: disconninuatien either by explicit decision or benign neglect on the part of school administrators: isglateQ_22ntinneti2n where district administrators provided inadequate support but some project personnel integrated the project into their classroom practices: nrgfgrme_cgntinnatign where the district established the project as official policy but teachers did not use it: insiiinfiionelizeg cnanqe where project-related change became part of the standard educational repertoire at both district and classroom levels (Vol. VIII, pp. 19-20). They summed up their findings in relation to the last category type as follows: ...our research suggests that unless district- level staff were committed to the project from the outset, it was usually not possible to mobilize support for the project once it was under way or at the time continuation decisions had to be made. Thus, top-down projects that failed to generate user support were often co-opted during implementation and never did manage to gain teacher commitment: these projects could be mandated as official policy despite only proforma continuation by teachers. Grass-roots projects had the same problem in reverse. Even when they were successfully implemented, these projects typically faced an indifferent district administration that allowed the project to be continued in isolation (Vol.VIII, p. 21). 45 RESULTS OF IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES Steller (1983) maintained that: "Implementation of curriculum plans cannot proceed effectively without monitoring and evaluation" (p.88). There were two different types of outcomes of implementation processes. The first type was egugent Quicomes, which included both the achievement of learning objectives of the innovation and the unintended effects of the implemented curriculum. Partly because of the uncertainties surrounding measurement of student outcomes in circumstances where the nature of the implemented curriculum was problematic (Cronbach, 1975: Berman, 1981), a second type of outcome has been given greater attention in much of the recent research. This outcome-type related to the ways in which the innovative curriculum was implemented in practice and the effects of implementation on the school or school system. The rationale for focusing on the latter type of outcome was that, without a more complete understanding of the modes of implementation and the impact on the school system, the evaluation of student outcomes could be misleading. The second type of outcome received the most emphasis in recent implementation studies. The Rand Change Agent Study :researchers (Berman et al., 1975) used three variables as outcome measures: 46 nezceived success: the relative extent to which project participants believed that goals were achieved. change in behavion: the type and extent of change in teacher and administrator behavior as perceived by participants. figeiiey of inniementation: the extent to which the project was implemented as originally planned (Vol. IV, pp. 3-4). More recently, some researchers (Fullan, 1983: Berman, 1981) have cautioned that, with respect to the two types of outcomes of implementation processes which may be examined, attention must first be paid to those outcomes which relate to the modes of implementation since any analysis of student outcomes which ignores these modes is likely to be misleading. IMPLICATIONS FOR THIS RESEARCH The implications of the literature review for this research were two. First, it provided the researcher with a theoretical framework, within which to better understand and describe the implementation of the computer literacy curriculum in the school district being investigated. Second, though some of the theories attributed to the cited researchers may seem at variance with each other, these non- aligned points of view helped broaden the researcher's 4'7 conceptual framework with regards to this study, by encouraging him to use alternative perspectives in analysis. CHAPTER I I I CENTERVILLE: THE CITY, THE SCHOOLS, AND THE COMPUTER LITERACY PROGRAM The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive overview of the development of a school district's computer literacy curriculum and the implementation of that curriculum in two schools. The chapter is divided into sections, each one describing elements that are important to the development of the analysis in Chapter IV. The names of places and people have been purposely obscured in order that their anonymity be preserved. The researcher has tried to represent the characters, places, and events faithfully. If the researcher have failed to do so, he is solely responsible . The first section is a site description of Centerville: the city, the industry, the population, and the schools in which the research took place. The facts and figures used in this section were obtained from: the Centerville City Hall: the 48 49 Centerville Public School District Administration Office, and: a brochure given to newly arrived residents. The second section describes the researcher's entry process into the public school system of Centerville. Next is a description of the computer literacy curriculum development process that began in 1982 and continues today. Because this process began before the researcher arrived, it was necessary to rely upon information contained in district historical documents and upon the recollection ability of those who were with the project from its beginning. The next section describes the three main persons who are charged with overseeing and assisting in the implementation of the computer literacy curriculum in the schools. One is a district administrator, the Coordinator of Mathematics and Computers, who will be referred to in the text as the 'Coordinator.‘ The other two people are Mark and Fran, who are the district's Teacher Consultants for Computers. Following this, the researcher describes the computer related, teacher inservices or workshops held within the district. These workshops were the main, district sponsored vehicles by which teachers were taught about computers and their school uses. The next three sections of the chapter describe the two schools, within which much of the school research took place. The last section describes an internal ‘conflict which arose in the district because of teacher non- 50 compliance with the Copyright Laws as they pertained to software. 51 THE RESEARCH SITE DESCRIPTION The Community The study was conducted in a community that will be called Centerville in order to maintain its anonymity. While its population cannot be called strictly heterogeneous in composition, Centerville's population includes a mixture of employees of a large research and manufacturing complex (which includes the corporation's U.S. administrative offices), employees of a medium sized research and development operation (which also includes its U.S. corporate offices), factory workers, industrial management people, farmers, and people from many other occupations. Because of the nature of its major industries, Centerville can be characterized as a relatively 'high-tech' community in a largely industrial based state. The large manufacturing complex employs approximately 9,000 jpeople, most of whom live in Centerville. The majority of these 9,000, as well as the majority of the employees of the :medium manufacturing operation are, what might be called, "white collar' workers, that is, employed in corporate management positions, or as scientists, researchers, or as scientific research technicians. Because of the post-high 52 school education required for these occupations, a large number of Centerville's residents have college degrees, many with graduate college degrees. The amount of formal, post- high school education of these workers affects the homogeneity of the population to a certain extent. Centerville, with a population of just under 37,000, has a resident median-age of 29.3 years. This low median age is partly attributed to the upwardly mobile occupations offered by both of Centerville's major industries. A brochure, given to new residents, which lists some facts about Centerville, states: "In 1985 the median per household buying income in Centerville Township (which includes the city of Centerville) was $31,485 as compared to $26,994 for the state and $23,420 for the U.S. This highly spendable income goes mainly to the town's fine shopping areas, as evidenced by the annual retail sales: highest in the state for any county its size. This total exceeds $280,912,000." Homes in the community show considerable diversity. There are many middle class and upper middle class homes, apartment complexes and condominiums in the community. There are also some homes that are very modest. However, the middle and upper middle class homes are more prevalent, and the total assessed valuation of the city of Centerville is over $979, 000, 000. 53 In driving through the community, one is impressed by its well-ordered character. The schools, stores, and shopping centers, though not modern, are attractive and well maintained. The city of Centerville contains some 74 neighborhood parks with a total recreation area of over 3,000 acres. Many private homes are set on large lots and are well landscaped and maintained. All together, the community appears to be a pleasant place to live...in some ways it exceeds the 'great American dream.‘ Experience Circle is a privately financed, cultural and educational center in Centerville that is open to the public. One feature of Experience Circle is the Centerville Center for the Arts, which is a building dedicated to the visual and performing arts. Within it are five auditoriums which seat from 100 to 1500. Galleries and classrooms provide facilities for the Centerville Art Council, Community Concert Series, County Historical Society, Music Society, Symphony Orchestra Society, and the Theatre Guild. Centerville Gardens, a 60 acre horticultural experience open to the public, is another feature of Experience Circle. Also on the Circle is a public library, housing over 180,000 volumes and boasting of the second largest children's book collection in the state. It is designed to be more than just a library with its own little theater, exhibition halls and conference rooms. An internationally known institution specializing in 54 advanced research and education in polymer science and biomedicine is also located on the Circle. In a more remote setting, at the edge of town, is a privately financed nature center. Its well planned and financed museum, using dioramas and artifacts, shows the changes which occurred in the surrounding locale. The nature center includes miles of hiking trails and wildlife sanctuaries, and offers pleasant cross country skiing in the winter months. To an outsider, Centerville seems to be a family oriented community, fairly rich in cultural tastes. It is a community where residents are concerned about raising their children and sending them to good public schools in the hopes that they will go on to good colleges. The School District The public school system of Centerville is comprised of 15 elementary, 3 intermediate, and 2 high schools. A number of the school buildings are 20-30 years old, but all buildings are in excellent repair and their cleanliness and order is readily evident to any visitor. Centerville's schools have a Kindergarten through grade- twelve enrollment of approximately 8850 students. Of these, 55 approximately 4200 are in the elementary schools (grades K- 6), 2300 are in the intermediate schools (grades 7-9), and 2350 in the high schools (grades 10-12). About 70% of the residents of the district have school age children, due in part to the low resident median-age of the population. The residents of Centerville support their school system actively. An Assistant Superintendent in the State Department of Education said that Centerville "has always prided itself on being an excellent school district...the people want a good school system. You have community support and support from a large company. It's obvious that residents are proud of their schools, and it's obvious they have a lot to be proud of." The president of the Board of Education agreed that "the community expects a good deal from its school system. It's a very professional community. There's a disproportionate number of people with higher degrees." The relatively high level of resident education may be a major factor in continuing support. ‘The schools receive very good financial support from their public. The 1983-84 school budget was approximately $29 :nillion. This translates into a $2,968 expenditure per pupil Inrtting them in the top 20 percent in the state in terms of money spent. (The state average was $2,697 in 1983-84.) In 56 1985-86, the school budget approached $31 million. In 1984, the property taxes paid by the city's large corporation alone was approximately $12.5 million, and about $7 million of that went to the Centerville Public School System. This company's involvement in local education extends beyond payment of property taxes, however. The company's manager of communications programs, who works specifically with education affairs for the company, said: "...the company is committed to education...by encouraging employees to run for school boards, suggesting they serve on curriculum committees, and by serving as guest speakers and resource people." For example, "one person goes to a journalism class and helps train the kids in photography, another provides evening hours at a computer lab, and another assists in chemistry classes...The schools belong to the public and business is one of the members of that public...the schools and colleges produce people we hire." The medium-sized company contributed more than $1.8 million in taxes to the school system in 1984. Like the large [company, its employees are also encouraged to be active in iflne schools and they perform similar advisory and adjunct tasks within the school system. In 1985, a summer program called Teachers in Industry was created by these two companies "because teachers need to be exposed to the real world. . .and it gives teachers the opportunity to hear what 57 employers want." Several teachers from the Centerville Public School District participated in that program. The Teachers Approximately 78 percent of the 500-plus teachers in the Centerville school system have Master's Degrees or above, while the state average is about 56 percent per district. The approximate faculty dispersion of the Centerville Public School District is 186 teachers at the elementary level, 144 teachers at the intermediate level, and 160 teachers at the high school level. Each year, four outstanding teachers can receive a cash award of $1500 and a silver trophy through a privately endowed Teacher Proficiency Award Program. Teachers from three adjacent districts, along with those employed by Centerville, are eligible for another annual award which recognizes (outstanding teachers of the humanities. Besides the :recognition, the selected teacher receives a 20 percent :redmction in his/her teaching load and is able to conduct a small seminar-style course in the humanities. 58 The Centerville Public School District seems to pride itself on the fact that it has not had to lay-off any faculty in the past eight years due to declining enrollments or for any other reason. Enrollments have declined, but lay-offs have not occurred. The administration schedules a number of 'part-time' faculty who are utilized in various school buildings. Many of them are actually full-time teachers, but generate their full-time status by teaching daily at more than one school within the district. Thus it is possible to be a part-time faculty member of both school A (teaching three-fifths time), and school B (teaching two-fifths time), and be a full-time teacher in the district. 59 THE ENTRY PROCESS Site Selection Several factors influenced the choice of the Centerville Public School District as the study site. First, it is close to the researcher's home. Limitations in time and fiscal resources made it necessary to choose a nearby district as a study site. Second, the Centerville Public School System enjoys a highly respected reputation in most of the surrounding communities. Third, the Centerville Public School District was currently in the second year of a three year plan designed to implement a computer literacy curriculum. Fourth, Centerville is a community regarded by many as quite a 'high tech' city, within a largely industrial based state. Fifth, the researcher lived outside the Centerville Public School District, and consequently did not have children attending school in that district, nor did he personally know any employees of the Centerville Public School District. For ethical reasons, it would be more appropriate if the researcher selected and studied a district from which he could maintain personal detachment. On the basis of these criteria, Centerville was the first choice, and soon after the selection, the entry process began. ”1 ! k l 60 Prior to this time, the researcher had little first-hand knowledge of the site. A teacher, who is employed by the state supported Intermediate School District (housed in Centerville, but not part of Centerville Public School District) secured for the researcher a copy of the public school system's "Secondary Educational Program: The courses, programs, services, and activities available in grades seven through twelve of the Centerville Public Schools." After scanning this document, the researcher selected the name of the District Director of Curriculum and Instruction as the person to contact first. The researcher thought that this Director might be one of the most knowledgeable about the district's curriculum, and in particular, the computer literacy program. Gaining Entry In early April of 1985, the researcher drove to Centerville, found the District Administration Office building, and inquired about meeting with this Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Dr. Smith. He happened to be in his office on 'this morning, and agreed to speak to the researcher. After .introductions were made and the reason for the visit briefly explained, he stated: "Before you get too carried away, you have to know that. . .iitereiiy. . . NO outside research is 61 carried on in this school system. I want you to understand this up-front...now go ahead...what's on your mind?" When asked why 'no outside research is carried on' in this system, his answer was that "...most researchers, with their pre- and post-testing, take valuable classroom time away from the students and the teachers...we are here, after all, to give the children of Centerville an education. No one, from any college or university has conducted any research in this district...oh...for probably 10 years. The Superintendent and the Board (of Education) support us on this." The researcher then explained his interest in computer literacy, the methodology that he wished to use in the research, and the type of research questions that he had in mind. This seemed to spark an interest in the research for Dr. Smith. Smith explained that "...Centerville is chronologically in the second year of a three year phase-in program, designed to implement computer literacy system-wide. In reality... we are at the early stages of our proposed second year of this phase-in. This is all very interesting ...c'mon, I want you to meet Dr. Jones our Assistant Superintendent." Dr. Smith took the researcher to Dr. Jones' office, introduced him, and he then briefly outlined the research interests for Dr. Jones. Dru iIones also showed interest in the proposed research, but 62 reiterated the district's lack of interest in research involving their schools. Again, interference with instructional time was the reason given. He then asked ”What's in this for us?" The researcher explained that the research could give the system some external feedback concerning their computer literacy program and might provide them with some suggestions. "OK...I've another question for you. Could we take advantage of your expertise in this area and call upon you for some direct assistance?...say, in the classroom...or in working with our consultants?" The researcher replied that, not only could he be called upon, but that he would welcome this type of participation. "Now, you're not going to put this stuff in some expose form are you?...We won't find ourselves on the cover of Time or Newsweek will we?" The researcher replied that, no, this will not be the case. Both Dr. Jones and Dr. Smith then suggested that the researcher speak with the Coordinator of Mathematics and Computers and we left Dr. Jones' office in order to make an appointment with this Coordinator. The next day the researcher met with the Coordinator and explained the proposed research. Dr. Jones had spoken with the Coordinator just prior to this meeting, and Jones gave the Coordinator his (Dr. Jones') approval of the research project. The Coordinator seemed very receptive to the research ideas and suggested that the researcher meet the two half-time Teacher-Consultants for Computers involved with 63 computers. He gave the researcher a copy of the "Centerville Cmmputer Literacy Curriculum Guide" and then spoke briefly about Centerville's computer literacy program. The Coordinator then said that he would "get a letter out to all building principals informing them that you will be 'hanging around the schools'...observing what is being done with computers, and asking for their cooperation." The Coordinator arranged a lunch meeting, two days hence, with the two Teacher-Consultants, him and the researcher. The researcher had suggested that if he could work initially through the consultants, they might be able to 'grease the skids' during his entry into the specific schools, and the Coordinator agreed. The researcher's plan at that time was to obtain a 'feel' for the overall district use of computers in the classroom. During the lunch meeting with the Coordinator and the Teacher Consultants, the researcher outlined the study for them and gave them an overview of his current perspective concerning computer literacy and current investigative concerns. They seemed eager to share information with the researcher and, generally, eager to help with the study. The four of us returned from this meeting to the Coordinator's office and ‘the researcher was given copies of their most recent 'occasional news letters' , and a document entitled "Computer Help Sheets. " The consultants had some work to do, but 64 before they left, we set up a meeting for the next afternoon. They agreed to assist the researcher in gaining his 'feel' for the district beginning then. Before ending this meeting, the Coordinator introduced the researcher to the Personnel Director and she gave the researcher a copy of the "Centerville Public Schools Personnel Assignments - 1984-85" and a street map of Centerville. The researcher met the consultants the next day and briefly discussed how and where the researcher should begin. One of the consultants received a phone call, and she excused herself saying she "had to go to one of the elementary schools." The other consultant took the researcher on a tour of the intermediate schools where he was introduced to the administrators, librarians, and anyone else whom they (the consultant and the building administrators) thought he should meet. Part of the tour of intermediate schools included the computer labs of each building. It was pointed out that the scheduling of the lab was done through the use of a sign-up sheet posted near the doorways. The scheduling was done by the individual teacher who wanted to use the computer lab with his/her students. At one of the intermediate schools, the staff was having a reception for the new Superintendent of Schools (it was later 65 learned that all the schools had already, or would have, a similar reception). The outgoing superintendent, who was retiring after 22 years in the system, was also present. The consultant and the researcher were invited to stop in the library where the reception was being held. The researcher was introduced to both the incoming and outgoing superintendents as "a researcher interested in their computer literacy program." The incoming superintendent welcomed the researcher and said that both he and his wife had been given positive feedback concerning the program from many of the citizens of the community with whom they had been talking. Both superintendents said that they thought the phase-in (of the computer literacy program) "seemed to be going smoothly, with lots of positive feedback." Throughout the tour of the intermediate schools, the consultant introduced the researcher to every staff member with whom we made contact. During many of these introductions, the consultant made a point of indicating 'those staff members who were "gee; computer users." Some of them, it was pointed out, "use computers both in and out of school. . .they have one at home, too!" Two days later, the researcher returned to Centerville to begin visiting the schools on his own. The researcher continued to maintain contact with the Coordinator and the consultants throughout the study, and they continued to be of great assistance. 66 Figure: 67 The Administrative Hierarchy of the Centerville Public School District COMMUNITY BOARD OF EDUCATION l SUPERINTENDENT ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT /\ DISTRICT LEVEL BUILDING LEVEL A 3 DISTRICT DIRECTORS PERSONNEL SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION SCHOOL SERVICES CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION J Jr / BUILDING PRINCI PALS # DISTRICT COORDINATORS ART INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA LANGUAGE ARTS MATH/COMPUTERS/TESTING MUSIC OCCUPATIONAL ED. PHYSICAL ED. READING SCIENCE SOC.STUDIES/CHAPTER I SPECIAL ED. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS ‘4’ TEACHERS SUPPORT STAFF 68 In the interpretation of the administrative hierarchical tree (£ign:e_z), the following description may be helpful: There are eleven Curriculum Coordinators encompassing the following areas: Art, Instructional Media, Language Arts, Math/Computers, Music, Occupational Education, Physical Education, Reading, Science, Social Studies/Chapter I, and Special Education. These eleven coordinators supervise all curricular decisions within their are a of specialty, but are ranked below the level of building principal. The curricular decisions emanate from the director level to the various building principals. Thus, if a coordinator sees a need (for an updated text as an example), the coordinator meets with the teachers who will be involved in using the new text and they collectively agree upon a text selection. This information is then relayed to the appropriate director(s) (in the case of text selection, the Director of Curriculum and Instruction). This information may then be brought to the attention of the assistant superintendent and a District decision is made. The director then informs the building jprincipals of the decision, and the coordinator supervises 'the implementation of the decision. 69 THE BEGINNING OF THE COMPUTER LITERACY CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS It was reported to me that, "prior to 1982, there were, maybe, six to twelve staff members (out of 500+ district-wide staff members) who were independently involved in computing at home...they were the ones who had a computer at home. Nothing was being done with computers in the schools with the exception of a high school FORTRAN programming course, which began in 1977, and served approximately 25 students annually." During the 1981-82 school-year, the Centerville Public Schools (CPS) Curriculum Council met for one of their monthly scheduled meetings. Minutes taken during this meeting state that Dr. Smith, the CPS Director of Curriculum and Instruction and Chairperson of this Council, "directed its (the Council's) attention to the question: What should the Centerville Public Schools be doing in the 1980's to provide the technical know-how to enable our students to live in a computer age?" This concern "focused the informal discussions that had been going on for several years whenever educators got together. " 70 These 'informal discussions' in this district generally involved a few science and mathematics teachers at the secondary level, several building administrators, and several district administrators. At the teacher level, the discussions arose out of a common interest in computers, and infrequently involved administrators as part of the discussion group. When an administrator was involved, (s)he was either a building administrator (principal, vice- principal, or administrative assistant) or the District Mathematics Coordinator. In recent conversations with some of the teacher-members of these early discussions, the recollected content of discussion involved such things as "the Apple v.s. the Franklin hardware controversy", "seeking answers to home programming questions" (a few teachers had computers at home at this time), and "the computer's place in public schooling." When administrators got together and the discussion turned to computers, it was generally sparked by an article from a professional journal read by one of the discussants, or by some conversation engaged in while attending a professional meeting (outside this school system), or resulted because of an administrator's visit to another school system. Generally, the recollected conversation centered about "the question of the computer's place in schools", and "speculating about things such as the numbers of, and cost of, computers if they were to be used in schools." 71 All of the participants in these 'informal discussions' who were interviewed, agreed that specific curriculum questions, and the notion of computer literacy, were given little or no attention at first, but that these topics gradually became more and more a focus for these discussions. As one administrator put it: "A lot of things involving computers in schools were beginning to happen all around us, and we felt we had better start paying attention to what was going on." One of the teachers involved in these early discussions added: "My brother is a principal in a down-state district and they had already begun trying to integrate computers into their curriculum at his middle-school... it was about time for us to begin." "Prior to the summer of 1982", two mathematics teachers interviewed said that they, "...had already begun taking graduate courses involving computer programming." Both said that they "knew it (the computer) was coming eventually and ‘wanted to be prepared for its arrival." They both professed that they were quite excited about the prospect of using computers in the classroom situation. Another mathematics teacher, teaching in a different school, had taken some computer programming courses in college, and left teaching to become a computer programmer for the larger local industry. He returned to the classroom several years 72 later to his present position. He stated that he "left teaching for both money and a change of scenery", but returned to the classroom a couple of years later because he Wmissed the kids, and, since my wife is a teacher, we would have more time together...you can't beat the vacations." In the many talks the researcher had with various teachers who work in the district, he could not identify any teachers from any discipline, other than mathematics, who had been involved with computers prior to the school year beginning in the Fall Of 1983. An outgrowth of the 1981-82 CPS Curriculum Council meetings was the establishment of the CPS Computer Committee. A report from the CPS Computer Committee, given to the Board of Education on May 23, 1983, states that: During the summer of 1982, a Computer Study Committee of 28 persons was appointed. This committee was charged with the responsibility of investigating our future with computers. The membership of the committee, by intent, consisted of a wide range of expertise and a good blend of representatives including students, citizens and staff. The composition of that summer Computer Study Committee included: secondary level teachers of business, science, and mathematics: a high school counselor: a school board member: two high school students: a representative from the community: a representative from the system's purchasing department: a representative from the system's maintenance 73 department: an assistant principal: a media specialist: a school social worker: a principal: an assistant superintendent: five elementary teachers: and the district coordinators of mathematics, science and business. Minutes from this committee's first meeting on Sept. 29, 1982 stated: The task of the committee should be completed by April 1983 for consideration in the 1983-84 budget. Going beyond April '83 would extend the project into the '84-85 school-year. In order to meet the established deadline, the following four sub-committees were formed at this first meeting: 1. Instructional Goals and Objectives--Short-term/ Long-term 2. Software/Hardware 3. School and Classroom Management 4. Budget Considerations--financial resources, machine placement, maintenance, support personnel, inservice. Dr. Smith reported that "each sub-committee member was implicitly charged with the task of gaining as much knowledge about 'computer use in schools' which he or she thought could be linked to his or her sub-committee's over-all task." This knowledge was gained through: visiting other schools which were using computers: reading and discussing journal/magazine articles pertaining to computer use in schools: attending professional meetings, workshops and classes within which 74 school computer use was found: and interacting with anyone who had an interest in 'computer use in schools'. A sub-committee member (sub-committee #1) recalled: "Most of us were so naive when it came to computers...the desire to learn and help was there, but the amount of knowledge that we didn't have was frightening." Another member (sub-committee #3) recalled: "Most of the information concerning classroom management that we could get our hands on, had nothing to say about computers...we had to try to adapt the information to our needs." A committee member recalled: "By the end of the first month, most of us had done a great deal of work in our sub- committees... researching, thinking, and most of all, talking. We had done a lot...but we felt that we had made very little headway." An excerpt from the minutes of the committee meeting held on Oct. 27, 1982 indicated that the consensus was "...implementation of recommendations may very well take 3 to 5 years of committee work." By the next meeting progress was evident. A report given by sub-committee #1 (Instructional Goals and Objectives) contained the following: A. Common Threads 1. Cross all disciplines. B. Goals 1. 75 Meet the needs of all students regardless of ability. K thru 12 rather than any one level. Integrate the program with the present curriculum, i.e., supplement the present program rather than cause wholesale changes. Develop some programmers thru the instructional process and instruct all students in such a way that they become users. Select one computer language rather than 3 or 4 with the idea if you know one language it is relatively easy to learn additional languages. There needs to be some source of computer training for the staff. There needs to be district-wide coordination for the development of the computer program. (Actual title or position would be open to further discussion.) K-3 Goals: Allow all students to become familiar and comfortable with the use of the computer. Instruct all students in the process of following computer commands/instructions. Elementary Grades (4-6) Allow students to perform computer simulations of an instructional nature as an extension of the basic instructional program. 76 3. Intermediate (7-9) Instruct eii students in beginning programming procedures. (It is suggested an integrated unit within a present subject matter area be used to facilitate such instruction.) 4. High School (10-12) High School would be an application emphasis to be used across all disciplines. One committee member reflected on the content of this report: 'tliany of us had no idea that the four sub-committees were so ierterdependent. For example, in the elementary grades (Eirades 4-6) we thought that simulations would be extremely appropriate at this level, but the Hardware/Software sub- <=cnmmittee could find almost nothing in simulation software Programs for this grade level." Another member reflected: "Look at our K-3 Goals. . .GOAL NUMBER ONE. Instruct all §EEDDENI§ in the process of following eempune: eennends end .édnstnncnionsi In retrospect, we should have made goal number <3r1e 'Instruct all innengee in the process of following <3cmmputer commands and instructions.‘ We had no idea how illnportant Common Thread #7 was going to be." 1\‘: this same time, the Hardware/Software sub-committee was c3<>tnducting evaluations of different hardware. They looked at "£lll.different makes of computers...from IBM's, to c=°Inmodore's, to Hewlett-Packard's, to Apple's, to I“3|:‘anklin's." It was decided that the most logical choice, 77 from the standpoints of cost and educational software support, was the Apple computer. They presented their rationale and their decision to the committee, and it was decided to examine the community for a vendor who could supply the selected computers. This examination revealed that Centerville did not have a computer dealership with an Apple franchise, and the school board, district administration, and the committee wished to do business with someone locally. The desire to do business locally was not only to support the local taxpayers who funded the schools, but to help insure nearby technical/repair support in the event of hardware problems. Since the sub-committee had evaluated the Franklin computer, and determined that it was 'Apple compatible', and had found that a local computer store carried it, they decided to make the district's initial purchase the Franklin Ace 1000. (The district's original purchase, for the first year of the three-year phase in process, would total over $300,000.) In January 1983, the Instructional Goals and Objectives sub- committee distributed a brief computer survey to all administrators, teachers and support staff of CPS. A summary report given to the CPS Computer Committee stated: "Based on the survey results... 78 1. The majority of respondents are interested in utilizing computers in their job with the school system. 2. Given the response rate and several responses, not everyone in the system is interested in pursuing computers in education. Therefore, an effort should be made to work with interested parties in the beginning, and avoid full-scale implementation at the onset. 3. The majority of respondents are interested in pursuing relevant inservice in the computer field. 4. Presently, few staff members have access to computers. Investigations, deliberations and committee meetings continued through the Spring of 1983 and on May 23, 1983, a document entitled "The CPS Computer Committee Report to Board of Education" was submitted. The "Preface" of that report began: The prospect for the future may indicate a dramatic change in the way we educate our students. The new technology offers the possibility of truly individualized instruction. Computers in the classroom will be used as: (1) an object of instruction--computer literacy, competency and specialization: (2) a medium of instruction-- computer assisted instruction (CAI), simulations, vocational education, information retrieval, instructional aides in writing and problem solving in all subject areas: (3) a manager of instruction- -record keeper, test scorer, and prescriber of instruction...A first rate curriculum in computer education must include hardware, software, and staff training." Later, in that same Report to the Board of Education, the committee gave their conception of 'computer literacy' and this come 0 This 79 statement formed the basis of the curriculum work to Computer iiperacy shall be attained by all students: computer competency for problem solving shall be attained by most students: and computer specialization shall be attained for those students interested in the computer pep _e. Computer literacy is defined as the possession of a sufficient level of knowledge to understand clearly the principles upon which information is processed by computers and the general capabilities and limitations for computer usage. Computer eonpetency is defined as the ability to select, use, and understand appropriate computer materials and operations. This competency includes the capability to write or develop simple programs. Computer speeiaiizapion is defined as providing the opportunity to develop advanced computer skills of both a theoretical and practical nature. latter passage was also included as the preface in a report generated by the 1983 Computer Summer Study Committee. The product of the 1983 Computer Summer Study Committee was a document, entitled "Microcomputers", which was to be used by the CPS staff as a 'computer literacy' implementation guide. The document began: This Recognizing the increasing impact of computers on the world, the Centerville Public Schools establishes the following objectives for implementation of a K—12 computer program. statement was followed by the aforementioned passage, and the preface concluded with: Integration of these objectives should supplement rather than supplant existing educational programs. This shall provide the opportunity for students of varying abilities and interests to develop their skills in computer usage. 80 These 1983 Objectives, specifically those intended for grades K-3, grades 4-6, and the intermediate grades (7-9), are important to this study and are the current CPS objectives in effect. Their import is based upon the K-12 implementation process employed by the district. Much of the researcher's in-school observation was conducted in two intermediate schools. Though there were specific objectives for grades 7- 9, students in these grades had not been able to accomplish the K-3 or 4-6 objectives because these objectives were not a part of their prior curriculum. Thus, teachers of grades 7-9 had to, first, attempt to have their students accomplish these prior objectives before attempting the latter, 7-9 objectives. ADPQEQ13_A contains a list of the K-3, 4-6, and 7-9 computer literacy objectives for the Centerville Public School District. The document "Microcomputers", also included sections entitled: Proper Use of Diskettes, Notes About the Franklin (the Franklin Ace computer), Tips for Beginning Programmers, a Grade Level Chart for Computer Objectives, a Grade Level Chart for Computer Vocabulary, and Glossary. This document ‘was provided to each teacher in the district, and the aforementioned sections of the document were intended for teacher reference and implementation assistance. 81 The Building Computer Contact Person Toward the end of the 1983 Computer Summer Study Committee meetings, it was decided that the committee designate a 'computer contact person' in each of the schools. At the elementary level, this person was usually the principal, or, if one could be found, a teacher with an interest in computers. At the secondary level, this person was usually a teacher with an interest in computers. The duties of this contact person were, seemingly, few. He or she was to be the liason between the school and the administration (namely, the Coordinator and the two teacher consultants), and any questions or problems that arose in that building which concerned themselves with computers were to be relayed to the administration via this contact person. In October of 1983 the duties of these contact persons began with the arrival of 13 Franklin Ace 1000 computers at each of the intermediate schools. In the two schools where much of the in-school research took place, these contact persons were initially from the mathematics faculty of each school, and both contact persons were interested in computing. 82 THE COMPUTER COORDINATOR AND THE TEACHER-CONSULTANTS FOR COMPUTERS The Mathematics/Computer Coordinator Prior to his arrival at Centerville, the Mathematics/Computer Coordinator had approximately eight years of experience as a classroom teacher of secondary mathematics and computer programming. During this time as a classroom teacher, he completed his Master's degree in Mathematics Education and began his studies leading toward the doctoral degree in Mathematics Education. He was a very active member of both the state mathematics association and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics during this time, and was elected president of the state mathematics association. Though less active than in earlier times, he still holds an office in the state mathematics association. Iiis graduate studies brought him in contact with other mathematics educators who were active in developing and ismplementing mathematics curricular changes in the public schools. He eagerly sought out participation in these developments and was readily accepted as a colleague in these 83 endeavors. He participated in the development and implementation of several state and nationally funded mathematics programs, and was called upon to share in the reporting of these programs to his colleagues at both the state and national levels. It was during this time that he became more involved in the curriculum development and supervision aspects of public schooling, as they related to mathematics education, and less involved in classroom teaching. During a moment of thoughtful recollection he said, "I really miss those days sometimes. We (he and his colleagues) were part of what was happening...making it happen. The people and the times were very stimulating...different things happening all around us. We talked math education, and math research all the time...and now I can't really say I'm as up- to-date with the (mathematics education and research) literature as I once was...nor is it (being the Mathematics Coordinator of the Centerville Public Schools) often stimulating." :He completed the doctoral degree during this time period and soon afterwards accepted the position in Centerville as the IDistrict Coordinator of Mathematics. He began his duties as lflathematics Coordinator with the Centerville Public Schools ix: 1977, and, for the first two years, he taught one high school mathematics course as well. 84 Shortly after accepting this position, the Coordinator was asked if he would be willing to take charge of the administration of the state educational assessment program tests for the district, and the analysis and reporting of the results. He willingly accepted this additional duty and thus became Coordinator of Mathematics and State Assessment Testing for the Centerville Public Schools. In July of 1983, he accepted the additional duties of Coordinator of the Computer Literacy Curriculum for the district. When asked to estimate the amount of his time devoted to each of these three positions he replied that "over 90%" of his time has been devoted to the computer literacy program and that the "bulk of the remaining 10% is spent on the testing...it is state mandated, and I'm in charge." He went on to say that "unfortunately I'm not as involved as I should be with the math program...but, fortunately I have two very good department chairmen at the high schools and they are able to solve most problems at their level...but, the intermediate and elementary curriculums have been let go a bit...I simply don't have the ‘time right now, but they're in need of review...and we will shortly need to update textbooks in those areas." He said ‘thot.he hoped that the computer literacy program stabilized itself in the near future and that he could then devote more time to his other duties. 85 Duties Of The Cempupep Literacy Program Coordinator The Coordinator is involved, almost on a daily basis, with the two half-time Teacher-Consultants for Computers. Many of his duties, with respect to the computer literacy program, parallel the duties of these consultants. (For a description of these parallel duties see the following sub-section, "The Teacher-Consultants for Computers.") The Coordinator's other responsibilities, with respect to the computer literacy program were: Supervising the computer consultants: Supervising and helping write an 'occasional' newsletter (see the following section sub-headed "Publishing of Newsletter and Reference Material"): Making occasional presentations to the Board of Education concerning the computer literacy program's progress: Assisting in the organization of the budget for the district as it pertains to the computer literacy curriculum: Attending computer related conferences and workshops (off-site): and, Scheduling teacher inservices or workshops for the district. The Teacher-Consultants for Computers 'Ehe Coordinator, the district administration, and the Computer Council, during their 1983-84 meetings and deliberations with regard to the computer literacy program, 86 agreed that there was a need for "focused management of the program...particularly, when it came to helping the staff learn about, and use, the computers as part of their curriculum." The Coordinator recalled that "Someone had to help setup computer labs, and initially help with hardware selection, with the purchase of software, and the like. My recommendation was to hire a computer person full-time to take care of these responsibilities, but the (school) board and administration balked at the proposal. In the end, I was given the responsibility, and they agreed to hire two staff members, in a two-year, half-time position in order to help out. This is how Mark and Fran got to be consultants." When asked whether the administration had considered making these positions more permanent, the Coordinator replied that "Yes, there is some thought about that...I'd really like to see it happen...but no decision has been made as yet." The Coordinator explained that when the job of Teacher- Consultants for Computers was posted, he had "about a dozen applications from within the district for the jobs." Being ‘the Coordinator of Mathematics he "had quite a bit of contact (over the years" with Mark on curriculum committees, on 'textbook selection committees, and as a fellow mathematics teacher-colleague. The Coordinator said that he was impressed with Mark as both a teacher and as a contributing 87 member of standing committees to which he belonged. "In my mind, he was the best applicant for the position...someone whom I could really work with, and who could work with others...and that's why he was selected." The Coordinator explained that he "had been a member of a couple of committees that Fran was also a member on, and I was impressed with her quickness...her intelligence...she seemed to be a real go-getter, and I wanted someone like that in the position of computer consultant. We'd have to work closely together, and I felt that she was one who could not only do that, but could work independently and get the job done." Mark and Fran were appointed as Teacher-Consultants for Computers beginning in the Fall of 1984. The researcher's first meeting with the two consultants was during a lunch arranged by the Coordinator. Fran is a Kindergarten teacher in the district. She is in her late twenties, married to an attorney, and is currently finishing up an MBA at a local university. When asked about her MBA studies she said that "While I really like what I'm (doing now (both teaching and being a computer consultant), I've always had an interest in the business world...and going back to school for the Master's was one way to broaden my iJTterests. I think that maybe someday I'll use my degree 88 ...and, who knows, it may even be in education." Fran owns an Apple computer, and uses it "quite often at home...for both school stuff and for my own uses." Mark is an eighth grade mathematics teacher in the district. He is in his early forties, married to a third grade teacher in the district, and has his Master's in mathematics education from a local university. Mark has a Franklin computer at home and uses it "mainly for school related things, but...oh...I explore all kinds of different programs...I even program a bit myself." Mark is also a member of the local Apple User's Club, and gets "lots of tips and programs that I can use both at home and in school" from the Club. During the initial meeting with the consultants, the Coordinator explained the research interests to them and the researcher briefly described the methodology that he hoped to use. The researcher inquired about the kinds of things that these consultants were involved in with respect to the computer literacy program, and they listed: -using computers in their teaching: -setting up software for use by staff: -general troubleshooting of computer problems: -writing manuals for staff: -conducting inservices or workshops for staff: 89 -writing an occasional newsletter for staff: and, -taking part in computer curriculum meetings. Both consultants envision their main consultant function as "doing as much as possible to help ease the transition from non-computer-user teachers to computer-user teachers," and "...to assist staff members with any problems they might have which concern computers and the computer literacy program." Part of the research involved following them from site to 1 site, observing them and what was going on, and the researcher asked them many questions. The researcher occasionally participated in some of the activities that they were involved in. The following is a more detailed description of what they do. Teac n alf-T me Both consultants teach half-time. Both are employed as teachers during the first half of the school day and then work as computer consultants for the district during the second half of the day. u s' Some of what the consultants do is in response to ‘hardware/software problems that have been encountered in the schools, and which are reported to them. In this way, the consultants are 'on call' much like a television-repair person might be considered 'on call' , but the consultants 9O respond to calls only during the afternoons. Staff members who are in need of some help, place a phone call to the Coordinator's office secretary and the message is left in a basket in the Coordinator's office. Each school day, in the early afternoon, the consultants arrive at the Coordinator's office and check the basket for any new messages. If a new message is found they discuss its contents. If they have no more urgent work scheduled for that day, or if the message is of an emergency nature, one or the other elects to respond. Generally, if it is a call from an elementary school, Fran responds: if it is from a secondary school, Mark responds. Sometimes these messages are in a kind of 'cryptic' form, not completely understood by the consultant, and the consultant must first place a return phone call to the person having the trouble in order to clarify the problem or situation. An example of one of these messages requiring a translation is "Mark--call Dave at Plumber School--one of the computers is eating his disks." Mark responded by placing a return phone call in order to attempt a diagnosis of what the problem might be before travelling the four miles to the school site. (The researcher was listening to the conversation on an extension.) Mark: "Dave, are these pm disks or gene disks that are being 'satsn'?" 91 Dave: "They're my data disks...the ones with ALL my student data and grades on them." Mark: "What's the problem with them?" Dave: "THE COMPUTER DESTROYED ALL MY FILES!" Mark: "Did you try running them on another computer?" Dave: "No...why?...should I?" Mark: "Well maybe the data disks are alright...it may be that the computer you're using isn't reading them correctly. Do other program disks work on the computer that ate your data disks?" Dave: "I don't know. I gave up on it for now." Mark: "Do you have backups of your data disks?" Dave: "I did have, but I tried them also and NOW THEY'RE GONE TOO!" Mark: "OK. I'll be over in a few minutes. Don't let anyone use that machine before I get there." Mark travelled to the site and, after checking to see whether other software would run on the 'troublesome computer', he checked the disk drives to see if they were within the recommended speed calibrations. One was not, and he disconnected it and took it with him for repair or adjustment. Mark speculated that the mis-calibrated "disk drive might very well be responsible for the problem" that Dave had encountered. Later, a hardware repairman said that he also thought that this might be the problem. Whether the disk drive was at fault or not was never known, but Dave's disks worked after the disk drive was replaced by another the next day. 92 In a later conversation with Dave, the researcher asked him what he would do if, when he attempted to turn on a lamp a home, it didn't light up for him. He responded that he'd "check the bulb." When asked what he would then do if the bulb were determined to be ok, he said that then he'd "probably try another lamp in the electrical outlet to see if it (the outlet) were the problem." This indicated to the researcher that Dave had, at least, a basic troubleshooting algorithm which might have been applied to his computer trouble. When this was pointed this out to him, he explained that he gets "a bit flustered when (computer) programs foul up...I think its me (causing the problem) at first...and I'm usually in a hurry. I guess I should treat them (problems with computers) a little more logically." He also admitted that "I'm still not convinced that I didn't cause the problem that I experienced." When queried further, he said that "My being rushed because I was running the program during class time...with kids all around me...I...I'm not sure exactly what I did...maybe I hit the wrong keys or something...but I don't think so." The researcher also asked Dave about his backup data disks. Dave responded that he had "...learned an important lesson. I always make backups of important stuff, but I'll never try using them again when the originals have been eaten...at least not before I make a backup of the backups!" 93 s c Staff Another function of the computer consultants is providing, for the faculty, inservice sessions concerned with computers and computer literacy. The content of these sessions might focus on a software package that is available to teachers in the district, and it could be either at the introductory or more advanced levels of use. The session might be one on hi- or lo-resolution graphics, or it might be one designed to get some staff members more aquainted with the equipment available, such as with newly arrived printers. These sessions usually have a classroom-student-use section to them, during which the aim is to show staff members some of the various classroom uses for the microcomputer. Often, helpful tips for computer users are included as part of the presentation, and many of these tips come from problems experienced in the field by the consultants and/or by other teachers. During an inservice session held shortly after the problems Dave had encountered, one of the consultants spoke about the importance of backup disks, and they gave the 21 teachers present some basic troubleshooting hints: If you have a problem with software that doesn't seem to work properly, try the same software on a different machine. This will help isolate the problem. If the program works on the new machine, then there's probably something wrong with the first one. If the program doesn't work on the new machine, it may be a software problem...but, it could be that both machines are malfunctioning. lh—l 94 You might then find someone with the same program and try their copy to see if it works. If it does, it looks like you have a software problem. You might then want to erase the (program) copy from your disk and just copy their program back onto that same disk. Doing things like this will really help us (the consultants) out and can save you the time it takes us to respond. These inservice sessions reach a limited number of staff members, usually no more than 25 participants per session, and the number of sessions presented are limited by such things as teacher interest, funds available, and time. One of the consultants said that "We hope that, by training one or two teachers from a certain building, he or she will be able to help others in the building get more use out of the computers...particu1arly in the classroom." For a more in-depth examination of these inservices, see the following section entitled "Workshops." s e 3 et e a Ref ce Mater s Since many of the inservice sessions can only service a limited number of faculty, the consultants, along with the Coordinator, publish an occasional newsletter and also computer reference material. The newsletter is occasional since the authors "don't want to the tied to a schedule of printing one if there isn't much to say at the time." The newsletter is designed to reach a *wider audience than can attend the inservice sessions, and it 95 contains some of the same material that is included in the inservice session, e.g., "Trouble Shooting Tips", "Notes on the Apple IIe", "Printer Tips", and "Disk Care." The newsletter also speaks about any software re-configurations that are needed when new hardware is installed in the district. Also included are articles which speak to specific concerns within the district concerning computers, e.g., "District Repair Policy", "Copyrights and the Classroom", and "Summer Study Update." The reference material published is also intended to reach a wider audience than can attend the inservice sessions. This material is either in the form of 'how to' instructions, such as "Trouble Shooting Tips", or user manuals, such as "NEC Printer Instructions", or it can be in the form of a listing of materials available, such as a listing of software owned by the district and where it can be found. Teachers interviewed, who use computers, find the newsletter and reference material very helpful, but add, that "not everyone gets a copy of either one...and those who have no interest in computers just throw them away." Reference materials are intended to be either kept on file in a central repository (such as the building library), or to be kept in a work area where there is a computer or in the computer lab. Thus, if someone were using a computer and needed specific instructions in order to print a file on a 96 specific printer, the instructions to do so would either be found nearby (in the work area), or could be easily accessed from the central repository. Unfortunately, the 'intent' is not always the case. Sometimes teachers take the copy of these instructions with them when they leave the work area. This may either be intentional or unintentional. One of the consultants speculated that "Some teachers, who are frequent users of these instructions, may decide that the instructions would be 'handier' for them if they (the instructions) were kept in their possession." Other times, "...the instructions simply disappear... never to be seen again. I have the feeling that they (the instructions) simply get lost among someone's papers, and are filed away in a file cabinet somewhere...and the person isn't even aware that he or she has them...then, of course, we (the consultants) have to replace them...but, the real problem is the down-time experienced by the teacher or teachers who need them and can't find them. And sometimes days go by before we (the consultants) are aware that they're missing...in the meantime, who knows how many teachers have tried to do something that required these instructions and they (the instructions) weren't around." e s o w v o e ts vo v n o ute s The Coordinator and the consultants attempt to keep abreast 97 of new hardware and software developments that may enhance the System's computer literacy curriculum. They do this by personally subscribing to some of the periodicals and journals which typically speak to the computer user. Often, when a new issue arrives, the recipient scans the periodical for articles he or she believes either pertinent to the district's computer literacy program, or for information that might broaden his or her knowledge concerning computer systems, hardware, or software. This information is then shared with the remaining members of the three person team and often discussed during informal meetings. In a reference area, located near the Coordinator's office (and where the consultants usually meet daily), one can find current issues and back copies of the following periodicals: W.W.W Computeps, Tne Qomputing Teecnep, Cpeetive Compuping, geneei Micrecomputing Buliepin, Qigest of Sogtware Reviews, Teen Tpenge, and Modepn Offiee Technology. These periodicals are purchased by the district for use by any staff member in the district, but seem to be used most frequently by the Coordinator and the consultants and occasionally by others 'whose offices are located in the Administration Building. One can also find occasional copies of K Powep, fig, and W in this reference area. ifihe Coordinator and the consultants are members of The 98 International Council of Computer Educators (ICCE) and the state affiliate organization which is concerned with computers and education. Though they have not attended any national meetings or conferences to date, they regularly attend the conferences called by the state organization. Hardwapezgoftwape Evaiuetion and Purchasing Involvement Most of the hardware purchases are done by the Coordinator with some input from those who will be users, and with much input from the consultants. Some of the information used to make purchase decisions comes from the reading of periodicals and journals. The Coordinator and consultants also have friends who teach in other districts, and sometimes they will ask these friends for input. Often, a vendor is contacted and the description of the particular need is given to him, and he, in return, tries to fill that need with a product that he sells. An example of this purchasing involvement was when it was decided to add several letter-quality printers to the district's stable of equipment. The Coordinator and the consultants discussed among themselves the different purchase options that were available to them. They had read some articles devoted to new types of printers, and for the price of a good letter-quality printer they could purchase one-and- a- half dot-matrix near-letter-quality (NLQ) printers. Mark visited a local vendor and saw a demonstration of one of 99 these NLQ printers. He thought that these might fit the district need, explained this to the Coordinator, and they then called the vendor for an on-site demonstration. The vendor brought to the Coordinator's office several styles of NLQ printers along with the latest letter-quality printer, and several days after the demonstration, a decision was made to order the NLQ printers. Sometimes the Coordinator and the consultants call for a meeting with a vendor to discuss an imminent purchase, or to discuss the possibility of a purchase. At one of these meetings, called in order to discuss an upcoming purchase, Mark and Fran requested the older version of the disk operating system rather than the new version. They had both found it very difficult to learn to use this new version, and were happy with the older version. The vendor was unsure if the new Apple IIe Enhanced computers would operate with the old version, and since the district was ordering these new computers he would have to check on this compatibilty. At this point the vendor was asked about the difference between the new and old computers and he stated that the only hardware difference was that there was a different 'chip' inside the new ones. "You can tell which version machine you have by looking for a 'C02' printed on a chip inside the CPU...just remove the cover of the computer and look at the big chip to the left. If it's got 'C02' printed on it, it's 100 Enhanced." He said that he was not sure but he thought that some software which ran on current older versions of the Apple IIe wouldn't run on the new Enhanced version. Mark requested that the vendor try to come up with a list of software which wouldn't run on both machines so that they could better determine which software to purchase. The vendor said he would try to do that for them. The Coordinator then said that he thought "...that each building has at least one Enhanced Apple. If some of the software we currently own won't work on this version we should let people know. Are the Enhanced versions externally marked?" The vendor said he did not know. Mark and the Coordinator then began to discuss how to go about marking the computers. "You know, each building's hardware should be marked in some way anyhow...how do we know we return the proper stuff to the right building after repairs?" Mark and Fran suggested that a Magic Marker be used to identify building ownership, "Just write the building's initials on the piece of equipment with some sort of number...1ike 'CHS #4.'" The Coordinator said that he'd look into the matter of labels and get back to them about it. The vendor was then asked about the Apple Duo-Disk Drives that seemed to be malfunctioning. He replied that he could not fix them and had to send them back to Apple since this ‘was a manufacturer defect. He said that he would loan the 101 district a couple of good drives to use in the meantime. Con dw and tw re or se b taf When new hardware and/or software was delivered to the district, the Coordinator and/or the consultants read the user's manual (operating instructions) and then "played around" with the newly arrived hardware or software. This usually took place in the Administration Building. If the Coordinator could not be present during this "playing around" phase, the consultants would do it on their own and then later give the Coordinator an oral report of what went on. "Playing around with the new hardware", for them meant making sure that all necessary parts were delivered, making the necessary electrical connections between the new hardware and old, then testing the equipment for compatibility, discovering possible maintenance problems, and finally configuring the hardware for use by the staff in the district. Compatibility between pieces of equipment is necessary in order for the pieces of equipment to work in consort. This may be accomplished by setting certain electrical switches found in either piece of equipment. Configuring the hardware for general use by the district staff may involve knowing about certain keyboard sequences necessarily used by the computer operator to insure that one 'machine 'talks' to the other in an understandable way. 102 An example of this 'playing around' process took place upon the delivery of a new type of printer which would be distributed to buildings throughout the district. Though a demonstration of this new printer, prior to its purchase, was given to the Coordinator and consultants by a sales representative, the time lapse between the demo and the arrival of the new printer was long enough to promote the forgetting of some of the steps needed to be taken before proper use of the printer could be made. The computers must communicate to this new printer through what is called, a parallel interface. This interface is accomplished by inserting a special electronic 'card' into the computer itself, and then connecting a cable between this 'card' and the printer. The card is sold separately from the printer and must be ordered separately, so the first step was to insure that the cards had arrived along with the printers. They had, and the connections were made. Next, the user's manual was scanned to see if any special switch settings were needed to match the printer to the computer. Two of these micro-switches needed setting, so they were located in the printer and set to the specifications. The printer ribbon was packed separately and was not installed when the printer first arrived. The ribbon was located and the user's manual checked for ribbon installation procedures, and the ribbon was installed. This could be an important step, for if this procedure was 103 different from that used with other printers in the district, the consultants would have to instruct future user's of this printer in this ribbon installation procedure. This ribbon installation required the removal of a cover on the top of the printer. If this cover was not properly replaced, the 'paper out' switch would be engaged and the printer would not operate properly. Fran made a written note about this and, while Mark was replacing this cover she discovered that the 'paper out' switch was magnetically controlled. This was also something that should be brought to the attention of prospective users of this printer. Computer program and data diskettes are subject to erasure if brought in close contact with magnets, thus the user's would have to be reminded of this, and the magnet inside the printer cover pointed out to them. "Do not place diskettes on the printer" was written down for future reference by the consultants. Once the printer seemed properly connected and setup, a printer self-test was performed by the consultants. The directions for performing this were found in the user's manual. This test was to assure that the basic printing functions and printer could be checked as a unit. Upon completion of this step, an ACEWriter program (the district's word processing program) diskette was placed in the computer's disk drive, booted up, and was configured for this printer. The steps were carefully recorded so that the consultants could develop a reference sheet for those who 104 might use that printer with ACEWriter. Frequently, there are special commands that must be used while using a word processing program in order to obtain special results from a printer. For example, if one wishes to have a piece of text underlined when it is printed out, he/she must begin that piece of text with a special character (or characters) in order to tell the printer to begin underlining, and another special character (or characters) must be placed at the end of that text in order to tell the printer to stop underlining. Usually, these special characters are conspecific to the type of printer in use, and must be found in the user's manual. Since many user's manuals are written using technical jargon not fully understood by many computer users, the consultants attempt to pull out the necessary user information (such as the special commands) and translate it for the users in the district. The translations are then published in the newsletter or in a sheet of operating instructions and given to the district users. While the Coordinator and the consultants feel that "our district staff is at varying levels of computer literacy themselves...ranging from computer experts to those with little or no expertise with computers" they find it most expedient "to break down instructions into the simplest of steps so that, hopefully, no one will have problems understanding them." 105 Examples of the results of the consultants' meeting with vendors, "playing around" and translating for the staff are contained in the following excerpts from the occasional newsletter: The Imagewriter printer contains a magnet in the top. Qe_nep lay disks on or against the printer. The Super Serial card which connects the printer to the computer is not capable of doing graphics dumps in the same way the Pkaso card in the NEC does. Software is required if you want to dump either a lo- or a hi-res picture to the printer. It is probably easier to use the Franklin for this purpose. The monitor on the Apple is connected slightly differently than is the Franklin monitor. The cable plugs into the back of the computer rather than into the 80-column card. For this reason, programs like PFS which require the use of 40 columns will work without any cable changes. Although they look the same, the Apple //e computers received last fall are not the same as the ones that arrived in the spring and summer. The last two batches of Apples are "enhanced"...the bad news: software which does not run of the //c will not run on the enhanced //e either. Apple //c software will run on the enhanced //e but not on the older Apple or on the Franklin. *** Don't panic *** Most software will work on any of the computers in your building. While reading the articles contained in the newsletters (such as the above excerpts), the researcher noted that much of the text seemed to contain technical jargon which would seem to require a more-than-novice knowledge of computers in order to derive full understanding. When asked about this, one of the computer consultants said that the "...newsletter is aimed 106 for the middle of the road user...one who has experience with computer use and understands these terms. We're in a difficult situation...we have teachers who will never use the computers, some who aren't now, but will eventually use them, and some who are using them quite regularly. We want to advance the skills and use of those who are currently using the computers, so we see them as our primary audience for the newsletter. They will be the ones who will help the teachers who haven't yet used the computers, but want to (use them), get started using them." Once the setup and testing process of a sample piece of hardware has been completed, and if everything is found in proper working order, the consultants begin taking the hardware to the sites where much of this same process will be repeated by them as they install the new hardware at each new site. H w and oftwa e As it was with a good secretary who learned to change her own typewriter ribbon, to unstick a stuck typewriter key, or generally how to make simple repairs, so too did the consultants. Shortly after the episode with Dave, Mark learned how to calibrate and adjust disk drive speeds, and used this new found expertise to save time and money on repairs of this nature. 107 The Coordinator received a flyer in the mail that was advertising a two-day seminar on Apple repair. He approached the Superintendent about having him and the consultants attend this seminar, and the request was granted. All three of them said that they were really looking forward to attending this seminar. After their return, the researcher asked Mark how he liked it. Mark said that he "learned quite a bit about basic, minor repair and troubleshooting...you know, how to replace keys on the keyboard, how to replace chips...and a little bit of computer diagnostics. It was good...a bit too basic for me, but we'll save the district some money in the long run I bet." Sometimes teachers have problems with lost data on their disks. Both Mark and Fran are quite skilled at recovering data that seemed to be lost. They have learned skillfully to use utility programs that do just that. Often they are referred to as "miracle workers" by teachers who find themselves with lost data problems. The consultants are also called upon to restore disks to a usable form. The ACEWriter word processing program disks are used very frequently in the district, and sometimes the program just will not run from the disk any longer. Fran and Mark are usually called upon to make new 'master disks' to replace the older 'worn out' disks. 108 s o e se ves Much of what the consultants are involved in during their 'consulting time' takes them to the various school buildings in the district. In order that their time not be totally consumed by travel to and from buildings, the Coordinator recently designated two afternoons per week during which the consultants and he will be present in the District Administration Building. These two afternoons are reserved for the three person team to meet and discuss any topics which could or would involve them all (e.g., the publishing of the newletter or reference material, general problems being encountered on a widespread basis, or reviewing purchase requests having to do with computers). If there was no immediate business for the team to take care of on one of these two afternoons, they then could use this time to respond to calls for consulting or trouble-shooting in the buildings. On one of these afternoons, the three of them sat down to examine the strategy for the following Monday night's school board meeting. An item on the agenda which concerned them most was the request for $334,000 to fund the third year of their computer literacy phase-in. The discussion initially centered around a five page document that described the computer literacy program, described the Centerville Public Schools Computer Advisory Committee's proposal for the 1985- 109 86 school year, and gave a summary of where the money was going to go. The Coordinator spoke about the strategy that would be used in fielding questions during this up-coming, public school board meeting: "When a question is raised, I will look at the Superintendent's eyes: if the Superintendent chooses to answer, he will, if not, the Supers's eyes will be directed at Dr. Smith's, and the ball will be in his court: if Dr. Smith chooses to answer, he will, if not his eyes will be directed at me...this will direct me to answer the question." Fran and Mark thought that this was both an interesting and good strategy. The three of them reviewed the budget figures which were included on the last page of the five-page document, and there seemed to be some conflicts among the monetary figures, amounts of hardware, and which school building would get what hardware. The conflicts were ironed out and the Coordinator said that he would "examine these more carefully before Monday...damn, these have got to balance out." .At the end of this meeting Mark went to the busbarn in response to a 'call.' A secretary for the bus drivers was having trouble with her computer. "...after it is on for awhile, the screen goes blank." Mark checked some cable connections, tried running the secretary's software, and 110 everything seemed to work. Mark instructed the secretary to keep track of the time from power-up to when the screen blanked, and then to call him back if necessary. He said that he hated "intermittant problems because, it seems, I can never get the problem to occur when I'm around." During another meeting, two weeks later, Fran and Mark were discussing an up-coming teacher inservice, which Fran would conduct, and which was to be held at one of the elementary schools. They talked informally about what should be done. Mark recalled that earlier that week he had visited this elementary school, and, knowing that there would be an inservice soon, the librarian suggested to Mark that "a general BEGINNING inservice be given to the staff...some of them have trouble turning the computers on, let alone using them with the kids." This prompted Fran and Mark to "jot down a few things in outline form." Fran wrote down: Disk care and aging disks Use of computer--open apple-control-reset --inserting disks --watch for red light Running a program 111 THE WORKSHOPS 1983-84 School Year Workshops The Coordinator described these early workshops: "Beginning in November of 1983 and continuing through September of 1984, over 400 of the district's teachers and staff had experienced some time on the computers in some sort of organized inservice. The vast majority of what went on during these early inservices you might categorize as 'computer literacy'. We used several people from the faculty, who were already familiar with computers, to help us deliver these inservices. We mainly covered...oh, how to turn the machines on and off, how to handle diskettes properly, and things like that...and even how to run some software. We were mainly interested in getting teachers and staff used to the machines...and not to be afraid of them." One of the consultants reflected: "I've got to tell you, those early inservices...tney were reaiiy o.k.! An awful lot of people got some familiarity with the computers during them...but, the running of software...well, let's just say that we tried to do a lot, maybe too much, during that phase (having the teachers run software). Not many left feeling very comfortable about using the word processor...et ieast 112 no 3 s w 'd o o ." A teacher recollected: "Most of us were frightened and quite apprehensive when we had our first workshop. Almost no one was familiar with computers at that time. A lot of us felt that the (computer literacy) curriculum and the computers were forced on us with little input on our part." Another teacher: "There was little helpful instruction during that time period...what there was, was geared a bit too high, expecting people to know some basic terms prior to the inservice... d dn't even now the meani o 'wo ppocessing' ep pnis time; Everyone on the staff was befuddled with the first workshops...they left nope cenfused than when they had entered." Another teacher elected to take an introductory computer course from a local college as part of his M.A. degree. "My experience with workshops in the district is pretty bad...they don't really help me, personally...if I don't have to go to one, I don't...but l gep the informapien elsewhere. I'm not saying that I shirk my duty as a teacher...I'd just rather not participate in a district workshop." A teacher, who delivered some of these early inservices, reflected: "These inservices were fairly well attended but there wasn't the enthusiasm I had hoped for." Another teacher, a participant, recalled: "Since many of us didn't 113 have the vaguest idea what to do with a computer, these first workshops were really good for getting our feet wet. I learned a lot of stuff...granted most of it was elementary... basics...but, without this information I'd have been really lost." Summer 1984 Workshops The Coordinator recalled: "During the summer of 1984, approximately 200 teachers in the district participated in one of two five-day, four hours-per-day, inservices conducted largely by (the consultants) and myself... and they (the participating teachers) were paid somewhere between $10 and $11 per hour to attend." "Again, these workshops focused to a large extent on "the basics of computer use and disk handling. But there was additional work with software. We had arranged, through local vendors, to have sample copies of educational software on display...and a lot of time was devoted to allowing the teachers to select some of this software and run it on their machines. They got to preview lots of different pieces of software...some of which the buildings eventually purchased for classroom use." What did some of the participants think of this inservice session? "It was mind-boggling...they dumped all this 114 software on tables and said 'Go ahead, grab some and try it out.’ I didn't feel comfortable with the computer yet, and here they were saying 'use it to run this neat software and see what you think'." Another teacher commented: "I really felt this was the most disorganized inservice I'd ever been in...'Play around with this stuff' was about all it amounted to...I needed some real instruction and didn't get it there." Yet another reflected: "From what I learned later, it depended on who was conducting the session that you were in. I had Teacher 9* run mine, and I think we got an awful lot out of it. She took the time to individually help the people who were having trouble, and her organization was done very well. Other teachers, who had other session leaders, had bad experiences with everything from lack of organization of the workshop to leaders who didn't really know what they were talking about." Several more teachers interviewed had similar comments. Teacher 9 will be introduced later in this chapter as a member of The Math School's faculty, and as the Computer Contact Person for The Math School. 115 1984-85 School Year Workshops Several inservices were conducted by the consultants during the 1984-85 school year, and the researcher attended some of them. One of them was held after school and involved the art teachers in the district. Fran gave the art teachers a demonstration of the Koala Pad and the program PaintBrush, and this was followed by a hands-on exploration of the devices by these art teachers. The researcher stayed throughout the inservice and counted six art teachers as well as the Art Coordinator present. There were approximately 14 teachers of art in the district. The format of the inservice was straight-forward: Fran would present to the group a certain graphics feature of PaintBrush, and the art teachers would try out the feature. When several features had been presented, the teachers tried to incorporate all of them into a drawing by using the Koala Pad and their monitor. Throughout, there was friendly laughing among the participants, and compliments about each other's creations were heard also. Several inservices were devoted to teaching the participants how to use lo-resolution graphics. These were usually held during the evening, on two successive nights, and lasted about two hours each night. Because of prior commitments, the researcher could not be present during any of the first night's sessions. According to Mark, "The first evening is usually spent teaching them (the participants) how to write a simple graphics program." 116 There were between ten and twelve teachers from the fourth- through eighth-grade present at the second night's sessions of the inservices which the researcher attended. Recalling what had taken place during those first night's sessions, the teachers said that both Mark and Fran helped them to transfer an idea (a picture) to a block address diagram, and then to write the computer instructions for drawing these block addresses. The teachers' homework was to complete the listing of these instructions for the following night. The end product would be the computer program for their drawing in lo-resolution graphics. During the second night's lesson, the consultants began with instructions of how to initialize a disk, and then instructed each participant to go to the computers, initialize their disks, and type in their program. Once each participant was at the computer, all instruction became individualized with little group instruction taking place. Once the programs were typed in and saved on the disk, each participant ran their program and saw the picture on the display (monitor). Most were successful, and there were choruses of "Ooohhs" and "AAAhhs" as each was displayed. Each participant seemed very pleased with his or her success. Instruction was then given to begin the operation used to 'dump' the program from the computer to a printer resulting in each of the participants receiving a hardcopy of their 117 pictures. The inservice ended when each participant met with success during this last operation. A similar inservice was held at a later date with different participants, and its operation was much the same as the previous one. Toward the end of this inservice the consultants explained the use of a program called Triple Dump, which is used to obtain graphics pictures from one certain printer. The consultants explained the program configuration that had to be done in order to use the program efficiently. One teacher, who was scanning through the program's thick and detailed instruction booklet, thanked them for their help, adding: "You guys spend six to eight hours configuring a program such as this for us...if it were up to us classroom teachers, we'd spend 15-20 minutes and then throw it away out of frustration." Summer 1985 Workshops During the summer of 1985, the two consultants conducted two, two-day inservice workshops for teachers employed by the district, and the researcher was in attendance. The first workshop dealt with word processing, and the second with the PFS File and Report programs. Like the Summer 1984 workshops, the participants were paid "somewhere between $10 and $11 per hour for attendance." The workshops were held in an intermediate school's computer laboratory, and began at 1 118 p.m. and ended at 4 p.m. Wopd Ppoeessing The first workshop was an introduction to word processing, using the ACEWriter II word processing software. Twenty teachers from the district were present, and, when asked about the composition of the group, one of the consultants said that there was one representative from each of the 20 schools present. When asked how these representatives were chosen, the consultant replied that each of the schools self- selected someone to attend. The workshop began with an explanation of how to initialize a disk, then switched to a discussion concerned with the care and handling of the disks. This was followed by an explanation of the Disk Operating System (DOS). The consultant had each participant turn on his/her computer with the disk drive empty, and then he explained why the disk drive continued to run and why the video screen was blank, "...the computer expects something from the disk drive, but since there is no disk in it (in the disk drive), it (the computer) continues to search for information...doesn't find any, so doesn't do anything." The consultant then had the participants "put a blank disk (unformatted disk) in the drive and turn on the computer." The participants all got an "INPUT/OUTPUT ERROR" message printed on their screens. The consultant explained that re ha Vb 3p; ins and Seq mas 51m Stag Gout. 119 these disks, when new, can be used in just about any computer's disk drive. "They must first be configured or formatted for the specific computer that you want to use it in though. Once this is done, the disk is specifically set up for that system and cannot be used on another system without reformatting." He pointed out the prompt and the cursor on the large demonstration video screen, and showed the teachers the difference between them. The consultant then explained what 'write-protect' means, and how to write-protect the disks. He explained that "when a disk is 'write-protected' you not only cannot copy to, or write to the disk, but you also cannot erase things off a diskette." The participants were given a 10 minute break and after they returned the consultant distributed a handout to them. The handout contained: three different passages containing errors which needed editing: the same three passages as they should appear after editing: instructions for initializing a disk: instructions for configuring a disk for use with ACEWriter: and, instructions for using ACEWriter including the command sequences needed for editing. He then had them all boot the master disk, take it out of the drive, and then insert the slave disk, and helped them all go through the configurations stage for the word processing system. Continuing with the handout, the consultant instructed the In we in: 120 teachers to follow him as he guided them through the configuration steps listed. When the teachers arrived at the "Filer Subsystem" step, "LOAD FORMATTED FILE" appeared on the screens. The consultant said: "This doesn't take your file off of the disk...it transfers the information to the computer, but the file is still on the disk." Several of the teachers looked at one another quizzically and shrugged. The workshop ended for the day and the researcher stayed to talk with some of the participants. Most did not stay around long, but the ones that did indicated that they "understood about 70 percent of what was covered." The next session began with one of the consultants announcing: "Check with your building principal about the check-out of computers for your own use...you can't learn to run a computer with only a three hour workshop...you need to have more time on the machine... the more you have, the more comfortable you will feel with them. How many think you'd have no trouble in checking out a computer from your principal?" Five out of the twenty teachers present raised their hands. "Well, what can I say? They are in charge of the building and different principals operate differently....and I have no say in the matter." Immediately following this announcement, the participants were instructed to edit a file on a data disk given to them by the consultants. They were given step-by-step instructions for starting this process, and all were 121 successful in getting the correct file into the edit mode on the first try. This file contained the passages which were on the previously distributed handout, and the editing of this file was the participants' task for the remainder of the workshop. During this editing phase, individual instruction replaced the previous whole group instruction as the consultants moved from participant to participant asking and answering questions and giving assistance. While editing this file and making corrections, a question was asked by four different teachers: "Does this (editing) change the disk?" The concern was that the editing that was being done on the screen, if done incorrectly, would foul up the file on the disk. Mark explained that "Screen editing doesn't change the disk unless, after the editing session, the edited file is save under the same file name that the old file used." More quizzical looks and shrugs were observed between some participants. The question wasn't repeated and the editing session seemed to go smoothly. The workshop ended soon after this editing session began. The teachers who the researcher managed to talk with about this two-day workshop were generally pleased with it. W This workshop was an introduction to the construction and use of a database filing system. Twenty-three teachers from the district were present, and their selection for attending this 122 workshop was done in the same manner as in the selection of participants for the word processing workshop. None of the twenty-three had participated in the previous word processing workshop however. This workshop began with the consultant giving the participants an extensive tutorial concerned with using the File program. The consultant used a computer hooked to the large demonstration monitor throughout this tutorial, and gave visual examples of every step that was made. The participants sat at their computers and, with the File program loaded in them, followed the consultants instructions. They could easily check on the status of their attempts to follow the instructions by glancing at the demonstration monitor at the front of the classroom, and by comparing the contents on their screen with those on the consultant's screen. This tutorial lasted for about two hours. During the last hour the consultant had the participants create a file named 'counties' and gave them instructions for entering in data about their home county and several adjoining counties. The participants were given a homework assignment to find and write down some additional county data that they could enter into the file the next day. During the next session the consultant, using the Report program, conducted a tutorial similar to what had been done 123 during the previous session. After the tutorial, the consultant asked the participants to complete a six part assignment that she had previously written on the chalkboard. The assignment consisted of adding data to the file that had been created the day before and then selectively printing certain data from the newly created database. The completion of the assignment became a bit complicated since there were only six printers in the lab with twenty-three participants waiting to use them. The workshop ended with all participants meeting with some success on their assignment. 124 THE TWO SCHOOLS As stated in Chapter I, the researcher selected two of the district's intermediate schools in an attempt to examine in depth each school's administration, faculty, and support personnel in order to better understand each group's relationships to, and within, the district's computer literacy program. During the researcher's initial meetings with the Coordinator, he expressed an interest of his which the research might focus upon. There seemed (to him) to be two different curriculum areas from which the computer literacy curriculum was emanating in the intermediate schools. In one school, "...the Mathematics Department seems to be taking the leading role," that is, the people who were the first to try integrating the computer literacy goals into their curriculum were the mathematics teachers of one school. In another intermediate school, it was "...the English teachers who seem to be taking on this role." Shortly after this fieldwork study began, this 'difference' became more and more interesting to the researcher. As the analysis of the teacher scheduling books for the computer 125 laboratories progressed, it seemed that, indeed, this 'difference' did exist, and that this difference might merit closer attention. The following is a description of these two schools. One school is called "The English School" within which teachers in the English Department seem to be the computer literacy curriculum leaders, and the other is called "The Math School" within which teachers in the Mathematics Department seem to be the computer literacy curriculum leaders. The English School will be described first: The Math School will be described second. The descriptions will begin with some information about each school. This will be followed by descriptions of the school administration, the computer contact person of the school, the person in charge of the school's audio-visual equipment, and the school's computer committee. Each of the school descriptions will include an examination of the computer laboratory use by the teachers in that school. The following note explains the district's course numbering system which should be helpful to the reader's interpretation of Taples A through 1 which are used to help describe this computer laboratory use. Specific tables will be found in the description of each school on the page immediately following the first reference to them. 126 No e o the str ct's curse-Section Numberin S stem Sections of courses are usually designated by a two-digit number, with the two digits separated by a decimal point (e.g., 8.2). The left-hand digit signifies the grade level of the section (the '8' meaning an eighth-grade section). The right-hand digit is supposed to signify the "intensity" level of the content for the section, the lower the value of the right-hand digit, the less "intense" the content. (The '2' in 8.2 would suggest an eighth-grade content more "intense" than 8.1 and less "intense" than 8.3.) om bo ato s 0 Us The following text describes the scheduling procedure used by teachers to schedule the computer laboratory for their use. The computer laboratories are located centrally within each school, each housed in a room adjacent to the school library. The computer labs may be accessed by any teacher in the building who desires to bring his/her students to work with computers. Arranging access to the lab is done through the use of a teacher scheduling book which is located in the library. There is some teacher control over the scheduling of the lab by other teachers. For example, though a teacher may 127 schedule the lab for use during the third hour every day for a week, should another teacher desire to use the lab during the third hour that week, the first teacher can be limited to using, at most, 3 of the scheduled 5 days. In other words, a teacher may 'bump' another teacher from the schedule, providing the 'bumped' teacher had scheduled him/herself for more than 3 days that week. If no other teacher desired to use the lab during that scheduled third hour, the first teacher would have the lab for all 5 days originally scheduled. The scheduling books were able to provide some data on computer lab use by subject area (see Table l), and by teacher (see Tables 4 through 1 in The English School and The Math School) for the 1984-85 and 1985-86 school years. Teple l illustrates the preponderance of scheduled hours for English over other subjects in one school (The English School), and for mathematics over other subjects in the other school (The Math School). Table 1 128 Utilization of the Computer Laboratories in Hours for Different Subjects During Two School Years in the Math and English Schools 1984-85 School Year 1985-86 School Year Subject Area Math English Math English School School School School English 79 172 149 185 Math 393 83 398 91 Foreign Lang. 10 21 17 32 Science 0 11 7 26 Special Ed. 38 7 29 13 Soc. Studies 33 2 42 19 Industrial Ed. 0 26 9 30 Home Econ. 0 12 4 20 Other Use 12 29 28 33 (see BEES) Total Use 565 363 683 449 note: (Art, Business, Guidance, Music) 129 The English School The English School building is a well taken care of, 30 year old structure. It is located in the older, more central section of Centerville. The brick building is a 2 story structure, with classrooms on both levels. The library is on the second floor and the computer laboratory is housed in a glass-walled classroom off the library. Surrounding the building are fairly extensive lawns for this part of the city, and they are well maintained. At the rear of the building are the athletic fields. As one travels through the neighborhoods that immediately surround The English School, there will be lower middle-class homes to the south and west, and upper-middle class homes to the north and east. The majority of these homes are 30-50 years of age, and most are well maintained. Directly across the street to the south is a church and its adjacent parochial grade school. It is a quiet neighborhood, several blocks from any business district. The English School serves a student population of approximately 640 students in grades 7-9. Serving this student population is a staff of approximately 37 teachers, 130 approximately half teaching full—time, and half teaching part-time. Teple_2 gives the number of full-time and part- time teachers in The English School. Also in Teple_; is the part-time status of the part-time teachers (e.g., 3/5-time), and the number of course sections taught in each subject area 0 The student population of The English School comes from the rural outlying areas of the township, from the heart of Centerville itself (the older section), and "from the two wealthiest neighborhoods in Centerville." The Coordinator reported to me that there seemed to be no difference in academic propensity between The English School and The Math School. "On standardized tests, the population of both schools is quite comparable despite the conclusions you could draw by simply walking and looking, briefly, through each school." The student body of The English School, taken as a whole, didn't have the clean, crisp look of the students of The Math School. Gone were the masses dressed in designer jeans and frilly dresses and aligatored shirts, though probably half wore them. Most of the students were dressed in a neat and clean fashion, however, there were some who dressed as if they came directly from the rural barns. The students of The English School were fairly well-mannered and polite when spoken to, but some were often loudly rowdy in the halls Table 2 Number of Full- and Part-time Teachers in The English School, Giving 131 Part-time Status and Number of Course Sections Taught by Subject Area Number of Teachers Number and Employment Status of Year Subject Sections Full 4/5 3/5 2/5 1/5 1984-85 25 4 1 0 0 1 Math 1985-86 21 2 1 0 l 0 1984-85 21 4 0 0 0 1 Science 1985-86 18 3 O 1 0 0 1984-85 29 4 1 1 1 0 English 1985-86 26 5 0 0 0 1 1984-85 23 3 1 0 2 0 Soc. Studies 1985-86 20 4 0 0 0 0 1984-85 8 l O 0 1 1 For. Lang. 1985-86 8 1 0 0 1 1 1984-85 10 2 0 0 0 0 PE 1985-86 7 1 0 0 1 0 1984-85 7 0 1 1 0 0 Music 1985-86 7 0 l 1 0 0 1984-85 p 3 0 0 1 0 0 Typing 1985-86 3 0 0 1 0 0 1984-85 13 2 0 1 0 0 Ind. Arts 1985-86 10 1 0 1 1 0 1984-85 5 l 0 0 0 0 Art 1985-86 5 1 0 0 0 0 1984-85 7 1 0 0 1 0 Home Econ. 1985-86 5 0 0 1 1 0 132 between classes. The Administration Of The English School When the researcher was first introduced to the assistant principal of The English School, and he was informed of the reasons for the researcher's presence, he immediately began talking about computers. The assistant principal had recently purchased a computer for his family, "a family gift...to be used for... well...no games!...just things like word processing." Later the researcher discovered that the principal of The English School had been the principal of another school in the district, and, for various reasons, was transferred to The English School. Some teachers in the school, and others in the district believed that the transfer was a demotion. He was characterized, by one of the district administrators, as "...just marking time until retirement." The researcher asked the school administration about their policy for teacher check-out of computers and was told that it was not allowed. "...teachers can use them both before and after school...and that should be enough." 133 The English School Computer Contact Person Teacher J was designated as the building computer contact person. He is a member of the mathematics department in The English School and has been teaching for approximately 16 years. He had taken several computer courses as part of his undergraduate and graduate work and "was mildly interested in the computer literacy program." In talking with another teacher, she stated that "No one seemed to be all that interested in the computers at first and (Teacher J) got the job by default." Another agreed and stated further that "There really wasn't much for him to do since we weren't all that happy about computers to begin with. And so...he didn't do much as our contact person." Teacher J concurred, "It (the job of contact person) was something to do and I felt that it might be interesting...but I was the only one interested in computers then...and so, if nobody else cared..."(he shrugged). The English School Audio-Visual Technician The audio-visual technician for The English School seems to have little or no interest in computers or the computer lab. He is much older than his counterpart in The Math School and seems to spend most of his time repairing A-V equipment, 134 cataloging and scheduling A-V equipment, and reading magazines such as Time or Newsweek. Referring to the computer literacy program he said: "If you ask me, this'll never get off the ground until they start hiring new blood...younger teachers who know what they're doing and have had experience dealing with them (computers)." The Computer Committee In October of 1985, the researcher met with several teachers in The English School who expressed their displeasure with "...the way things are being run" regarding the computer literacy program and computer lab. They asked the researcher how other schools seemed to be handling staff concerns, and the researcher mentioned the Computer Committee that another school had started. These teachers then scheduled a meeting among themselves for the next day and asked if the researcher would attend. The researcher did, and during this meeting they drafted a letter of concern to the school administration. The letter began: At this year's opening staff meeting, the administration stressed the importance of teaching students to be computer literate. Most staff members agree that such literacy is important and want to do whatever possible to achieve this goal. We feel, however, there are problems interfering with the implementation of that objective. By identifying some of these problems and suggesting solutions, we hope to make (The English 135 School's) computer program a strong and effective one for both students and staff. This statement was followed with a listing of eleven problems that the authors 'observed.' In short, some of the items listed were: a cluttered, dusty computer lab: lack of storage in the lab: an unsatisfactory physical arrangement of the machines: faulty lab security: and, the inavailabilty of enough word processing software to insure using it with an entire class of students. This was followed by a list of several suggestions that would help alleviate their displeasure with the current state of affairs. They suggested designating "...a computer technician who would work with staff and handle computer problems." Also suggested was the formation of a computer committee ...including both teachers and administrators. The committee could form a management system for the computers and help coordinate software purchases. One teacher might be in charge of computer sign-up: others might be in charge of routine management, ordering supplies and calling about repairs. The committee could organize teachers who are willing to use their prep hour to help other teachers who are taking their class to the computer room. Another responsibility of the committee might be to preview new software and coordinate requests within the given budget and needs of the departments. Suggestions for new hardware purchased might also be routed through this committee. The letter ended with the statements: "Communication between teachers and administrators is necessary for a successful school program. We hope this letter initiates better 136 communication and will help improve our computer program. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss the situation at your convenience." The letter was signed by all four teachers who drafted it. Two days after receipt of the letter, the principal contacted these teachers in order to arrange a meeting. This would be the first 'official' Computer Committee meeting. An agenda was drawn up by these four teachers and an announcement for any interested staff to attend was sent out. In the days prior to this meeting the researcher met with these teachers frequently. They felt that, although their wish for the formation of a committee was being considered, they were being non-verbally rebuked for drafting and sending the letter to the administration. "We made a wave and the administration doesn't like waves on their calm sea" said one of the authors of the letter. To these teachers it seemed as if the normal daily cordiality between them and the administration was not as intense as before the letter was received. According to these teachers, there was "usually a normal kidding around in the halls" between each of them and an administrator, and administrators always took time to engage them in conversation during the day. This seemed to be missing. The researcher was present during the first meeting of this 137 computer committee, and the Principal chaired the meeting with the Assistant Principal in attendance also. Four other teachers, in addition to the original four, were also present. The researcher felt that much was accomplished during this first meeting: The group was able to establish itself and obtain a regular meeting schedule: the computer lab configuration was to be made more suitable to the teachers: surveying of the staff concerning their specific needs for workshops was begun: staff visits to other schools to examine their facilities in order to help decide The English School's computer lab configuration were granted: a sub-committee was formed in order to compile a handout for teachers that would outline computer lab rules, and maintenance, repair and trouble-shooting guidelines: and a computer software sub-committee was formed in order to help expedite software previewing, and inter-departmental coordination of ordering and utilizing software. In later conversations with the original four members, their view of these accomplishments was that "...it's a start...a beginning, but we have a long way to go." Lab Use By The English Teachers In The English School Of the 172 hours of use during the 1984-85 school year by members of the English Department of The English School, 136 hours of this use can be attributed to two full-time 138 teachers. Of the 185 hours of use during the 1985-86 school year, 141 can be attributed to these same two full-time teachers (see Teples l, 1). One of these two teachers (teacher B) is assigned seventh-grade English sections, and the other (teacher G) is assigned ninth-grade English sections. In comparison, less computer lab time was scheduled for English section use by teachers other than these two. ev -G a E sh During the 1984-85 school year, Teacher B was assigned three sections of seventh-grade English, and five sections of a seventh-grade elective entitled "Independent Writing." During 1985-86, Teacher B was assigned three seventh-grade and one eighth-grade section of English, and three sections of "Independent Writing." The duration of this elective course, Independent Writing, was approximately 12 weeks, thus this teacher's class load can be calculated by using the school formula: three twelve-week sections equals one full time section. Teacher B used the computer laboratory only with those enrolled in the "Independent Writing" elective. Teacher B was the only teacher at The English School who taught this elective. The purpose of the elective was "To provide an opportunity for creative writing and to extend writing skills." Teacher B attempted to do this by having the students produce mini- 139 Table 3 English Sections Taught in The English School and Amount of Computer Lab Time Scheduled for Each Section 1984-85 1985-86 Lab Lab English Hours Hours Section Teacher Scheduled Teacher Scheduled 7.1 A 0 A 0 7.2 A 0 A 0 7.2 A 0 A 0 7.2 A 0 A 0 7.2 B 0 B 0 7.2 B 0 B 0 7.2 B 0 B 0 7.2 H 0 Independent Writing B 37 (2 Sections) Independent Writing B 53 B 66 (3 Sections) 8.1 C 12 B 14 8.2 C 0 A 2 8.2 C 0 E 0 8.2 C 0 E 0 8.2 C 2 8.2 D 0 D 2 8.2 D 0 D 2 8.2 E 3 E 0 8.2 E 0 E 0 Journalism E 0 E 0 9.1 F 0 D 2 9 2 G 11 G 15 9 2 G 10 G 15 G 14 9.3 D 4 D 11 9.3 D 15 D 11 9.3 D 0 9.3 F 0 9.3 G 9 G 16 9.3 G 8 G 15 9.3 G 8 140 newspapers. There were usually three to five students who contribute to the same newspaper, and with approximately 30 students per section, the output was between six and ten mini-newspapers per section. Word processing was the vehicle used in the computer laboratory to construct these newspapers, and of the roughly, 60 class meeting per twelve- week term, approximately a third were spent in the computer lab. As can be seen using Teple_;, this was the only seventh-grade class scheduled for using the computer lab during the two- year time period. In conversations with other seventh-grade English teachers, there seemed to be no immediate plans for them to utilize the computer lab facility: "I have enough to concentrate on without getting into computers...besides, (Teacher B) has most of the seventh-graders in Independent Writing and he does a lot with them (regarding computers)." Teagner B This teacher has been teaching English in the District for 30 years, "...the past dozen, here at (The English School)." When the computers first arrived in The English School, "...it was the first time I had seen one in the flesh. My first reaction was 'I don't want to know anything about them...I'm too old for this kind of new learning.'" Teacher B recounted that later that year, while he was visiting the computer lab during his preparation hour, "I saw two teachers 141 working on the machines... typing stuff into them." He asked these teachers some questions and, "...was immediately intrigued by what I saw and heard." Much of this intrigue was related to the work he had been doing with the elective course entitled Independent Writing. Since the output of each section of this course was the production of from six to ten mini-newspapers, and each of these papers was typed (by him) on dittos prior to distribution, the powers of the word processor for storage and retrieval "...became something to think about." "I began thinking about how much time I could save myself in typing by letting the kids do it themselves...and they could learn something while doing it!" First, he would have to learn how to use the word processor himself. He inquired about the possibility of checking-out a school computer over a vacation, and the Principal's answer was 'No.' His wife teaches at one of the district elementary schools, and he asked her to check with her principal and his computer check-out procedure. This Principal had no objections, and Teacher B's wife borrowed a computer from her school for her husband to practice on at home. Teacher B set a goal for himself: "If I wanted to use the computer with my Independent Writing classes, I would have to know how to use it, myself, within the next 10 weeks." "If I were to expect the kids to use the word processor for their use, I would 142 have to teach them." Armed with the manuals, the program, and the borrowed computer, Teacher B met his goal during that vacation. "I surprised myself...I actually learned how to do some word processing...and this was at a time, mind you, that almost no one at (The English School) knew how to efficiently use word processing!" I really have to say that I'm proud of my achievement...there was nobody to help me, but I did it!" Thinking ahead, he synthesized many of the most necessary, and frequently used, word processing commands into a short booklet form for his students to use as a reference and guide. Teacher B has developed a keen interest in the use of word processing as a tool for writing. "The major stumbling block seems to be in management. The class is completely heterogeneously grouped and it is like having twenty to thirty independent study students working with a brand new technology. With only a basic knowledge of this technology, I find it extremely difficult to keep up with all the questions, giving kids help, and giving instruction all at the same time." The students compose in the classroom and then transcribe in the computer lab, although he admits "...there is a bit of composition done while supposedly transcribing...which is really ok with me." 143 Teacher B has also had to change his pedagogical thinking to some degree also, because of the use of this new technology. "I don't let kids help kids when they're in the lab. Usually teachers want this to happen...have kids help one another...but if they begin to rely on asking other kids for help while in the lab, and get it...well, I feel that they may never learn to do things on their own." He explained that "This is because the helping kid doesn't tell or explain in a helping way...he actually goes over to the machine and does it for the other kid with no explanations other than 'Oh, I can fix that' or 'Oh, I can do that for you.'" The Independent Writing elective has become a very popular choice for seventh-graders at The English School. Teacher B sees approximately 85 percent of the seventh-graders each year in this elective course. "All this work I've gotten myself into...seeing almost all of the seventh-grade each year...sometimes I think I've created a monster (he laughs)!" i - s During the 1984-85 time period, the one section of lowest intensity eighth-grade English was scheduled 12 times for the lab, two of the eight higher intensity sections were scheduled minimally. Similarly, during 1985-86 the lowest intensity class was scheduled 14 times and three of the seven higher intensity sections were minimally scheduled. In the section of lower intensity English, use of the computer lab 144 involved using some word processing, but mainly grammatical drill-and-practice exercises. Jou s A single "Journalism" elective class is offered for those in grades eight and nine. Its purpose is "To explore mass media: to learn journalistic writing skills: to write, prepare, edit, print, and distribute news publications." Its output is the production of the school newspaper. The Journalism teacher did not schedule the lab at any time during 1984-86. This teacher tried to enlist the researcher to teach her students how to word process during the time this study was being conducted. She said, "I know we should be doing it (word processing) for the newspaper, but I just don't have the time nor expertise to show them how." The researcher politely declined her request. Teacher B sees Journalism as "an expressive vehicle, and one where the word processor's power can really assist." He has recently talked with the school principal about the possibility of taking over this course, perhaps in a team- teaching fashion with another faculty member, but no decision has yet been made. N - s During 1984-85, half of the ten ninth-grade sections were taught by Teacher G, and each of these sections were 145 scheduled for the computer lab between eight and 17 times. Two of the remaining five sections, taught by Teacher D, also utilized the lab, one of them much more than the other. During 1985-86, Teacher G was assigned five of the eight sections of ninth-grade English, and scheduled his classes for the lab an average of 15 times. Teacher D, with two of the ninth-grade sections, scheduled them for the lab 11 times each. During the course of this study, Teacher D was in her fourth and fifth years of teaching and was interested in learning how she could use the lab more often with her students. Much of what she had her students do in the lab was word processing. The reasons for the section difference in her lab-use time was that "...some classes were better controlled than others": and that she gets "help from (Teacher G) who also teaches 9.3's and he shares his planning with me." Teaehep g Like Teacher B, Teacher G first thought that when the computers first arrived he would "...be one of the last to use them." Teacher G has been teaching for about six years, and is currently finishing a Master's Degree in history education. "History is my first love...but English runs a close second!" His interest in using computers began when he visited the computer lab during his preparation hour and witnessed another teacher making a ditto master on a printer connected to a computer. "Being a terrible typist, I asked 146 about the process involved in making dittos using the computer. I was told that once the information is typed in (into the computer), it can be stored on a disk and then later revised...but much of the work is already done when you have it stored. I immediately thought 'This could make my life as a teacher a bit easier.'" By his own admission, he "...first went into using the computer for a selfish reason and with no thoughts of using it with kids." As part of his graduate program elective, he enrolled in a "basic computer course", and learned some word processing skills in the process. He began using the computer for his own work, using it to construct tests, dittos, and handouts. "I even began keeping my grades on a disk." As he became more familiar with word processing, he "...began to think about how the kids could use the word processor. Then I started to devise ways of teaching kids word processing and integrating the computer into the curriculum." Like Teacher B, he began by developing, for the students, a "short list of basic instructions and command sequences needed in order to use the program." Parts of his English curriculum call for each student to write an original short story and a poem. Again, like Teacher B, the composing is done in the classroom and the 147 transcribing is done in the computer lab. The results are compiled into a class booklet distributed to all students in the class, and circulated by the library for the rest of the school to read. The booklets average 20 pages in length and are impressively titled: "First Hour Anthology", "Young Authors at Work--5th Hour", "Writing For Fun", or "Personally Written Writing Anthology Collection by 4th Hour English." Lab Use By The Math Teachers In The English School During 1984-85, 20 of the 25 Math sections taught had been scheduled for work in the computer lab (see Teble 5). In 1985-86, 17 out of the 21 Math sections taught had been scheduled for work in the computer lab. The mean scheduled computer lab time per section (all sections) for 1984-85 was just over 3.3 hours, and rose to 4.3 hours during 1985-86. The mean scheduled lab time per scheduled section (all sections minus those not scheduled) for 1984-85 was over 4.1 hours and rose to 5.35 during 1985-86. The same teacher who did not schedule his classes during 1984-85, also did not do so during 1985-86. This teacher (Teacher K) is also the Athletic Director of The English School. He uses a computer to "...keep track of 'stats'", and has been heard encouraging other teachers, also involved in athletics, to utilize the computer for the same thing. Table 4 Math Sections Taught in The English School and Amount of Computer Lab 148 Time Scheduled for Each Section 1984-85 1985-86 Lab Lab Math Hours Hours Section Teacher Scheduled Teacher Scheduled 7.1 H 9 I 6 7.2 H 3 M 6 7.2 H 4 M 6 7.2 H 4 7.2 H 3 I 5 7.2 I 3 I 6 7.2 I 4 I 6 7.2 A 0 8.1 J 2 J 4 8.2 I 5 J 5 8.2 I 5 J 5 8.3 J 1 J 2 8.3 J 1 J 2 8.3 J 1 I 8 8.3 I 11 K 0 8.3 K 0 9.1 L 10 K 0 9.2 K 0 K 0 9.2 K 0 K 0 9.2 K 0 L 6 9.2 L 6 9.3 J 1 L 6 9.3 L 4 L 6 9.3 L 3 9.3 L 4 9.4 L 5 L 6 149 His reason for not scheduling his classes in the lab is that he doesn't "...have the time...or do I know how to fit them (computers) into the curriculum." During 1984-85, Teacher A did not schedule her one math section for the lab. She is a 4/5-time English teacher, teaching one section of 7.2 Math, and said that "...teaching Math is out of my area of expertise." When it was noted that she hadn't scheduled any of her four English sections for the lab, she stated: "I can't seem to get in all the content I'm already responsible for in my English classes...they can't expect me to do computers too!" Some of the mathematics teachers in The English School, who do schedule their classes for the computer lab, are not fond of this addition to the curriculum. Repeatedly from them, the researcher heard comments such as: "Yes, I take the kids into the lab...but every hour I yeepe in the lab gets me further and further behind in class." In observations of these classes, the researcher noted several instances of teachers having students program the computer in the graphics mode (both lo- and hi-resolution graphics) using teacher-prepared handouts for the coordinates used. That is, the students were given the exact data to enter into the computer. Students in these classes were frequently not allowed to experiment with their own 150 coordinates, and were told to "follow the directions." In later conversations with some of these teachers, they didn't seem able to make the a connection between the graphic coordinate exercises and mathematics, other than "Well, I guess using numbers and coordinates is kinge mathematical." Two teachers did comprehend these relationships and helped students in their classes to comprehend them also. They found the use of computers interesting and tried to integrate its use into their curriculum. When asked if they ever share these curricular ideas with other members of the mathematics department, the answer was "No, not really. Some of them (members of the mathematics department) just don't like using computers...beck, we don't have all the answers for the department's use of computers." Some teachers had students use simulation programs such as Lem a e an . The use of these programs seemed to be in a game-mode, rather than a simulation. Simulations usually require a debriefing session along with participation, and no debriefing was witnessed. Students 'played' the simulation, but it was in competition with one another, where one was 'trying to 'beat' the other. Often, the 'winner' would call out to the teacher "Hey, I just beat Bill", and the teacher :responses were usually "Good going!" or "Alpignp!" No ‘teacher inquirys as to a winner's strategy were recorded, and, since the 'losers' didn't broadcast their loss, they 151 received little teacher attention, other than sometimes a casual "Oh, poor Bill", which might follow the winner's announcement. Furthermore, at the end of the hour-long play, there didn't seem to be any teacher-led discussion about strategy. 152 THE MATH SCHOOL The Math School building is a relatively new structure approximately 20 years of age. The building is one story and classrooms are located in wings which have at the center the library. The library floor is sunken, about five feet below ground, and has a floor-to-ceiling height of about 18 feet. The room has an airy, spacious feel about it. The computer laboratory is in a classroom adjacent to the library, and has entrances both from the library and from a hallway. The Math School serves a student population of approximately 940 students in grades 7-9. Serving this student population is a staff of approximately 54 teachers. Table 5 gives the number of full-time and part-time teachers in The Math School. Also in Table 5 is the part-time status of the part- time teachers (e.g., 3/5-time), and the number of course sections taught in each subject area. The student population of The Math School comes from a relatively newly developed neighborhood, much more suburban than The English School's neighborhood. The school is located in the midst of a large section of new homes which are generally priced over $100,000. This is the area that many of the young researchers, scientists, and technicians who work for the two large corporations within the city choose to live. The dress styles of the students are what Table 5 Number of Full- and Part-time Teachers in The Math School, Giving 153 Part-time Status and Number of Course Sections Taught by Subject Area Number of Teachers Number and Employment Status of Year Subject Sections Full 4/5 3/5 2/5 1/5 1984-85 34 5 0 2 1 1 Math 1985-86 32 4 0 3 1 1 1984-85 31 6 O 0 1 1 Science 1985-86 28 5 0 0 1 1 1984-85 39 2 3 5 0 2 English 1985-86 38 2 2 4 4 0 1984-85 34 5 1 0 2 l Soc. Studies 1985-86 30 4 1 0 3 0 1984-85 16 2 1 0 0 0 For. Lang. 1985-86 13 1 0 2 1 0 1984-85 14 2 1 0 0 0 PE 1985-86 13 1 0 2 1 0 1984-85 4 0 0 0 1 2 Music 1985-86 6 0 0 0 2 2 1984-85 4 0 l 0 0 0 Typing 1985-86 4 0 1 0 0 0 1984-85 10 2 0 0 0 0 Ind. Arts 1985-86 9 1 1 0 0 0 1984-85 5 1 0 0 0 0 Art 1985-86 6 l 0 0 0 1 1984-85 10 2 0 0 0 0 Home Econ. 1985-86 9 1 0 1 0 1 154 one might characterize as 'preppy' or up-to-date fashions. Though designer jeans were frequently seen, many of the girls wore dresses, and boys wore shirts and sweaters. On the whole, the students seem clean and crisp in outward appearance, and are very well-mannered in behavior. In the halls, between classes, there was the usual hubbub, but loud, rowdy behavior was largely missing. The Administration of The Math School The administration of The Math School was in a period of transition. The current principal was being transferred to head one of the high schools, and this was viewed as a promotion. The assistant principal viewed this period as "...a sort of lame duck time...for him as well as us." This assistant principal, who was to remain in this school, viewed her job as an interim principal. "When he departs, he's going to leave us behind, and so, it's up to the Administrative Assistant and me to keep things rolling here...improving on things that need improvement, and, generally, keeping the school moving forward. He's (the principal) let me call the shots for the past month or so now, because he knows the school needs to remain stable." The incoming principal was coming from the coordinator ranks, and presently he is the Physical Education Coordinator. No one at The Math School seemed to give any indication as to 155 how this new principal would be received. They did say the the outgoing principal was "quite adequate in the position," "friendly," and "not terribly academic." The Math School Computer Contact Person Teacher 9, the contact person in The Math School, has been teaching mathematics in the district for about 15 years, the past seven at The Math School. She is thought to be "a leader and a fine teacher" by the school administration, and, though the school doesn't have department heads, many of her peers agree with this characterization. She had the foresight to put into writing, many of her thoughts during those early weeks and months, and she shared this 'diary' with the researcher. Almost from the start, she assumed, in her own words, "more than a contact person role." Teacher 9's diary began: Students were eagerly asking when they would get to use the computers (mostly our computer "jocks"). Teachers were asking questions - administrators were asking questions - boom, boom, boom. ‘What were these questions? She recalled questions "about placement of computers...about scheduled use of computers...about what exactly to do in the classroom with these computers...about software...et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Too many questions, asked too quickly, of someone 'who knew so very little." Her diary continued: 156 I was the computer contact person for our building and I suddenly decided to take the "bull by the horns" and pretend that I was in charge. So many people had different ideas as to how they should be utilized, there had to be one person in charge. I had in my mind some vague, beginning guidelines for our 1000 student school to adhere to. Foremost in my mind was that every student's parents had paid taxes for us to purchase these computers and every student in the building should have equal access to them: computer jocks should not scare off the non-initiated! The other guideline was that students and teachers had to know how to take care of the hardware before we could have classes of 30+ students coming into the lab. The guidelines had to be implemented through some type of organized plan. The logical method for reaching every student would be through our math classes where we had 3 other teachers familiar with the computer (thank goodness there were some of us who had prepared ourselves before C-DAY!). It should be noted that this 'preparation' means having taken some college coursework in computer science, e.g., courses in BASIC, PASCAL, or FORTRAN programming, or coursework which used software packages such as word processing or spreadsheets. In subsequent interviews with four of these teachers (Teacher 9 included), it was found that this coursework was taken by them for their "own enrichment" and little thought was given by them to eventually use this knowledge in their classrooms. Indeed, one of these three teachers said that the reason for her having taken some computer courses was in preparation for a probable job change. Another of these teachers said that he took these courses "in the hopes that computers would soon find their way into Centerville's curriculum, and I wanted to 157 be prepared." There were, however, five more mathematics teachers on staff in The Math School. Teacher 9's diary continued: We did meet quite a bit of resistance from several math teachers who knew nothing about computers and were reticent to take a class of students into the lab knowing that some of their students knew more about computers than they did - couldn't blame them! Resistance during the 1983-84 school year perhaps, but during the 1984-85 school year The Math School's nine person mathematics department utilized the computer lab during 393 class periods out of a total school use of 565 class periods. (See Teble l for lab utilization figures.) Since the lab could, theoretically, be used during 1260 class periods per year (180 days times 7 daily class periods), this translates to a 31% mathematics teacher usage of available lab time (393/1260): a 45% total school usage of available lab time (565/1260): and a 7g} napnemeties peachep ueage e: pne potal lab pine used during the year (393/565). During the 1985-86 school year, the comparative figures are: 31% mathematics teacher use of available lab time (398/1260): 54% total school usage of available lab time (683/1260): and, 583 t cs as e us otal b s during the year (398/683). 158 Teacher 9's diary continued: ...Those of us who felt comfortable with computers would rotate our classes through first then share our lesson plans and critiques (many - it was like being a first year teacher all over again) with the others who felt less confident. The term 'critique' as used here, is usually meant to read 'self—critique.' "Rarely was there a time we could get in the lab to view one another working...we had our own classes to take care of at that same time." The four mathematics teachers who were the early users of the computer, regularly held a debriefing session after school among one another. "We discussed the day's events as they related to our using the computer lab with our classes. For instance, when lo-res graphics was discussed...we helped each other try to relate it to the math curriculum. When we finally had kids using lo-res in the lab, we talked about how the instruction went...what did we forget to do that we had to go back and do?...what did we do that we needn't have done?...how could we do things more expediently? When we thought that we finally had a handle on it, we would then share it with the rest of the department...so that they could get into the lab and do something right away...with as little fumbling around as could be." During those rare times when teachers could get into the lab while one of their colleagues was holding a class, they were there as assistants rather than as observers. "Things would 159 go a lot smoother when there were two people to answer questions, give prompts, show kids the way." The diary continued: The math department decided that we would get our 7th through 9th graders through as many of the District's K - 8 computer objectives as possible. We also decided that we could not short-change our regular math curriculum while trying to accomplish this. A rotation of 2 day periods per teacher provided for a little continuity and took care of a student being absent one of those days. By the end of the semester we had rotated through about 4 to 5 times per teacher. We had exposed every student to equipment care, running software and some simple programming commands and skills. The beginning of second semester we did lo-res graphics which produced a lot of enthusiasm among our students and staff. What an easy way to teach programming and stimulate those students interested in going further into the BASIC language. We had many students, with no previous computer exposure, into animation, loops, GoTo's, etc. Teacher education was another aspect of our task. Our first attempt in the building was to have teachers drop-in during their conference hours and have a computer-literate teacher on duty for individual help. A few teachers took advantage of this opportunity but we kept hearing that they didn't have time to do this during the regular school day. Teacher 9 reflected: "Early on, a computer-literate teacher ‘was someone who knew a little more about computers than the person seeking help. This was usually a member of the math department, but later included several teachers from other departments as well. If you wanted to learn a little about ‘word processing, you sought out someone who knew something about word processing, stayed after school with that person, 160 and tried to learn from them. Often, later on, you became the computer-literate teacher that someone else came to for help." Her diary continued: ...I had run a few inservices after school for the elementary school staff on our side of town so decided to run some formal inservices after school and on Saturdays for our staff. These inservices were fairly well attended but there was not the enthusiasm I had hoped for. Then we ran some specialized inservices on ACEWriter and Fontrix which did attract those more interested in computers. As a postscript - the inservices being offered this Summer in Centerville have done wonders! The one that Jean and I taught this Summer (1984) was one of the most exhilarating experiences that I have had with computer education. We got 36 teachers and administrators very excited about what the computer can do for them individually! I think that the timing was right for the inservice, they were in the Summer, and teachers got paid for attending. The Math School teachers that were interviewed talked about these early inservices conducted by Teacher 9, and the most frequently recorded comment were that "The workshops were held either after school or on Saturdays...many of us had commitments after school, what with sports and other activities...remember that the school year was well under way, and our personal schedules were pretty firm by then." "As for the Saturdays, not many of us are that dedicated that we'll give up our weekends in order to learn about computers... besides, there didn't seem to be a rush for us to use them...no one said we hed to use them in our classes...especially, use them right away." "Those early inservices were usually about how to turn the computer on and off and how to treat the hardware and software...many of us 161 already knew that stuff and it was kinda boring to hear it again." Teacher 9 recalled, "Once the specialized inservices were conducted, and teachers began to see the uses of word processing and the graphics package, Fontrix, interest seemed to pick up...they began thinking of the computer as a more useful tool. With the word processor you can save all kinds of text...for handout dittos, for tests, for letters. And with Eenppiy you're able to 'create' artwork for your room, or your worksheets." During one of the conversations with Teacher 9, which took place in The Math School's faculty lounge, I noted a wall poster that asked for "teachers interested in an advanced ACEWriter inservice" to "sign up here." When this was brought to the attention of Teacher 9 she said that she was "going to conduct this inservice if there was enough sign-up to warrant it." In a subsequent conversation with Teacher 9, I was told that "there weren't enough interested bodies to warrant conducting this session at this time...but maybe later there will be." Teacher 9's diary continued: During the school year we were allotted monies for software and encouraged teachers to preview and order applicable software for their discipline. Even begging most of them could not get them to an order catalog: consequently our original software was math heavy. We math people did get in utility 162 type programs which will be utilized this year by the staff. After this Summer's inservices there will not be enough money to order all of the software that they will now want after being able to preview so much of it at these inservices. Teacher 9 reflected, "People were not really sure what to do with these computers... they had real problems trying to figure out how to make the computer useful in their disciplines. This, plus the fact that most of us felt that the curriculum was already full...and, you know the amount of time needed to look through catalogs for things that 'might' work, fill out the proper paperwork in order to get them for preview, and pack them up and send them back when you're through...we11, people just felt it was easier to not do anything. I think many people were hoping that they'd get more direction...that someone would come along and say to them 'Here's a neat piece of software. It will do this and that for you in the classroom. Order it because you definitely will find it useful.' But, no one did that for them...nor for us in the math department either, for that matter." Teacher 9's diary concluded: After we finished our Lo-Res graphing with our math classes it was into Spring and some of the math teachers voiced concern that they couldn't afford any more time away from the regular math curriculum. We decided that we would do no more formal rotations but each teacher could do what they felt would best fit their individual schedules. At this point we encouraged other classroom teachers to bring their classes into the lab to use software or hopefully, for the English teachers to teach the word processor ACEWriter to 163 their students. Only one brave English teacher attempted this and just a few other teachers took advantage of the lab. Those math teachers who could afford time away from their curriculum continued to sign up for the lab when they so desired. After much discussion we decided to put one of the nine computers on a cart which could be signed out and taken to individual classrooms. We eventually figured out how to interface a large demonstration monitor on a high cart to accompany it to our room so that students in the back of the room could see the monitor. Students had been begging us to open the Computer Lab after school but we felt we couldn't handle it properly the first semester. Once again we wanted some guidelines so that it would not be used as a Video Parlour. We decided to open it 2 nights a week with two, 30 minute, shifts. A student would sign up ahead of time in his math class and had to come to the Lab prepared to do something either directed by the teacher or have a plan of his own. With teacher supervision this plan worked out very well. Open House rolled around in the Spring (1984) and we did a great public relations job in the Lab as we had chained together every student's lo res picture so that it showed on the monitor for a while then had his name under it for credits. Talk about parents crowding in to see his child's picture on the monitors - it was tremendous! C O - -8 I feel much more confident starting this year than I did last year as far as computers are concerned. We as a staff have learned so much by trial and error but guess that it had to be that way. Early in 1984 I had visited the Ann Arbor school system to try to learn an "easy" way to implement the computer program - there is no easy way! Don't hesitate because you aren't sure that it's the best way - jump in a learn by your mistakes. No one is really hurt by the experience. Our math department will continue to have meetings to coordinate our efforts. We hope to start a Computer Club this year and I have joined the Apple Computer Club (in Centerville) and should be getting information back soon. 164 This year I think that our math department will decide that 7th and 8th district computer goals should be accomplished at that grade level. The 7th grade teachers may have to do catch-up with some of their students if they weren't exposed to computer in the 6th grade. I teach 9th grade and my individual goals will vary with the level of the class. For my low level 9th grade class I hope to use much of the software for basic operations that I have previewed this summer. I definitely will be generating tests with the MECC math test generator - what a utility for graphs and tables testing at this level. One of my goals with this class is to have them read a simple word problem then have them tell me the basic operation they would use to get the answer. Then they may use a calculator to figure the answer. This MECC test generator will give me many problems that I can use in this fashion. I might attempt lo res graphics with the but this year I will know how to proceed with this activity with these very slow learners (very slowly and patiently). My goals for my average-high level Algebra I class will be to integrate the text with some computer programming skills. I have purchased a set of ditto masters to accompany my text which will correlate with the text. After taking several BASIC classes myself I feel very confident in writing my own materials and using parts of other programs to accomplish my goal. The math department may decide to expose our 9th graders to hi res graphing so I look forward to doing this with the class. I am also excited as I have a fairly sophisticated graphics tablet which I will include in my hi res work. For the school as a whole we will continue to run inservices as teachers in our building need and ask for them. We will encourage other teachers to bring their classes to the Lab promising to have one of us math teachers available there if they feel uncomfortable with that idea. If we get our additional computers we will have several on carts and will encourage teachers to use them in their individual classrooms. I want to continue to ask for (through the proper channels for curriculum change) a beginning BASIC programming class at the intermediate school level. I want to continue to push for 32 computers in our Lab with additional large demonstration monitors. I also need to pursue the idea of a Computer Literacy class to qualify for the additional $ per 165 student in 1985-86. We were fortunate at The Math School to have our Computer Lab completely redone this summer. We diagrammed the physical plan last school year and it is now complete. It is a Showcase and we would invite anyone interested to please come visit. The Math School Audio-Visual Technician At the same time that the first computers were delivered to The Math School, in the Fall of 1983, another person, not on the teaching staff, began his interest in computers. Jack is in charge of the audio-visual support for The Math School. He has been with this school for almost 10 years and has a background in photography and electronic repair. Jack has completed two associate degrees, one in photographic arts and another in radio repair. His combination office/shop is adjacent to the school library and computer lab. Within the scope of his job description is the scheduling and ordering of all audio-visual software and hardware to be used by The Math School's faculty in their respective classrooms. All audio-visual software and hardware requests must be channeled through him. He is also responsible for minor audio-visual equipment repairs and his office/shop is equipped for this. He also video-tapes the school's athletic contests for later use by the coaches, and he is the photographer for much of the school's yearbook photos. 166 Jack was also useful as an assistant to the consultants when they were first installing the computer hardware in the lab. "I found the computers fascinating right from the start...and wanted to know more and more about them. I probably know about as much as (one of the consultants) about them now...in fact, in some ways, I know more!" Perhaps, because of the mystique which surrounds his working with electronics: because he was instrumental in setting up the equipment in the computer lab: and because he uses a computer (almost daily) to keep track of the staff's audio-visual hardware/software requests, he is viewed, by some at the school, as somewhat of a computer expert. He is also known to have access to the Coordinator in that they frequently travel together on Fall weekends to view the Coordinator's collegiate alma mater play football. When he speaks of the Coordinator, he does so with respect, but he also lends an air of colleagiality. Jack is quite outspoken with some faculty members at The Math School. After observing Teacher 5's class in the Computer Lab, the researcher was invited to join her, during her conference period, in the faculty lounge for a cup of coffee. Upon entering the lounge, she introduced the researcher to a couple of other staff members who were present. Jack was present and the researcher acknowledged that Jack and he had already met. After the introductions, Teacher 5 and the researcher engaged in a conversation concerning computer use 167 in the school. She said that she was "one of the more frequent users of the lab facility." Jack, though not part of this conversation, interjected that "it is used by others though...for instance Connie." Teacher 5 questioned Jack regarding the frequency of use by Connie: "What's she been in there...two, three times all year?" Jack said (while his eyes constantly flitted back and forth between myself and Teacher 5): "Oh...much more than that." Teacher 5: "What....ten times?" Jack: "Probably less than that." Teacher 5: "Eight times?" No response from Jack. Teacher 5: "Six times?" Jack said: "Probably five...six times!" Teacher 5: "Well I certainly use it much more than that!" Teacher 5 and the researcher continued the conversation, but changed the topic to a discussion of what had gone on in the Lab during the previous period. Jack did not involve himself in any of the remaining conversation between Teacher 5 and the researcher. The conference period was just about over and Teacher 5 was returning for her next class, when Jack called out to the researcher: "Come with me and I'll show you my AV office." Arriving at his office, he immediately began illustrating how he used the computer to keep track of film orders, projection equipment, and the like. He said that "Putting all this on the computer sure has made keeping 168 track of all this data a much more manageable task." He stated, during this visit, that there were "some teachers who would sacrifice the curriculum in order to get their kids into the computer lab as often as they could." It seemed as if he were referring to the conversation that he and Teacher 5 were engaged in just prior to this visit to his office. When queried further about this statement, he said: "I'm not mentioning any names, but there are people here who are more interested in playing around with computers than in teaching what they're supposed to...just look who spends the most time in there (pointing toward the computer lab)." Jack periodically goes on walks through the computer lab: "Guess I'll go check on my lab." Several times the researcher tagged along for the walk in order to see what he did. Jack checked switches to see that they were off, opened any closed disk drive door and checked for forgotten disks, and picked up any loose papers he found lying about. During these walks, several times he was overheard saying "My God, they're going to ruin these machines if they let it get any dirtier." In checking with the librarian about the frequency of these lab checks by Jack, she said that he probably does it three or four times per day. inhough, if one were to view the district's hierarchy as a form of chain-of—command, Jack's rank would be below that of ‘teachers, he, in some ways views himself as equal in rank. 169 This is partly due to the capability he exhibits as The Math School's handiman. Though not in his job description, if a teacher were to have some trouble with, say, his or her file cabinet drawers not working properly, Jack could be called upon by that teacher to help solve the problem. In fact, I overheard conversations between Jack and teachers, during which the teachers were asking him questions about various problems that were occurring in their homes (such as plumbing problems, electric wiring problems, and television repair problems). On two occasions, the researcher noted that Jack made arrangements to visit the teachers' homes in order to help fix these problems. This makes him a good man to know and be friendly with, particularly if one can foresee the usefulness of his repair skills in many different arenas. Several teachers and the school librarian agreed that, almost from the day that the computers first arrived, Jack has viewed them as part of his charge. Because of his interest in computers, and his eagerness to learn about them, he has taken on the job of making the archival copies of copyrighted programs for the school. Jack is also the person a teacher would contact in order to get a disk fixed. Should a teacher's program or data disk become unusable, Jack has developed the ability to resurrect 'lost' files. Jack is also a member of The Math School's Computer Committee. 170 The Computer Committee During the fall of 1985, the Assistant Principal and some interested teachers decided to form a school Computer Committee. Its purpose was to collectively air concerns and decide on things such as: how to spend the software budget: what kinds of additional hardware were needed: whether or not the lab should be open for students after school, and who would supervise them: and, whether or not there should be a check-out system for software. The committee consisted of the assistant principal, Jack, the librarian, and one teacher each from mathematics, science, English, social studies, foreign language, home economics, and special education. The researcher attended several meetings of this computer committee. A sample question on the agenda during an October meeting was: Do we want to work out a way for staff members to take a computer home overnight or for a weekend? {Rhe discussion and answer to this question carried over to the next meeting: the general agreement at the end of this meeting was, "Yes, this is something to work on." Jack objected to the idea of teacher check-out of computers. His statement at this meeting was "There'll be a teacher check- out of computers over my dead body!" Most others present laughed, albeit a bit uneasily, at this statement by Jack, 171 but, by the end of the meeting, all had agreed that there needed to be some further thought and discussion on this question. Liability for damage or theft seemed to be the area of largest concern. At the next meeting, agreement was reached that there would be no teacher check-out of computers: liability was one factor, the other was lack of teacher interest in the checking-out of computers. Another concern of the computer committee members was general maintenance and care of the hardware and software. Discussions often concerned these items and, regularly, after a committee meeting, the assistant principal issued a bulletin to all staff members which cited the items that were discussed, decisions that were made, and areas of general concern. An example of general concern was: We continue to have problems with computers, monitors, printers being left on overnight or over the weekend. We have had a monitor damaged. Please be super careful and conscientious with this valuable equipment. The computer committee continued to meet monthly and there was a provision for other meetings on an 'as needed' basis. If one or more of the members saw an immediate need for discussion, that member could ask the assistant principal to call a meeting of all members. This option was not used while I was on site at the school. 172 Lab Use By The Math Teachers In The Math School The Math School's mathematics faculty are "all peel users of computers with our students" according to one faculty member. This is somewhat supported by the data found in Table . Each of the 34 sections of mathematics taught by this department during 1984-85 had been scheduled for computer lab time. The mean scheduled lab time per section for 1984-85 was over 11.5 hours. Again, during 1985-86, all 32 sections taught by this department were scheduled for computer lab time and the mean scheduled time rose to over 12.4 hours during 1985-86. However, of the 393 scheduled hours during the 1984-85 school year, Teacher 5 (who teaches three sections) accounted for 72 hours, with a mean scheduled time per section of 24 hours. Of the 398 scheduled hours during the 1985-86 school year, this same teacher accounted for 77 hours, with a mean scheduled time per section of almost 26 hours. If Teacher 5's three sections and their respective scheduled hours for computer lab time are not considered, the mean scheduled time per section for 1984-85 would be nearly 10.4 hours, and the mean scheduled time for 1985-86 would be just over 11 hours. Thus, the disproportionate amount of computer lab time scheduled by Teacher 5, in contrast to her colleagues' scheduled time, would seem to have a minor affect upon the overall mean scheduled lab time. 173 Table 6 Math Sections Taught in The Math School and Amount of Computer Lab Time Scheduled for Each Section 1984-85 1985-86 Lab Lab Math Hours Hours Section Teacher Scheduled Teacher Scheduled 7.1 1 17 10 4 7.2 1 18 1 20 7.2 1 17 1 20 7.2 2 10 1 17 7.2 3 9 3 12 7.2 3 10 3 16 7.2 4 20 4 20 7.2 4 18 4 20 7.2 4 19 4 19 7.2 6 13 6 12 8.1 5 28 5 26 .2 4 4 8.2 6 8 6 10 .2 6 8 6 10 8.3 5 23 5 26 8.3 5 22 5 25 8.3 7 5 1 12 8.3 7 5 1 12 8.3 7 5 7 5 8.3 7 5 7 5 8.3 7 5 7 5 8.3 7 5 9 1 8 7 8 8 9 2 1 16 7 9 2 1 15 9 17 9 2 9 11 9 8 9.3 8 7 8 7 9.3 8 7 8 8 9.3 8 7 8 7 9.3 9 8 9 10 9.3 9 8 9 8 9.3 9 7 9 8 9.3 9 8 9.3 4 16 9 4 8 7 8 8 174 Teacher 5's interest in computers began while she was "taking a computer course or two" at the graduate level. She said that she became involved in these courses because her husband, an industrial scientist, thought that he would be soon transferred and she "wanted to have another skill which would help me obtain employment wherever we went." Teacher 5 felt "...that there is a lack of direction from the administration given to teachers at my level of expertise." When asked to explain this statement, she said that "...almost all of the inservice sessions are aimed at beginning computer teachers, and I'm beyond that stage...I want to know more than the basics." She continued: "You know, creating useful, meaningful lessons (using the computer) for my students is very time consuming and with my young children at home...well, I don't have the time to do it as often as I'd like to...and you get no help from them (the administration)." The Matn Depappment The mathematics department of The Math School seemed to have a more colleagial atmosphere than any of the other departmental groups observed in the two schools during this study. Teacher 9 (the Computer Contact Person introduced earlier) and Teacher 4 seem to share the leadership of the department. Both have been involved in conducting computer workshops, both have worked hard to develop curricular exercises which would integrate the computer into the 175 mathematics curriculum, and both willingly share these efforts with other Math School faculty members. One mathematics teacher remarked that "If you ask either of them for help, they'll break their backs for you." Another mathematics teacher said, "I was transferred here from (The English School), and boy was I surprised to find the mathematics teachers easy to get along with." She went on to say that "The sharing of ideas between math faculty was new to me...they (her new colleagues) seem to really be involved in teaching... they're exciting to be around." Another mathematics teacher was not as kind: "They (Teachers 4 and 9) want to have their fingers in everything... sure, they'll help you out, but then they brag about how they helped you! As for the sharing of ideas...well it goes on, more so here than any of the other schools maybe...but it feels like we're (the mathematics department) competing against one another." This teacher was the only teacher of this department to speak in this manner, and she was a part-time teacher, who began teaching mid-morning and left just after lunch. The researcher sensed that this teacher felt left out of the department partly because of her abbreviated schedule. v - h - Teachers of seventh-grade mathematics scheduled more lab time 'than the teachers of either eighth- or ninth-grade math. lees of this lab time varied from running a few drill-and- !xractice programs, to simulations, to exploratory student Programing . 176 The drill-and-practice exercises that were observed were usually in a game format, and usually involved two players in competition. The speed and accuracy of the players had to be fairly matched, otherwise the outcome could be predicted by the students before the match began. Teachers did not usually get involved with this matching process, but the students did. Some politely refused to play against certain others at times, but all did play. In several instances I witnessed an apparent increase in certain students' play over the course of the exercise. In other instances, certain pairs of students, who were equally poor players, showed no apparent increase in skill, and before the end of play, seemed rather bored with the whole exercise. The simulations that were used paralleled those used by mathematics teachers in The English School's computer lab. Most of the observed simulation exercises had no debriefing sessions, either during or after play. Three did, however. In two of these instances, the same teacher ran the simulation exercise, and, each time, she halted play with approximately 12 minutes remaining in the class period, and had the students try to explain their strategy and, if they could, how they developed that strategy. During a later conversations she related "I like some of these simulations. You can get them (the students) to think about 'thinking' and explain to other students how that process works." In the third debriefing instance, the teacher travelled from 177 computer to computer and inquired of students as to how the play was going. There was no collective debriefing in this instance, but there was individual strategical 'teasing.' When individual students seemed to be having trouble with the play, he asked them questions about their strategy, and this often led them to a higher level of strategical play without him divulging the 'secrets.' In a later conversation, he acknowledged that this was his "...strategy for developing generalized problem-solving skills." In exploratory student programming, students were given tasks to complete by programming the computer. Some of these tasks involved the students' programming in either the lo- or hi- resolution graphics mode. A sample task might be to draw an apple on the screen and then to color the apple red. Extension exercises, such as moving the drawing to another part of the screen, or enlarging or shrinking the drawing might follow the original task. Students were first given some instruction in the classroom before entering the lab. Many of the teachers used a coordinate geometry approach in explaining to the students how to plot points. Once this seemed to be understood, the teacher translated several points into computer instructions, and then had the students translate others and give him/her their answers. Armed with this knowledge and a problem to solve (e.g., draw an apple), the students were then given access to the computer lab in order to begin their work. Because of the limitations on numbers of computers, often the students worked in pairs. 178 Few of the teachers took into consideration these working pairs. Quite often, one student would be responsible for translating the drawing into points and then developing the appropriate computer commands, while the other student was responsible for typing and entering the command into the computer. -G t Ninth-grade mathematics teachers used the computer lab facility in a manner similar to the seventh- and eighth-grade mathematics teachers. That is, some drill-and-practice, many simulations, and some student programming were the primary uses. The content within which the lab use was integrated was largely Algebra I, though the one section of 9.1 general mathematics also used the lab facilities. Though many of the programs used were the same as those used with the seventh- and eighth-grade students, some were different. An example of one of these different programs was a program entitled epeen gleps and Qpaphing Egnations. Students enjoyed the Green Globs portion of the program and frequently asked to play it. It is a game that asks students to write linear equations that will connect the 13 green globs placed by the program on a grid. The object of the game was to connect as many of these globs with as few straight lines as possible. Points were scored for the number of globs connected by one line. Many of the students A“.‘ .. 179 who played the game for the first time used an 'educated guess technique' in which they took into consideration the slope and intercept of the line they wished to draw, but guessed at their values. Soon though, accuracy of equations became a greater consideration, and many of the students were able to connect at least two globs on their next attempts. The consideration then shifted to an attempt to connect more than two globs with one line in order to increase the score. Though this was possible, it was a difficult task to complete correctly. Periodically, during the game, teachers would call a halt to play and give the students a brief review of how to write specific equations given certain points. Many of the students stopped play and seemed to pay attention to the teacher: other students seemed too involved in their play to stop, and ignored the teacher's review. The teachers did not seem to mind at the time of the review, but later refused to answer questions asked by those who had not been attentive during the previous review. Some of those students were later observed, during lunch or during library time, asking other students the questions that the teacher had refused to answer 0 Often, the entire class period was devoted to the play of this game, and the next day the teacher would briefly review the play of the previous day and give examples of how to 'write the equations. Since the students had already covered 180 linear equations in their texts, the teachers related many of the tasks of the game to the Algebraic content that had been covered by the students. Teachers generally had a more difficult time teaching the students how to write a equation that would intersect three given points. Lab Use By The English Teachers In The Math School Lab use by English teachers in The Math School was limited, largely, to one teacher in her Journalism class(s) and her 9.3 English section (see Table 7). During 1984-85, Teacher 19 accounted for 76 of the 79 total hours scheduled by English teachers. During the 1985-86 school year, Teacher 19 accounted for 116 of the 149 total hours scheduled by English teachers. Jou na 8 As in The English School, a "Journalism" elective class is offered for those in grades 8 and 9. Its purpose is "To explore mass media: to learn journalistic writing skills: to write, prepare, edit, print, and distribute news publications." Its output is the production of the school newspaper. Teacher 19 has "been word processing for years", and sees the computer as a word processor "as a very important tool in creating, editing...and overall production of written material." The majority of students in Teacher 19's Journalism class experienced working with the computers 181 Table 7 English Sections Taught in The Math School and Amount of Computer Lab Time Scheduled for Each Section 1984-85 1985-86 Lab Lab English Hours Hours Section Teacher Scheduled Teacher Scheduled 7.1 10 0 18 0 7.2 10 0 18 0 7.2 10 0 18 0 7.2 10 0 21 0 7.2 10 0 21 0 7.2 11 0 11 0 7.2 11 0 11 0 7.2 11 0 12 0 7.2 12 0 12 2 7.2 12 0 12 2 7.2 13 0 Ind. Writing 14 0 12 0 8.1 12 0 12 2 8.1 12 0 8.2 12 0 15 2 8.2 15 0 15 0 8.2 16 0 16 0 8.2 16 0 16 0 8.2 16 0 16 0 8.2 16 0 16 0 8.2 17 0 17 0 8.2 17 0 15 0 8.2 18 0 18 0 8.2 18 0 18 0 8.2 18 0 23 0 Journalism 19 64 19 51 Journalism 19 57 9.1 20 3 20 S 9.2 17 0 17 0 9.2 21 0 17 1 9.3 13 0 13 0 9.3 13 0 13 0 9.3 13 0 13 0 9.3 19 6 19 8 9.3 19 6 22 8 9.3 20 0 20 3 9.3 20 0 20 3 9.3 20 0 20 3 9.3 21 0 22 2 9.3 21 0 22 _ 2 182 as word processors by the end of the school year. Teacher 19 teaches "a couple of days worth of beginning word processing" to her Journalism class at the start of the school year. "The remainder of their knowledge they pick up from each other, or by experimenting, or by asking questions of me, but I'm more interested in the paper's substance and layout than whether the kids learn word processing or not." 183 THE COPYRIGHT LAWS CONFLICT The Centerville district's policy concerning the Copyright Laws as they pertain to software was in an unwritten form. The reason for its being unwritten may be that it would seem, at the least redundant if not absurd, to have a written district policy which states that all must abide by the federal Copyright Law. A building administrator explained, "The policy exists as a reminder to staff members that there is a law protecting software authors and publishers from the theft of their product." Loosely interpreted, the Laws state that if ene copy of a copyrighted computer program is purchased, the owner is entitled to make ene additional copy of that program for archival (backup) purposes. In addition, the purchase of the computer program licenses the purchaser to use that program on one computer for use by one operator (user). Mult 00 t C b During one of the researcher's first visits as an observer of a class being held in one of the computer labs, the researcher made note of the process of 'multiple booting' taking place. The students had arrived and were taking seats in front of the computers. The teacher arrived as the 184 seating was taking place and she began going from computer to computer, first placed a disk in the disk drive, turned the computer on, waited for the diskdrive light to turn off (signaling that the program had been loaded in the computer), removed the disk, and then repeated the same operation again until all 17 computers were booted with the same program, using the same disk. It did not occur to the researcher, at the time, that what this teacher was doing was illegal. The teacher was using a copyright protected program. The Disprict Administpation's View Ten days later, as the researcher sat in on a meeting between the Coordinator and the consultants, the topic of copyright laws came up. They were preparing to give an inservice to some of the district staff, and were jotting down "some of the more important things to hit during the next inservice." While talking amongst themselves, the three of them agreed that there were "people out there in the the schools who are copying programs and involved in multiple booting." One of the consultants wrote down "copyright 1aws--copying and multiple booting" on the list of "the important things to hit" as the Coordinator was saying "We can't have that kind of thing going on unchecked...not only is it illegal, but it's giving the kids a bad role model to follow...we may not be able to stop it, but the district has to maintain a stance." 185 A few days later, as the researcher talked with the Coordinator, the topic of copyright laws and their enforcement came up again. He felt strongly that it was "...the building principal's job to make sure his teachers uphold the Copyright Laws. I can't order a principal to do it...but I can strongly suggest it. It's HIS ass if someone in his building gets caught violating them...as far as I'm concerned, my office is in the clear...we've stated it over and over that it won't be condoned...hell, IT'S ILLEGAL!" He produced a memo that he had sent out to all building principals which stated the district's 'stance' on copyrighted software, and included a three page excerpt from the journal for the ICCE (International Council for Computers in Education) entitled "Software Copyright Interpretation - Circa December 1984". The Coordinator's memo directed the principals to "keep this statement on file for reference and have it available for staff to review when copyright discussions arise." It continued, "While we do not have a written policy regarding this issue, it is quite clear the we do expect employees of the Centerville Public Schools to adhere to the law." The memo then pointed out that ...we 1) cannot copy Bank Street Writer or ACEWriter for use with a class or so staff members can have their own copy for the sake of convenience, 2) cannot use one copy of a program to boot several computers so an entire group of student can use the program at the same time. ...if we have a group of 186 4 (or 15) computers in a room, we need to have 1 original disk for each machine with which we wish to use a particular software program. The alternative for us is to have a licensing, or multiple-use, agreement with the software producer. The issue is of concern because of the tendency for educators to justify copying of programs on the basis that 'it is for kids.' The other half of the problem is that I can talk about what is legal and what is not, but the job of monitoring resides with the building. It is my opinion that each staff should be made aware of the enclosed position statement and the stance that 'making copies for kids' is not legal nor permitted. The memo concluded with "I hope you will discuss this issue with your staff..." In a conversation with the Assistant Principal of The Math School, she talked about her concerns with copyright law violations. "Midland would make a good place for a test case for violating the copyright laws--and many outsiders would love to see it here!" Her concern focused both on copying software and multiple booting. She related that she had just spoken with one of her teachers about his "using one copy of a program for all the computers in the lab." She said that this teacher took offense to this reprimand, and she immediately noticed that his computer lab time with his students became less and less. Tne Teeeners' View Subsequently, the researcher was attempting to set up meetings with various teachers from The Math School in order 187 to gain some insight into their perceptions of the computer literacy curriculum. The aforementioned teacher was one of the cadre the researcher was enlisting for interview. The researcher happened to catch him toward the end of his lunch break in the teacher's lounge, where he was seated a table away from the Assistant Principal. The researcher's initial question was, in effect, "Could we meet sometime in the near future and discuss your involvement with computers use in the classroom?" His response was friendly, but rather curt and loud. "Sure...I'd love to...IT WON'T TAKE BUT FIVE MINUTES TO DISCUSS M1 INVOLVEMENT WITH COMPUTERS!" The other teachers present as well as the Assistant Principal clearly heard his response. During the researcher's meeting with him the next day, he spoke about the frustration in not being able to use multiple booting so that his kids could "...take full advantage of all of the computers in the lab." He said that "...I know it's illegal, but we were directed to use the computers with our classes...which I did...but now we can't because we don't have enough software to go around! I...I'll tell you...I'm not going to use two or three computers with 30 kids just because we don't have 30 copies of the program...I'd rather not use them (the computers) at all!" The researcher left feeling that he would comply with the law even though he seemed frustrated and bitter. Not all teachers in The Math School fully complied. Of those 188 the researcher had seen in prior violations, most had stopped, but two or three did not. During the next month, the researcher witnessed about a half-dozen further instances of multiple booting taking place. This was less than a third of the violations witnessed the previous month in this school. All of the teachers with whom the researcher spoke, both continued violators and those who had stopped, echoed some of the same frustration and bitterness shown by the teacher who was reprimanded. "It's like being given a car to use with no means to obtain gas...what good is it!" By the next month, violations increased to almost the same level as witnessed earlier. The building librarian voiced a concern to the researcher about the illegal copying of software that continued to occur. "Some of the teachers act as if they have a right to the stuff. Some of them just want to have their own personal copy so that they won't have to be bothered checking one out from me." Her concern was partly due to her being assigned to keep track of the software and archival copies and was afraid of being implicated should someone be caught with illegal software. The story was much the same in The English School. Teachers were told to abide by the copyright law, and most did. Many complied under protest. "Ok, I won't use the lab...let them (the computers) collect dust for all I care!" Others did not comply. Some of The English teachers had developed a curriculum that depended upon the use of the computer as a 189 word processor. With limited numbers of individual software packages, they continued to multiple boot. "I'm not going to stop...they should have provided us with enough copies of the program in the first place", said one teacher. Another said, "It really only hurts the kids. I've got a good solid program for these kids, and by not letting me use all of the computers, the kids get the raw end of the deal." The researcher spoke with the Coordinator about the possibility of obtaining multiple copies of popular programs and having them in a central location for any school to check-out, much the same as the district handled audio-visual equipment. He said that this was already under consideration. He also explained that each building had a software budget and could purchase some additional copies of these programs if they desired. The researcher gave this information to some of the teachers in both schools and, shortly thereafter, they did purchase additional software copies, but neither school had a full compliment of software for all of their computers. Some time later, the Coordinator discovered that there was a legal way to obtain additional copies of the word processing software at half price. He managed to first obtain an extra 20 copies, and they were delivered to The Math School. Later the researcher discovered that The Math School's librarian was the only one at the time to request them. When the 190 researcher checked with the librarian and teachers at The English School, they were not aware of the Coordinator's special deal, and so hadn't requested any additional copies, but did so almost immediately. It was a little over a month later when the additional copies arrived at The English School. About the same time, an edition of the occasional computer newsletter was distributed. One of the articles was devoted to the copyright laws and spoke about the purchasing of multiple copies of programs for district use. The article stated: Most of the software used in our schools is copyrighted. This means that it is illegal to make copies for anything other than back-up purposes. It is equally as illegal to use a single piece of software in more than one computer at a time. This practice, known as multiple booting, can be avoided by having enough copies of a program for each computer. There is money allocated this year for the purpose of buying multiple copies of programs to be kept in the IMC (the district instructional media center) and checked out when needed. It is our responsibility as teachers to set good examples for our students: using illegally gotten software in the classroom is not appropriate. Neyep use "bootlegged" programs with students. There was now enough word processing software owned by each school so that they could legally use their full complement of computers as word processors. Some mathematics software had been purchased in quantity and could now also be legally used with each computer. Occasionally a new piece of software arrived at a building and teachers were interested in trying it out with a class or two. Multiple booting 191 remained in practice at both schools on these occasions, albeit limited practice. At the same time there were occasional reminders of the Copyright Laws from administrators, but the intensity of the conflicts seemed to subside. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS The intent of Chapter IV is to examine the descriptive findings in Chapter III in the light of the research in Chapter II and with regard to the questions of Chapter I (see pp. 18-20). Chapter IV will consist of two parts: an examination of the district's definition of computer literacy as a basis for their curriculum work, and its translation into a working definition of computer literacy: and, an examination of the process of implementing the computer literacy curriculum by teachers in The English School and in The Math School. The first discussion will involve an examination of the district Computer Study Committee's defining characteristics of computer literacy which formed the basis for their resulting computer literacy curriculum work. The curriculum involved the translation of the definition into, what will be called, a working definition of computer literacy. The second discussion will examine the implementation of the computer literacy curriculum in the two schools. It will include examinations of building leadership, the building 192 193 computer committees, the curriculum implementation by teachers in The English School and The Math School, information acquisition by teachers in the two schools relative to computer literacy, and finally, a Copyright Law conflict in the two schools. In order to provide the reader with the appropriate frames of reference, some of the descriptive evidence found in Chapter III will be repeated in Chapter IV. In instances where this frame of reference entails several large 'chunks' of descriptive evidence, this evidence will not be repeated in Chapter IV, but page numbers referring to Chapter III will be given following a general description of these 'chunks'. In a number of instances, other descriptive evidence, not found in Chapter III, will be introduced. The process of examining this descriptive evidence resulted in the formation of a number of assertions made by the researcher. Each assertion will follow, sequentially, some descriptive evidence. The researcher uses the term 'assertion' to describe an answer to an individual question, self-posed during the course of the research. (For a more indepth discussion of the term 'assertion', and self-posed questions during fieldwork research, see Schatzmann & Strauss (1973), and Erickson (1986).) These assertions will be grouped in Chapter V and offered as meta-assertions and will be called 'conclusions'. 194 The District's View of Computer Literacy Defining Computer Literacy In March of 1983, after months of investigations and deliberations, the Computer Study Committee delivered the following statement to the board of education: The prospect for the future may indicate a dramatic change in the way we educate our students. The new technology offers the possibility of truly individualized instruction. Computers in the classroom will be used as: (1) an object of instruction--computer literacy, competency and specialization: (2) a medium of instruction-- computer assisted instruction (CAI), simulations, vocational education, information retrieval, instructional aides in writing and problem solving in all subject areas: (3) a manager of instruction- -record keeper, test scorer, and prescriber of instruction...A first rate curriculum in computer education must include hardware, software, and staff training. Asseppion l: This statement embraced the ideas of Taylor (1980), who identified three broad modes of computer usage in schools: as tutor, or "medium of instruction": as tool, or "manager of instruction": and, as pnpee, or "object of instruction." The statement was also consistent with Collis (1983) who maintained that "...a distinction must be made between using the microcomputer as an instructional tool and using it as the object of study in itself." 195 In addition to the above statement, the committee also presented the board of education with, what would become, the district's overall goal statement and definition of computer literacy. Computer literacy shall be attained by all students: computer eompetency for problem solving shall be attained by most students: and computer specializepion shall be attained for those students interested in the computer pep ee. Computer literacy is defined as the possession of a sufficient level of knowledge to understand clearly the principles upon which information is processed by computers and the general capabilities and limitations for computer usage. Computer conpetency is defined as the ability to select, use, and understand appropriate computer materials and operations. This eonpetency includes the capability to write or develop simple programs. Computer epeeielipepien is defined as providing the opportunity to develop advanced computer skills of both a theoretical and practical nature." Asseption 2: The committee sought to distinguish among computer literacy, computer competency, and computer specialization. In doing so, the committee embraced the ideas of Scandura (1983) who maintained that "...the computer has three major, but quite distinctive, roles to play in education: (a) as an object to be understood both in relationship to the circumstances and society in which we live and as useful means (when combined with appropriate software) for getting things done more efficiently: (b) as an object of study in its own right, as knowledge and skills to be mastered, and (c) as a means of assisting the learning process." The statement also agreed with Gress (1982), who stated that "computer literacy is distinct from computer 196 programming and computer-based education in that it is teaching apoup the computer, as opposed to teaching the use pp the computer." Developing Goals and Objecpives The board of education accepted these two statements as written, and they became the philosophical basis for the Instructional Goals and Objectives (IGO) sub-committee's subsequent work. In May of 1983, this sub-committee presented the board of education with their suggested computer literacy goals and objectives for grades K - 12. These goals and objectives were prefaced by the following statement: Recognizing the increasing impact of computers on the world, the Centerville Public Schools establishes the following objectives for implementation of a K-12 computer program. Integration of these objectives should supplement rather than supplant existing educational programs. This shall provide the opportunity for students of varying abilities and interests to develop their skills in computer usage. Assertion 3: The latter part of this statement heeds Stevenson's (1983) caution to maintain the focus of education on existing programs and not to make "computer literacy central to our educational efforts." By specifying that the integration of objectives was to "supplement rather than supplant existing educational programs," the statement was 197 consistent with Mehan (1985) who suggested "...that it is not necessary to develop a special, separate and independent curriculum called computer literacy. Instead, the teaching of machine operations can be imbedded in the teaching of academic tasks." The aforementioned preface was followed by a list of "Computer Education Objectives" (see Appengip_n) which were subdivided into specific goals and objectives for grades K - 3, grades 4 - 6, grades 7 - 9, and grades 10 - 12. These were accepted by the board of education, and are the current CPS Computer Education Objectives in effect. These objectives closely paralleled the ideas of Eisele (1983) in that his hierarchical skills were introduced at various grade levels. The objectives also followed the computer literacy 'strands' as reported by Sclafani, et al. (1984), which include basic skills, computers as tools, computers in society, and future trends. Assertien 4: The literal outcomes from the curriculum work followed closely those ideas proposed by many experts in the field of computer literacy. The focus was to be on the integration of these computer literacy goals and objectives into the existing CPS curriculum. 198 Towa d Wo n ef n ion of om u Baird (1984) maintained that "a clear working definition should always precede use of the phrase 'computer literacy.' If 'computer literacy' exists at all, then its acquisition, like that of reading literacy, is a process--not an event." Since there is presently a lack of agreement upon a conceptual definition of computer literacy among many experts, it would be useful to examine the working definition of computer literacy at various levels within the Centerville district. The district administration subscribed to the literal, adopted district definition cited above. In answers to questions regarding their definition of computer literacy, district administrators always made reference to "...our curriculum guide, Micppeompnteps." If questions became more specific, such as, Can you tell me epeeply what you mean by computer literacy?, the objectives section of the curriculum guide (see Appendix A) was cited in answers. Administrators would point to phrases such as "care and handling of a computer system as well as diskettes", "activate a computer (boot a disk)", and "create a display using Lo-Res graphics" in order to become 'exact.' In conversations with the Coordinator, he stated that he also strongly subscribed to this literal definition of computer 199 literacy, adding that "...when it comes to actual implementation in the classroom, there's room for flexibility." By flexibility he meant that "...teachers can utilize the computers in any of the modes we've outlined...CAI, applications software, drill and practice or programming." Mark, one of the consultants, said that "having students use the computer in any way" was his working definition of computer literacy. He elaborated: "Heck, just getting kids on the machines...giving them that experience is what it's all about. We want teachers to take their kids into the computer labs and ESE computers...that's computer literacy." Assertion 5: At the district level, computer literacy was viewed as process related and a conceptual definition could not be separated from the processes involved in the attainment of computer literacy. In each of the above cases, reference was made to some use of computers in an attempt to define computer literacy. This is consistent with many of the definitional attempts outlined in Chapter II (Molnar, 1978: Watt, 1980: Lopez, 1981: Weizenbaum, 1984). Perhaps this inability to separate the conceptual from process is what is meant by a 'working definition.' During each of the researcher's conversations with 200 administrators at all levels, the subject of teacher integration of the computer literacy objectives was not mentioned by them. When the subject was broached by the researcher, the general comment was "That's up to the teachers...we gave them a fairly comprehensive set of guidelines ...we can't tell them how do do it, we can only trust them to follow through with it." Asseppion 6: Integration of the computer literacy objectives was viewed by administrators as, almost solely, a teacher responsibility. IMPLEMENTATION IN THE TWO SCHOOLS Building Leadership During the Implementation Process The nepn geneol Chapter III described the leadership of The Math School during a period of transition (see p. 154). The assistant principal and administrative assistant had taken on many of the principal's responsibilities as well as maintained their own duties. By their own admission, neither of these two administrators knew much about computers or computer literacy. Though they "could not give much technical support to the faculty" with regard to the computer literacy program, 201 the administration did allow the leadership in this area to be usurped by some of the mathematics faculty members of this school. In her diary, Teacher 9 (see p. 155) recalled how she and other mathematics department faculty members organized the configuration of the computer laboratory and established the scheduling procedures for the use of the lab. She also recalled how curriculum ideas and materials relating to computer use were shared among mathematics department members, and how she conducted inservices for other teachers. The Math School administration supported each of the efforts of those who chose to work toward implementation, and these teachers were sought out by others in the school for advice and assistance concerning implementation. Asseppion 7: Leadership for the computer literacy curriculum implementation process was tacitly deferred to more knowledgeable and capable faculty members by The Math School administration. These faculty members became the visible leaders of the computer literacy curriculum implementation for The Math School. This administrative move was consistent with Berman & McLaughlin (1978) who stated: "The principal's unique contribution to implementation lies...in giving moral support to the staff and in creating an organizational climate that gives the project 'legitimacy'." 202 T c o The principal of The English School stated that he was "...very interested in getting this program (the computer literacy program) off the ground in this school." He admitted to being "passingly familiar, but largely unskilled" in his use of computers. He maintained that he "...would do almost anything to assist my teachers in accomplishing the computer literacy objectives." Most of the teachers in The English School were unaware of this pledge, and often showed surprise when the researcher stated it to them. In contrast to The Math School's Computer Contact Person, The English School's counterpart (see p. 133) did not take on as intense a leadership role. Unlike in The Math School during the early parts of the implementation phase, there did not seem to be anyone on the faculty of The English School who evidenced much enthusiasm for the innovative curriculum project. Thus, The English School's Computer Contact Person developed little interest in his role as contact person and consequently was relatively ineffective as such. Some English School mathematics teachers, who had developed some curricular ideas and skills in using computers with their students, were reluctant to offer these ideas and skills to their peers (see p. 147), and many of the mathematics teachers had not developed ideas or skills to 203 share. Two English teachers and one foreign language teacher had developed curricular ideas and computer skills, eagerly shared them with anyone in the school who ASLQQ them, but would not do so without being asked. Assertien 8: Visible leadership for the computer literacy curriculum implementation process in The English School did not emerge from within the school, but, if a faculty member knew where to look and who to contact, there were 'hidden' leaders in the school. Th u n Com ute omm ttees "Principals have a significant impact on program improvement through their influence on school organizational climate and their support of the process" (Czajkowski 8 Patterson, 1980). The administration of both schools became involved, each at about the same time, in the creation of school computer committees. For The Math School's administration this was a proactive move in which the assistant principal and several teachers informally met and simultaneously arrived at the idea of creating a computer committee (see p. 170). For The Math School, the committee's purpose was to "...air past, present and future concerns" about the computer literacy program in their building, and the committee was perceived as effective 204 in its role by both teachers and administrators. Monthly meetings were held, and the committee's agenda included discussions about mini-inservices for the building, the purchase of protective covers for the hardware, the opening of the lab after school for student use, and updates and training on new hardware and software. Included also were discussions about how to help teachers integrate the computer literacy objectives into their curricula. On the day following each meeting, the assistant principal distributed, to all building staff, a handout which: outlined the discussions that took place during the meeting, gave advice to teachers about classroom computer uses, and suggested the names of faculty members to contact for help with subject- specific integration. Aeeeppien_2: For The Math School, the computer committee involved itself as a curriculum leader as well as a common forum aimed at solving present problems. In The English School, the administration became involved with the formation of a building computer committee in a less proactive vein than their Math School counterparts. Concerned teachers of The English School secretly met and discussed their concerns about the computer literacy program. They then drafted a letter to the administration which listed these concerns, and requested the formation of a computer 205 committee (see p. 134). For these English School teachers, the formation of a computer committee was "...necessary in order to overcome existing problems within the computer literacy program" at The English School which were perceived by them as serious. The English School administration listened to these teachers' concerns and provided and/or supported possible solutions to these concerns, but opposed the scheduling of meetings, offering that "we wait until we have something concrete to discuss before deciding on further meetings." see 0 0: For The English School, the computer committee was begun as a forum aimed at solving present problems, and the administration's opposition to scheduled meetings suggests that this was the committee's main function. Assertion 11: In neither case did the method of formation of the computer committee, whether it be more or less proactive, seem to affect the effectiveness with which it dealt with present teacher concerns during the computer literacy implementation process. Implementation by English Teachers Perhaps one way to begin to understand the teachers' perceptions of computer literacy would be to examine the 206 teachers' implementation of the intended district computer literacy curriculum in their classrooms. In order to do this, answers to the following questions were sought: What do teachers do to implement the computer literacy curriculum in their classrooms?: and, Why do they do what they do to implement the curriculum? By-and-large, the greatest use of the computer by teachers of English in both schools was as a word processor (see pp. 137 and 180). In the two schools, the English teachers who scheduled the most student time on computers were Teachers B, D, and G of The English School and Teacher 19 of The Math School (see Tables 5 and 1). For each of these teachers, teaching students to word process was providing them with a writing tool. Teacher B stated: "The word processor doesn't create or think for students, but it takes much of the drudgery out of outlining, editing, rewriting, and polishing a student's work." Teacher G added: "Using the computer as a word processor in English classes is like using a calculator in math classes. Kids still have to know how to think.and write...how to think and solve problems...the ‘machines just take some of the tedium out of writing and problem solving." Teacher D admitted that, "While I'm just learning the word processor myself...I can really begin to see the power that it can have as a writing tool." Teacher 19 supported the comments of these three teachers stating that "By the time the kids learn word processing they should 207 have already learned many of the rules of grammar and punctuation. The word processor is an instrument that we teach the kids to use in the hopes that it will free up their minds more to concentrate on the conpenp of writing." Assertion 12: Teachers of English who used the computer as a word processor view the computer as a writing peel (Taylor, 1980: Collis, 1983). This view also suggests that the computer-as-word-processor may have a high relative advantage (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971) for these English teachers, which could account for its successful adoption by these teachers. When these English teachers were shown a copy of the District Computer Literacy Objectives (see Appendix A), they were somewhat surprised to see that they were attending to a majority of the grades K-9 objectives. Teacher B summed up their reactions: "You know, I really didn't pay much attention to those objectives...my interest was in getting students to use the computer as a word processor...to help develop their writing skills. If we accomplished some of the computer literacy objectives along the way, it was because they were necessary steps on the road to learning word processing." Aeeeppien_l_: During implementation, English teachers who used the computer as a word processing tool did not operate wit ‘mt :01 VII 1'” ma 208 with the district objectives in mind. Instead, they saw the integration of the computer-as-word-processor simply as something which could help their students develop better writing skills. Teacher G from The English School related a conversation he had with his principal. This administrator stated that, for him, computer literacy was simply having kids interact with computers and experience them in all kinds of ways, but Teacher G's concept of literacy (according to this administrator) was having kids develop a mastery over word processing. Assertion l4: This suggests that for this English School administrator, his view of computer literacy emanates from the computer literacy goals and objectives alone, and does not take into consideration the teachers' integration of these goals and objectives within subject specific curricula. Some 'ways' (e.g., programming) of using computers cannot be integrated into a teacher's curriculum (e.g., English). Implementation by Mathematics Teachers In contrast to teachers of English, for teachers of mathematics in both schools, the use of the computer varied 209 among drill-and-practice programs, simulations, and student programming (see, pp. 147 and 172). Drill-and-practice and simulation programs are internally controlled programs which operate on user input and are designed to teach the user. Thus, the use of the computer for drill-and-practice or for simulations can be viewed as using the computer as a pnpep (Taylor, 1980: Collis, 1983). In programming, the user gives the computer a list of instructions in order to have the computer do something it cannot do without first receiving these instructions. Thus, student programming of the computer can be viewed as using the computer as a pnpee (Taylor, 1980: Collis, 1983). Drill-and-Ppaetice Prograns When teachers of mathematics in both schools were asked about their use of drill-and-practice programs, the general response was "...they (drill-and-practice programs) help us get the kids into the lab and use the computers." Some mathematics used drill-and-practice programs because the programs "...help us review for tests" or because "...they help hone students' basic skills." These teachers agreed that the content found in these programs could probably be covered more easily and more quickly in the classroom without the use of the computer. Asseppion l5: Though the use of drill-and-practice was viewed by some teachers as a tutor for students, many 210 teachers viewed them as a way of getting students into the lab. This suggests that for some teachers, having students spend time in the lab was at least as valuable as the review or skill-building that these programs might provide. A different point of view was given by Teacher 9, who stated: "Using drill-and-practice programs are easy on the teacher...they require little preparation and program knowledge. For teachers who just want to 'get their feet wet' in the computer lab, we found that they provide a very nice vehicle...teachers take their students into the lab...have the students run the programs, and both (students and teacher) can have a good experience using the computers." Many of the mathematics teachers who used the computer lab with their students, supported this statement. sse : Use of drill-and-practice can be viewed as a tutor for teachers. By virtue of their relative ease of use, some teachers used drill-and-practice programs with their students as a teacher-oriented entry vehicle for lab use. Thus, non-lab experienced teachers could begin to learn how to use the lab with students and gain confidence in their ability to do so. 211 imu at on a s According to Teacher 4, the use of simulation programs "...requires more effort on the teachers' part. In order to have students involved in a simulation, the teacher has to do some background work and examine the program and its instructions." Teacher 4 was one of the few teachers who were observed debriefing students at the end of a computer simulation exercise (see p. 176). She continued: "Simulations should nep be treated like a game...there are some powerful ideas to be learned from simulations and students cannot be expected to draw all the connections on their own. Unfortunately, we have some teachers who don't seem to know or care, and they dd treat them as games!" Two other teachers voiced similar concerns. sse 7: Some teachers showed concern for the use of simulation exercises in the computer lab. These teachers evidenced pedagogical knowledge in the use of simulations and their concern was that using simulations as games was purposeless. Gring (1982) stated that an entertainment or gaming phase was a naturally occurring phenomenon for new computer users and that this phase is usually followed by a more serious phase of computer use. In most of the classes which were observed using simulations in the computer lab (see pp. 149 and 176), 212 students were concerned with winning or losing the 'game', and little or no set-up instruction was given by the teacher at the beginning of the session and little or no debriefing took place toward the end of the session. The use of simulations-as-games by these students continued throughout the study. Asseppien l8: This continued gaming suggests a lack of pedagogical acumen, on the part of teachers, concerning the use of simulations. Furthermore, the absence of pre- and post-lab discussions by teachers in computer lab work, coincides with observations of science teachers who frequently neglect to show the relationship between laboratory work and class work, or between science films and class work (Gallagher, 1985). St den r n Many teachers of mathematics involved their students in programming the computers using lo- and hi-resolution graphics. The students seemed to generally enjoy graphics programming as they were able to generate pictures. The walls of The Math School's computer lab were adorned with dozens of student pictures created through the use of graphics programming. Similar pictures, though less in number, adorned the classroom walls of some of the mathematics teachers of The English School. Very often, 213 students and teachers in both schools pointed them out to the researcher with pride. Aeeeppien_lg: The presence of these pictures seemed to represent, for students and teachers alike, concrete 'evidence' that accomplishments were being made in the computer lab. In observations of classes involved in graphics programming at The Math School (see p. 177), most teachers took some time at the beginning of the hour to explain how some of the mathematical concepts involved in graphics programming would be used in the lab. The students were than free to make a drawing of their choice as long as it had been first approved by the teacher as appropriate. sse o : Generally, The Math School mathematics teachers tried to relate classroom mathematics concepts to laboratory graphics programming, and allowed students some creative freedom in programming. In observations of classes involved in graphics programming at The English School (see p. 149), some teachers had the students type into the computer pre-plotted points for drawings that the teachers had created, and student 214 experimentation with graphics was discouraged. Relationships between doing graphics programming and mathematics were not made for the students by these teachers. When questioned by the researcher, these teachers had some difficulty making the connections themselves...almost as if they had not thought about it prior to the question. It was from these same teachers that comments such as "...every hour I yeepe in the lab gets me further and further behind in class" were heard. Aeeeppien_zl: Some mathematics teachers of the English School did not, or could not, relate programming to the mathematics curriculum, and they did not allow students a freedom to create using programming. Furthermore, many of these teachers exhibited an angry frustration in their tone of voice when asked about their computer lab experiences. There were, however, some mathematics teachers in The English School who allowed student experimentation with graphics and helped the students to make the related connections. These same teachers were also observed attempting to make the connections between drill-and-practice programs and the mathematics content under study in the classroom. Aeeeppien_zz: Some English School mathematics teachers actively tried to integrate the student computer exercises into the math curriculum. 215 - ws s All of the English teachers, who used the computer-as-word- processor with their students, spoke excitedly about that use. Teacher 19 stated that "More kids are writing with better quality since I began using the word processor with them, and there are fewer mechanical or grammatical errors in their manuscripts. We can focus more on the quality of content since, if grammatical errors are found, they take seconds to rewrite or correct. There isn't the threat of manually copying everything over by hand...just insert or delete on the word processor." Teacher B agreed, adding that "Students seem to enjoy writing more than they did prior to the use of the word processor." Teacher G interjected, "I'm not sure you can say that they enjoy it more, but there is much less student complaining when writing assignments are given out...I think the word processor has made writing more manageable for more kids...and they're getting much more writing done." Aeeeppien_zd: English teachers, who used the computer-as- word-processor with their students, viewed the use of the computer-as-word-processor as a motivational tool which helped accomplish English curriculum objectives. 216 Some of the mathematics teachers, who used the computer lab with their students, agreed that the computer was a motivational tool, but their view differed from the English teachers. "My students always want to go and use the lab facilities, and if they accomplish their classroom work...I usually take them to the lab as a reward." ss on : Some mathematics teachers viewed the use of the computer as a reinforcement for accomplishing classroom curriculum objectives. Some mathematics teachers occasionally used the computer lab with their students for different reasons. One teacher said: "...my kids pester me about getting into the computer lab, so sometimes I just grab a handfull of (drill-and-practice and simulation) programs and we have a math-review/computer- experience day." In answer to the researcher's request to visit scheduled computer lab classes, some mathematics teachers replied "...well we're not doing anything important today...but sure, come on in", or "We'll be playing games this afternoon...if you want to watch, you're welcome to." Asse o : For these teachers, using the computer lab with their students seemed to be a 'time-filler' or diversion from daily routine, rather than an integrated part of their curriculum. 217 Tea e on es om u n at 0 Sources of teacher information and skills concerning computers emanated from several areas in Centerville. The district provided workshops and consultant assistance to teachers: more skilled and knowledgeable teachers often helped teachers who had less skill and/or knowledge: some teachers who used computers, sometimes read books and magazines and may have belonged to computer clubs, and they often passed information they gained on to other teachers in their building. Most frequently, when talking with teachers about their gaining of computer knowledge and skills, they would recall that much of their useful knowledge and skills came from another teacher in their building. In The Math School, several teachers were visible leaders and other teachers were able to draw upon their knowledge and skills. Lessons and lesson plans were examined, discussed and polished, and then were made available for other staff members to use. Often, during preparation periods or during lunch, many teachers were overheard in computer related conversations with their building peers, giving and receiving information. In The English School, knowledgeable leadership was not as visible as in The Math School, but some teachers still 218 pointed to one or two other teachers in their building who "...really helped me to use the computers with my kids." Among those few teachers who were involved in the computer literacy curriculum implementation, frequent discussions concerning computers, similar to those which occurred in The Math School, were overheard. Asse on : Teachers who wanted to learn about the computer and its applications in the curriculum, often used other teachers in their building, who were similarly disposed, as 'sounding boards', and primary resource people. T e w ic In both The Math School and The English School, teachers and administrators were involved in a Copyright Laws conflict (see pp. 183-91). In order for teachers to utilize computers with students, other than for programming, the user requires software. The two schools possessed computer laboratory facilities with upwards of two-dozen computers in each laboratory. Much of the software used in these laboratories was covered by the Copyright Laws, and, in many instances, a building owned but one copy of a Copyright-protected piece of software. Under the Copyright Laws, ownership of this single copy entitled the owner to its use on ene computer and forbade the owner to duplicate (or copy) the program for other than archival purposes. Strict enforcement of the Laws 219 made the utilization of each building's full complement of computers impossible without, first, purchasing enough software copies for each computer to be used. To make copies of this software, or to use multiple-booting, was in violation of the Laws. Asseppion 27: In both schools, the building administrators were directed to encourage teacher-use of the computer facilities with their classes. This encouragement was to occur despite the lack of sufficient legal software. Concurrently, these same school administrators were required to enforce the Copyright Laws regarding the copying and/or multiple-booting of software protected under these laws. During observations of teachers in both schools who were making use of the computer laboratory facilities with their students, the researcher noted many occasions during which the teachers used either multiple-booting or illegally made copies of software with their students. In several instances, after the Coordinator has issued a directive to building administrators regarding the enforcement of the Copyright Laws, many of the aforementioned teachers ceased using the computer laboratories with their students. For most teachers, this cessation was temporary, and they quickly resumed using the lab facilities, with illegal 220 software, as they had done before. Other teachers did not alter their patterns of violation, and simply ignored the directives to comply. Asseppien 23: Teachers, many of whom had worked hard to integrate the computer into their classroom lessons, felt frustrated when administrators attempted to enforce the Copyright Laws. Many teachers had designed their computer curriculum with whole-class participation in mind, and they perceived the restriction of using one computer, because the school owned only one copy of a software package, as an impediment to the implementation of their computer literacy curriculum. Often, these teachers willfully violated the laws in order to continue their curriculum implementation. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter contains a summary of the findings of the study which were in the form of assertions that emerged in Chapter IV. From these assertions, several major conclusions are formulated which bring together the more circumstantial assertions. Following the conclusions, several recommendations concerning implementation are made. These recommendations emanate from the conclusions. Finally, following these recommendations concerned with implementation will be recommendations for further research and concluding comments. Innovations are seen as arising from perceived needs within the system, which change agents seek to meet. This inevitably leads to a variety of problems both in searching for the most appropriate solution and in winning sufficient support within the system to enable the innovation to be formulated and introduced into the schools. When the innovation involves the use of a new, little understood technology, the processes of innovation development, dissemination, adoption, implementation and incorporation 221 222 become more difficult. The development of the computer literacy curriculum innovation was found to be one of creative adaptation of pre- existing ideas, methods and curriculum resources rather than the creation of an entirely new construct. Assertions 1-4 relate to the development of the literal (intended) computer literacy curriculum. The district definition led to the development of district goals and objectives which were intended to be integrated into the existing curriculum. The goal statement and definition produced by the curriculum developers sought to distinguish among computer literacy, computer competency and computer specialization (Assertion A), and the published goals and objectives of the district closely followed many of the ideas espoused by experts in the field of computer literacy (Aeeeppien_e). Though the district administration viewed computer literacy as process related (Asseppion 5), integration of the curriculum was felt to be the responsibility of the teacher (Asseppion 6). Conelusion: A great deal of time and effort was expended during the development of the computer literacy curriculum. After the developers finalized the goals and objectives, many administrators were not prepared to sufficiently attend to the implementation/ integration process at the classroom level. There seemed to be a lack of understanding concerned with implementation. Implementation is neither a static point, nor will it naturally occur. Most classroom teachers need the support of administrators in order to understand and move with a planned change. As Foshay (1975) pointed out "...innovation or change not comprehensible to the leadership...will be trivialized or aborted." 223 Contrasts existed in the leadership within both schools. In The Math School, visible curriculum leadership for the computer literacy program came from within the teaching ranks, and was allowed by the building administration to exist and encouraged to flourish (Assertions 7 and 2). In The English School, curriculum leadership was less visible (Asse o 8). The administration of The English School did not explicitly encourage faculty leadership, and perhaps implicitly discouraged it (Asseppien l0). Qonelusion: Each of these two schools can be viewed as two different cultures. It is important for curriculum leaders, who wish to involve schools in a change process, to try understand the complexity and uniqueness of school culture. "They must respect and accept each school culture for what it is an what it represents and seek from it the data and human resources necessary to help plan effective change processes" (Czajkowski & Patterson, 1980). There existed sharp contrasts in the implementation and integration of the computer literacy objectives between teachers of mathematics and teachers of English. Asseptions lg, l; and 2; point to the successful integration of the computer-as-word-processor in writing classes irrespective of the district computer literacy objectives. To these teachers, it was tangential that many of the computer literacy objectives were achieved through this integration. Mehan (1985) stated that while microcomputers alone "can not 224 transform unskilled writers into skilled ones...it is the creation of functional learning environments which utilize the computer as a tool to meet educational goals, and not the computer treated as a teaching machine that dispenses knowledge to students, which has positive effects on the writing process." Cenglnsion: The word processor lends itself to smooth integration into writing classes. It is natural for students to expect that writing will be done in an English class. For teachers who already plan for writing exercises, the use of the word processor requires computer knowledge but little curriculum change. As a writing tool, the word processor can motivate students to practice writing skills. Writing skills must still be taught, but the exercise and honing of these skills can be made more manageable through the use of the word processor, and student success can be examined from writing samples which are very similar in content to those constructed by hand. Mathematics teachers used drill-and-practice, simulations and graphics programming in attending to the curricular objectives. Asseptions 15, ll, lg, and AA suggest that, frequently, successful integration of drill-and-practice and simulation programs into the mathematics curriculum was more difficult than the integration of graphics programming. Teachers often added these, as computer exercises, to the existing mathematics curriculum. Those mathematics teachers who did try to integrate these programs into the curriculum, carefully chose the programs and planned their lessons well in advance Assertions 20 and Ag). 225 Much of the learning which could come from successfully conducted simulations was lost by teachers who used simulations strictly as games. Many of these teachers seemed pedagogically unprepared to conduct well-run simulations, and thus could not integrate them into the mathematics curriculum. Those teachers who did know how to conduct simulations, often found difficulty in the integration of them. Graphic programming seemed more conducive to integration than either drill-and-practice or simulations. For some mathematics teachers, the coordinate system taught in the classroom was easily transposed and applied in graphics programming (Asseption 20). Other mathematics teachers had difficulty in doing so (Asseppion gl). The external output generated by graphics programming was viewed by students and teachers as a sign of accomplishment (Assertien l2), whereas the results of drill-and-practice and simulations are often more internal, more difficult to see. Some mathematics teachers seemed to utilize the lab with their students in order to expose them to computers (Asseppion 25), or they used the lab as a reinforcement for completing class assignments (Aseeppion 24). In neither case was integration a factor, but some of the district objectives were met. 226 Conelusion: In many instances, the implemented computer literacy curriculum is an adapted version of the literal (intended) computer literacy curriculum. The teachers' implemented curriculum may encompass using computers with students: in order to accomplish the district computer literacy goals: in order to accomplish the teacher's computer literacy goals: or, as a diversion from the daily routine. Qonelusion: Many of the district goals and objectives were being attended to in both schools, but because of the limited number of teachers attending to them, all students were not being served. It was possible for a student, in either school, to exit the school after three years and not be scheduled with a teacher who involved that student with computers. Thus, the district goal statement "Computer literacy shall be attained by all students" was not being met. Aeeeppign_;§ relates to teachers gaining knowledge and skills from other teachers. Many teachers seemed to realize that "In terms of knowledge about the practice of teaching, teachers often represent the best clinical expertise available" (Czajkowski & Patterson, 1980). Conclusion: Teachers are an often discounted primary resource for one another in the eyes of many innovation leaders (Berman et al., 1975: Foshay, 1975). This seemed to be the case in this study. As teachers emerged with ideas concerning implementation and integration, they could only be recognized by relatively few peers. Curriculum leaders did not usually acknowledge them. When they were recognized, they were sought out for advice and information. Enforcement of, and violation of, the Copyright Laws gave 227 rise to Aeeeppiene_zl and 2d. Asseppion 27 speaks to a conflict within the school administration of a paradoxical nature. Concurrently, the administrators were directed to enforce the Copyright Laws end encourage the classroom use of the computers by teachers. The enforcement of these laws coupled with the lack of a legally sufficient amount of software had a restrictive effect upon the classroom use of the computers by some teachers (Assertien 28). Other teachers continued their classroom use of computers, knowingly violating the Copyright Laws. gonelusion: School administrators and teachers can easily find themselves in a very frustrating position, due to an abundance of computers and a shortage of software. Teachers cannot legally make use of the computer without proper, legal software: administrators cannot encourage the use of computers knowing that copyright laws will be violated: teachers cannot be expected to develop, and then shelve, curricula which integrate computer literacy into their subject areas: and, administrators and teachers cannot be expected to allow tens of thousands of dollars of computer hardware to sit idle, and unused. 228 RECOMMENDATIONS Reconnendatien: Curriculum leaders should be identified and established at each school. These leaders may come from with either the administrative or faculty ranks. Establishment at all sites may involve temporary transfer of personnel, and care should be taken that this transfer is amenable to all parties involved. Provisions should be made for these leaders to meet frequently and share their concerns and triumphs. Re 0 n o : Teachers must receive assistance throughout the implementation stages. This assistance may be gained in several ways: through formal workshops or inservices: by examples published in a computer related newsletter: by taking courses: or, by meaningful interaction with peers. What ever form it takes, it should be remembered that teachers are learners also, and as such, are subject to any of the imperfections that students often exhibit in the classroom. Attention should be paid to: 1. providing information about the technology itself: 2. providing information about the current potential of the technology as applied to the individual and to the classroom: 229 3. providing examples of integrated teaching units showing how computers can be applied to a certain subject area and grade level: 4. the appropriateness, and meaningfulness of information given to the participants regarding the integration of computers into a specific subject area or grade level (e.g., how appropriate or meaningful would a discussion on the integration of word processing into the curriculum be to a math teacher or to an english teacher or to a 5th grade teacher? How appropriate or meaningful would a discussion of data base construction and integration into the curriculum be to an art teacher or to a history teacher or to a 3rd grade teacher?): 5. other pedagogical principles such as attending to transitions between topical areas, or giving advance organizers or overviews at the onset, or awareness of prerequisite knowledge necessary for new learning, or awareness of learning styles of participants: 6. defining new technical terms and/or jargon that will be used: 7. hardware and software operations and limitations: 8. understanding the cognitive overload that can occur if too much is presented in a short time. Reconnendapion: A system of formative assessment of the innovative process should be established. A means of determining who is doing what with the computer resources can be valuable to understanding the status of the innovative process, and in providing a curriculum resource for other interested staff members. If completion of objectives is important, administrators should be instructed in ways of examining what is being done with respect to those objectives. 230 Recommendetion: Individuals involved at the planning stages of an innovative computer literacy curricular effort must be made aware of the Copyright Law restrictions as they apply to software. This awareness should result in fiscal planning for a budgetary reserve, substantial enough to provide for an initial, legel library of software. Ideally, additional dollar amounts should be budgeted for future software purchases. This fiscal plan, as well as the ramifications of the Copyright Laws, should be well advertised to the school staff. Proper budgetary planning, and the delineation of the Copyright Laws to potential users, will provide a proactive means of dealing with potential problems in this area. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Recommendations for further research include: An examination of the principal actors involved in innovation implementations in order to determine characteristics of their effectiveness within the process: in the case of this study, the Coordinator and the Teacher-Consultants. An examination of various possible impediments to the implementation process: in the case of this study, the use of jargon, problems with mixed hardware/software, and the copyright law conflict. 231 Concluding Comments There are several obvious limitations to the study. Generalizations must be tempered in the light of the sample size, composition and geographic location. The researcher acknowledges that, in the process of data-gathering and analysis, subjective perceptions and judgements have had to be relied upon. However, every effort has been made to minimize the bias of such personal influences. In the last analysis, judgement of the validity and reliability of the analysis and findings of this study must rest with the reader. APPENDIX 232 The following is a list of the K-3, 4-6, and 7-9 Computer Education Objectives for the Centerville Public School District. Grades: K - 3 GOAL: Allow all students to become familiar and comfortable with the use of the computer. 1. Demonstrate knowledge of the care and handling of a computer system as well as diskettes. 2. Identify the components of a computer system: Computer, Monitor, Disk Drive, Disk, Printer. 3. Locate the appropriate keys on the keyboard which apply to their grade level. 4. Follow teacher instructions to use the computer. 5. At each grade level use the computer to interact with at least one of each of the following: drill and practice program: tutorial program. 6. Read and follow directions that appear on the monitor. 7. Recognize the use of computers in everyday life as well as their impact upon careers (e.g., field trips). Use the vocabulary: K -- Computer, Keyboard, Monitor, Cursor, Retupn 1 -- Shift, Diskette (disk), S ace Ba , Edit 2 -- RUN 3 -- Memory, LOAD, Program, Disk Drive, Hardware, Software, Printer Gpedes: 4 - 6 GOAL: Allow all students to use the computer as a tool for exploring ideas and developing decision-making capabilities. 8. Demonstrate knowledge of the care and handling of a computer system as well as diskettes. 9. Recognize the use and application of computers in everyday life as well as their impact upon careers (e.g., field trips). 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 233 Use the computer to interact with at least one of each of the following: drill and practice program: tutorial program: simulation program. Activate a computer (boot a disk) by the methods: EBié. and ongof; swipen. Access the catalog of a given disk and LOAD a program. Create a visual display on the monitor (Lo-res graphics on a 40x40 screen). a) Recognize that a computer requires a set of sequential instructions to run a program. b) Develop a logical plan for a computer program. c) Make a sketch on paper of the display to be programmed. d) Use line numbers and the following BASIC commands to transfer ideas from paper to the computer: GR, COLOR, PLOT, VLIN, HLIN, TEXT. e) Use REM statements within the program to identify parts of a program and where decisions take place. f) Demonstrate knowledge of the meaning and use of line numbers and REM statements. g) Edit errors by retyping the complete line. Enter, RUN (test), debug, and RUN a simple program to demonstrate knowledge of two basic types of errors: typographical and logical sequence. Demonstrate knowledge of saving, loading, and deleting a program using a diskette by performing the following sequence: a) Enter, RUN, SAVE, LOAD, and reRUN the program. b) LOAD the saved program and DELETE from disk. c) Test to see that the program has in fact been deleted. Enter and RUN programs demonstrating the power of a computer. Using a wordprocessor, create, revise, and print a story or article of at least one paragraph in length. 234 Use the vocabulary: GOAL: 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 4 -- Menu, CATALOG, LIST, prompt, on/off switch, boot, SAVE, debug, microcomputer, GR, COLOR PLOT HLIN, VLIN, TEXT, HOME, NEW, REM, Filename, Syntax Error, Lo-res. 5 -- DATA, BASIC, END, LET, PRINT, GOTO, Edit, Bpeak. 6 -- Wordprocessor, iterative. dpddes: 7 - 9 Allow all students to develop computer competency for problem solving. Demonstrate knowledge of the care and handling of a computer system as well as diskettes. Recognize the use of computers in everyday life as well as their impact upon careers. Become aware of what the "working" parts of a computer are via an opportunity to inspect the interior of the computer. Demonstrate an understanding of the various types of computers: micro-, mini-, and mainframe-computer. Create a visual display on the monitor using Hi-res graphic procedures. Use the commands HGR, HCOLOR, and HPLOT. Use the computer to interact with simulation and/or problem solving software in each discipline. Using a word processor, create, revise and print a story or article of at least one page in length (emphasis on writing and revision skills). Use the computer to write BASIC programs which will demonstrate the power and use of a computer. a) Initialize a diskette using a "hello" program. b) Input at least two variables, perform arithmetic operations, run, debug, and print the program and list the output. (The emphasis of the program is use of arithmetic operation, variable names and reserved words, and the commands: INPUT, END, HOME, NEW, PRINT, LET.) 26. 27. Use the C) d) 235 Input data, use arithmetic and algebraic expressions, and decision statements involving a loop. Then run, debug, and print the program and its output. Use IF/THEN, GOTO, initialize variables, increment the variables, and include a decision statement for termination of the loop. (The emphasis of the program is on the logic of a loop.) Identify applications from a variety of disciplines and write an application program demonstrating the iterative power of a computer. Demonstrate an awareness of the development of the computer. a) 13) Become aware of the "generations" of computer hardware and the increase in capability of computers. Demonstrate a knowledge of the issues regarding computer ethics, such as copyright laws, information privacy, computer crime, uses of mailing lists, and respect for others with regard to computer use and property (e.g., diskettes). Be aware of current issues and developments relative to computer through the use of resource materials (e.g., magazines and newspapers). Demonstrate a knowledge of the computer oriented terms: bit, byte, memory, CPU, RAM, ROM, modem, interface, chip. vocabulary: INIT, hello, bit, byte, interface, chip, memory, loop, variable names, Hi-res, RAM, ROM, HGR, HCOLOR, HPLOT, IF/THEN, GOTO, CPU, file not found. BIBLIOGRAPHY 236 BIBLIQQBAEHX Abruscato, J. (1986). e com ute 3 nd sc ence teach n ° u e l s a d b es. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall Agar, M. H. (1980). o ess al st e ° ormal intpoduction te ethnograpny. New York: Academic Press. Anderson, R. E. (1980). Qonpppep literaeyI 1259 (NSF Computer Literacy Conference Report). Washington D.C.: National Science Foundation. Anyon, J. (1981) Social class and school knowledge. Win. 113.1. 3-42- Avinger, J. (1984, September). Word processors and language experience stories. Baylop Educepep, 26-28. Baird, W. E. (1984, November). A road atlas for computer literacy and teacher training. Tne Qonputing Teaehep, ll- 16. Baker, J. (1982). Microcomputers in the classroom. EDK Eeeppeek, No. 179. Phi Delta Kappan. Beauchamp, G. A. (1983). Curriculum thinking. In F. W. English (Edd . WW A§QQ_yeeppeek (pp. 18-29). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Becker, H. J. (1984, March). School uses of microcomputers. Edncapionel Teehnolegy, 33-34. Berman, P. (1981). Educational change: An implementing paradigm. In R. Lehming and M. Kane (Eds.), lnppoving schools: Using whap we know (pp. 257-258). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Berman, P. 8 McLaughlin, M. W. (1978, May). Eedepel o a 3 en ortin ed ca on an V ° e e t a d sus in v . Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Berman, P., Greenwood, P. W., McLaughlin, M. W., 8 Pincus, J. (1975). Fede l ro ms su ortin ed 0 1‘- ': V- V :0 00:0. ' i 8 u as O 9: ’ 1.1 1'31'1 peyiey. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. 237 Berman, P., Greenwood, P. W., McLaughlin, M. W., 8 Pincus, J. (1975). de ms 0 n edu o endnge. Vol. V: Exeentive summapy. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Black, P., 8 Harrison, G. (1985). In plane of conpusien: nd so the school cu ricul . London: Nuffield-Chelsea Curriculum Trust and the National Center for School Technology, Trent Polytechnic. Bowman, R. F. Jr. (1983, April). Computer literacy: An interactive model for courseware, hardware, and faculty development. Edueetionel Technology, 42-43. Boyer, E. L. (1984, January). High school: A report on secondary education in America. Tne_fidneepien_nigeep, p. 39. Brophy, J. 8 Hannon, P. (1984). We: niepoeenpnteps in pne elassroop (Occasional Paper No. 76). East Lansing: Michigan State University College of Education, Institute for Research on Teaching. Camarda, B. (1984, September). let century educator [an interview with Kenneth Komoski]. Fenily_§enpnping, pp. 54-56. Center for Social Organization of Schools. (1983). fieneel s s o M c ocom te s: R o ro a o s e , (l,2). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University. Cetron. n. (1985). Ssh221s_2f_ths_futnrsi__now;Amsrisan b 8 :88 e 0 ed- - _- c.n 00!: : z to SeV: 0- ; 10- S. New York: McGraw-Hill. Clark, C. 8 Florio, S. (1984). Environments fop ypiping in cond s h 0 ° 3 of n h- e n sh. an unpublished research proposal. Conference Board on the Mathematical Sciences. (1972). Re 0 enda on e n c m ute s s 0 education. Washington D.C.: Author. Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychclcqy- American_£sxchslssist. 39(2). pp. 116-121. Czajkowski, T. 8 Patterson, J. (1980). Curriculum change and the school. In A. W. Foshay (Ed.) Qeneideped_eepign f2r_surrisslum_imprcxemsnt (pp-158-175)- Alexandria. VA: ASCD. 238 Dearborn, D. E. (1983, September). Computer literacy. Educational Leedepsnip, 32-34. Diem, R. A. (1982, June). Education and computer technology: Some unresolved issues. Educational Technolegy, 19-21. Diem, R. A. (1984, March). Preparing for the technological classroom: Will we meet the challenge? Edneepienel Teehnology, 13-15. D'Onofrio, M. J. 8 Slama, M. E. (1984, Autumn). Computer literacy and values of students in business education. donpnal of Competep-Eesed Tnsppnepion, 107-110. Eisele, J. E. (1980, Fall). A case for universal computer literacy. Jou na 0 esearch n D velo n Education, 37-44. Eisele, J. E. (1983, October). Computers: What every educator really ought to know. 35-36. Eisner, E. (1979). n ' es d e u t o o sc . New York: Macmillan. Erickson, F. (1985). Unpublished lecture notes given at Michigan State University. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), an o f s n (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Foell, N. A. (1983, September-October). A new concern for teacher educators: Computer literacy. denpnel_Eep Teecnep Edncation, 19-22. Foshay, A.W. (1975). Strategies for curriculum change. In Esseys on cnrpieul . New York: Columbia University Press. Fullan, M. (1983). Evaluating program implementation: What can be learned from follow through? anpienlnn_lngnipy, 13(2). 215-27. Fullan, M. 8 Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Eeyiey_eE_Edneepienel Research. Zfi (1). 335'43- Gallagher, J. J. (1986, March). A stndy of eeeendepy s ence ch tic s. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA. 239 Giroux, H. A. (1983). eo a d res s ance u n: ed 0 o t s on. South Hadley: Bergin and Garvey. Goodlad, J. I. (1975). e d m cs 0 e u a c an e. New York: McGraw Hill. Goody, J. (1977). e s c o t e v . London: Cambridge University Press. Green, J. 8 Wallat, C. (Eds.). (1981). 0 nd an e educat o a se n 8, (Vol. V in a Series of Advances in Discourse Procedures.). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Gress, E. K. (1982, March). A computer-literacy module for the junior high school. Arithmetic Teeehep, 46-49. Gring, S. R. (1982, October). Introducing computer literacy. Educetional Leedepsnip, 62. Grogan, J. (1984, Nov/Dec). The limitations of computer literacy programming. Elecpponie Edncdpien, p. 37. Hade, D. D. (1982, August). Literacy in an information society. Educapionel Teennelogy, 7-12. Hall. G- E- (1979. November)- nsing_the_indixidual_and_the i ovat o s e frame eference o enenge. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne. Havelock. R- G- (1971). 2lannins_for_innozation_throngn dissemination_and_2tilization_of_knowlsdss- Ann Arbor. MI: University of Michigan. Hoffman, I. (1984, Nov/Dec). When computer literacy metamorphosis is complete. Eleeppenie_Edneepien, p. 18. Hopkins, D. 8 Wideen, M. (1984). A te v s ec ves on_sshool_imsroxemsnto London: Falmer Press- Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in elasspooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Johnson, R. R. (1983, Fall/Winter). Computer literacy: A longer view. EQHQQn_nulletin. 2-8. Lesgold, A. (1983, November). When can computers make a difference? Theor2_into_zractiss. 22. 247-252- Lipkin, J. P. (1983, September). Equity in computer education. Ednsational.Lsadershin. 26. 240 Lopez, A. M. (1981, June). Computer literacy for teachers: High school and university cooperation. Educepienal W: 15-18- Luehrmann, A. (1983, November-December). A nation at risk-- implications for computer science education. AEDS Eonitor, 22-26. Marsh, C. 8 Huberman, M. (1984). Disseminating curricula: A look from the top. doupnal o: Curpiculum Studies, lg(l), 53-66. Martin, C. D. 8 Heller, R. S. (1982, October). Computer literacy for teachers. d c 0 al d s , 46-47. Mathieson, D. A. (1982, November). Computers: From confusion to collaboration. Edneepienel_Leedepenip, 13- 15. Mazur, K. (1980, August). Grow old along with me: The best is yet to be. personal gompuping, pp. 39-40. McGhan, B. (1985, Fall). The computer: Education's trojan horse. Social_£21isx. p- 21-24- McPherson, G. (1972). Enell teen peacnep. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mehan, H. (1985). Qenpupepe in the elasspoene: A geeei- expsrimsnt_in_gnided_snange (Final Report No- NIE-G-SB- 0027). Washington D.C.: National Institute of Education. Miles. M- 3- (Ed-)- (1964)- Innoxation_in_sdusation- New York: Teacher's College Press. Molnar, A. R. (1981, January). The coming of computer literacy: Are we prepared for it? Edneepienel Technolng. 26-28- Moursund. D- (1982). Eresollegs_somnuter_litsrasxi__a 2ersonal_computing_apnroash- University of Oregon: ICCE/Dept. of Computer and Information Science. Moursund, D. (1984-85, December/January). More harm than good. The_§omnuting_Teacher. 3-4- Naisbett, J. (1982). ° e o s o iv . New York: Warner Books. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A 01 1 :.‘ '1’: .119: o. - 0 —°. o. '1 13111. Washington D. C.: Author. 241 National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics. (1978, February). Position paper on basic skills. Eapnemapics IEAQDQI. 150- Noble, D. (1984, October). Jumping off the computer bandwagon. Edueatien Week, p. 7-9. Norton, P. (1983, October). Computer potentials and computer educators: A proactive view of computer education. Educational_Tsshnologx. 16-19- Palonsky, S. B. (1986). ow e ° 00 ac n o a e e ' es . New York: Random House. Papert. S. (1980). s o s: h d an peyeppel_ideee. New York: Basic Books. Pylyshyn, z. W. (1984). Conpupetion end eognipien: Toward a_foundation_for_sogniti2e_sgience- Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. Rogers, E. M. 8 Shoemaker, F. I. (1971). Qennpnieepien_ep innovatien : A cross-celpnpel apppeecn. New York: Free Press. Sarason, S. B. (1971). e cu t e f th problem of cnange. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Scandura, J. M. (1983, September). Three roles for the computer in education. Edneepienel_Teennelegy, 15-16. Schatzmann, L. 8 Strauss, A. (1973). Eield_peeeepenp St a e s s . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Schwartz, J. (1985, February). Is computer education off track: An interview with Judah Schwartz (by Brady, H. 8 Levine, M.). Classpoom gomputep Leepning, 20-24. Sclafani, S., Alan, R., 8 Arch, J. (1984, November). A model for a computer literacy project. Tne_genpnping IQAQDQI. 39-41- Scollon, R. 8 Scollon, S. (1981). t v a and e c . New Jersey: Ablex. Scribner. 8- & Cole. M- (1981)- The_psxshologx_of_litsrasx- Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Seidel, R.J., Anderson, R. E. 8 Hunter, B. (Eds.). (1982). one- s p - . ' :s_:s .12 d, - ,o s '- °: . New York: Academic Press. 242 Simon, H. A. (1983). The computer age. In gempnpepe_in edecapion: Eeelizing pne popential (report of a research conference, Nov. 20-24, 1982). City College of New York: Author. Snider, W. (1986). Computers: A change of course. W. January 22- Spindler, G. D. (1982). t e e h schoo n : W. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. Spradley, J. P. (1980). n s o . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Stake, R.E. 8 Easeley, J. E. et al. (1978). s in athemat s cience a s a 8 ud s e a o . Urbana: University of Illinois. Steele, K. J., Battista, M. J. 8 Krockover, G. H. (1983, May/June). The effect of microcomputer-assisted instruction on the computer literacy of fifth grade students. Ionrnal_of_Edusational_Ee§sarsh. 298‘301- Steeves, F. L. 8 English, F. W. (1978). §eeendepy c o . Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill. Steller, A. W. (1983). Curriculum planning. In F. W. English (Ed.), 8' 9 u ASCE yeeppeon (pp. 68-89). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Stevenson, C. (1983, September-October). Microcomputers and macrocautions. Joupnel Of Teacnep Edneepion, 23-25. Tobin, C. D. (1983, February). Developing computer literacy. Apitnmetie Teechep, 22-23. Toffler, A. (editor). (1975). Leepning pep penoppow: The c t ture of ed c . New York: Random House. Tucker, M. (1983, November). Computers in schools: A plan in time saves nine. Tneepy_inpe_2peepiee, 313-320. Turkle, S. (1984). Tne eeeond selp: Qempnpepe end pne um s . New York: Simon and Schuster. Walker, D. (1983, October). Reflections on the educational potential and limitations of microcomputers. £ni_nelpe KEEPER- 243 Watson, E. (1985, January). When 'computer literacy' becomes multidimensional... Electponic Education, p. 40. Watt, D.H. (1980, November-December). Computer literacy: What should schools be doing about it? genpnpep glessroon newe, p. 4. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems- Administratixs_§siense_nuartsrlx. 21. 1-19. Weizenbaum, J. (1984, June). Another view from MIT. ETTE, p. 225. Zelditch, M. (1979). Some Methodological Problems of Field Studies. In G. J. McCall 8 J. L. Simmons (Eds.), Teenee in artic ant obse a 10 ' ext de . Reading: Addison-Wesley. "Iiiiilflfliifliiiiiiiir