ITYL LIIIB MA

III III

 

 

 

 

 

III'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III; MW as

WW4

 

LIIRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

A NATIONAL SEARCH FOR QUALITY:
AN EXAMINATION OF HIGH-QUALITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTING PROGRAMS
presented by

John Frederic Beaver

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PhD degree in Wear ion

 

MfQ-A’

 

Major professor

Date all)“ <26”: /999

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

—_———_ W

 

p

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
-_.

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

—1
'.
tn" “I"
,-. V I a
" S ‘5 a)
‘,
, \I
I-7. ’1
c,

 

 

M MR 271999

 

 

ANAIIQNALSEABCHEQBQLIALIH:

MWMWWW

WWW

By

John Frederic Beaver

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

ANAIIQNALSEARCHEQRQUALIII:
ANWQEWWW
WWW

John Frederic Beaver

The study investigated the practices of a national sample of elementary
schools selected for the high quality of their instructional computing
programs. The intent was to identify common characteristics of the quality
programs. The findings provide guidance to instructional leaders and
increase understanding of the processes used in developing and maintaining

successful elementary school instructional computing programs.

The seventy-three schools identified were surveyed (with a seventy percent
response rate) using an instrument designed to gather data on selected topics:
important contributors and barriers to computer program improvement,
available computer time allocation, budgetary considerations, school
planning process characteristics, time periods for which schools have had
computing programs, type and location of computers, extent of staff
involvement, and computer uses considered the most important in

facilitating student learning.

Notable was the finding that budgetary expenses dropped dramatically from
estimated average amounts spent during the years programs were being

developed to the 1986 and 1987 budget levels. Flaming was characterized by

shared decision-making processes involving computer committees of
classroom teachers, computer enthusiasts, building principals, and others.
The staff was highly involved with instructional computing. Computer
access time was allocated to computer-assisted learning (55%) and applications
(29%), with less time to computer programming (14%). Respondents' ideal
computer time allocation showed a shifting from computer-assisted learning
to computer applications. The computers, overwhelmingly Apple IIes, were
situated in both computer labs and classrooms. The instructional leaders
identified word processing as the most important current use of computers.
Characteristics of the computing programs which had been established for
some years differed significantly from the characteristics of the more newly

established programs.

The respondents' projected computer uses require more hardware and
teacher training than present utilization modes. For the projections to be
actualized, spending on instructional computing must be increased. That
necessity was one of several revealed by the study, contrary to the practices
reported by the respondents. These disparities have serious implications for

individuals interested in educational computing.

Cepyrisht by
11pm; IFIRIEIDIEIRIIC remnant

1988

This study could not have been completed without the continued guidance,
assistance, and encouragement of the members of my Doctoral Committee:
Dr. William Cole, the committee chairperson, Dr. Richard McLeod, Dr.
Lawrence Alexander and Dr. Ben Bonhorst. They all offered their valuable
time and expertise when I was sorely in need of them. The patience,
understanding and support of my chairman, Dr. William Cole, were all
important components of my continued progress through the doctoral

program.

In addition, my thanks go to a number of individuals for the assistance they
provided me over a period of years. I want to thank Dr. Dave Moursund of
The University of Oregon for his clarity of vision and his accessibility. Also,
the following individuals offered invaluable suggestions and support over
the past few years: Dick Ricketts, Kris Morrissey, Beverly Bancroft, Michael
Harwell, and Nancy Deal.

I extend my appreciation, as well, to Linda Roberts at the Office of Technology
Assessment in Washington, D. C., for her support and assistance in
identifying the sample of elementary schools with quality instructional
computing used in the study. I also appreciate the time and effort offered by
the many state, district and building-level administrators and instructional
computing leaders that I contacted during the course of the research.

Without their help, the study could never have been completed.

A special thanks is also sent to Marge Kosell of Sunburst Communications for
her sage suggestions, but most particularly for a comment she made during a
conference presentation in Eugene, Oregon. She assured instructional
computing leaders that there was now reason to feel optimistic about the
future of computers in the schools! The reason for this optimism could be
traced to that American standbynthe bowling alley. Kosell's comment can be

read in its complete form on page 159.

vi

 

‘1

mammals

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ .viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ x
Chapter Page
I. THE STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ..................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................... 5
Importance of the Study .............................................................................. 7
Assumptions and Limitations ................................................................... 8
Program Elements Examined by the Study ........................................... 11

An Overview of the Study ....................................................................... 13

11. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE .......................................... 15
The Importance of Computers ................................................................ 16
The Minimal Impact of Computers on Schools .................................. l8
Introducing Computers into Schools: The Difficulty ......................... 19
Introducing Computers into Schools: The Approach ........................ 2
Introducing Computers into Schools: The Principal .......................... 25

Introducing Computers into Schools: Related Concerns

Computer Placement in the Building ............................................ 26
Allocating Computer-Access Time ................................................. 28
Budgetary Considerations. ................................................................ 3O
Barriers to Program Improvement ................................................. 32
Facilitators to Program Improvement ........................................... 34
Summary of the Relevant Literature ..................................................... 35

III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...................................... 37
General Design of The Study ................................................................... 37
Research Questions. ................................................................................... 38
Major Research Questions ................................................................ 39
Related Research Questions ............................................................. 40

Details of The Study ................................................................................... 40
Instrumentation .................................................................................. 41
Development of the Survey Instrument ....................................... 42
Relating Survey and Research Questions. .................................... 42

The Pilot Study ............................................................................................ 45
Purposes of the Pilot Study. .............................................................. 45

A General Description of the Pilot Study ...................................... 47

Results of the Pilot Study .................................................................. 51

The Nationwide Study .............................................................................. 60
Identifying High Quality Computing Programs. ......................... 6O
Surveying Methods ............................................................................ 64
Summary of the Design and Methodology ........................................... 66

vii

Chapter Page

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE RESEARCH DATA .............................................. 67
General Descriptive Data .......................................................................... 68
Hardware Considerations ......................................................................... 71
Length of Time Computing Programs Have Existed .......................... 74
Extent of Classroom Teachers' Involvement ....................................... 76
Microcomputers' Most Important Contributions ............................... 77
Planning Process Considerations ............................................................ 82
Budgetary Considerations ......................................................................... 90
Contributors to Computing Program Improvement ......................... 97
Barriers to Computing Program Improvement ................................ 104
Allocation of Available Computer Time ............................................ 110
Summary of the Data Analysis .............................................................. 117

V. SUMMARIES, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND REFLECTIONS ............................................................................ 122
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations ................................ 122
Hardware Considerations .............................................................. 124
Length of Time Computing Programs Have Existed ............... 125
Extent of Classroom Teachers' Involvement ............................ 127
Microcomputers' Most Important Contributions .................... 128
Planning Process Considerations ................................................. 131
Budgetary Considerations .............................................................. 133
Contributors to Computing Program Improvement. ............. 136
Barriers to Computing Program Improvement ....................... 138
Allocation of Available Computer Time ................................... 140
Program Maturity Considerations ........................................................ 144
Recommendations for Further Study .................................................. 150
Summary and Reflections ...................................................................... 153

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................... 158
APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................ 162

APPENDIX C: COMMUNICATIONS
COVER LETTER ACCOMPANYING SURVEY INSTRUMENT.168

FIRST REMINDER LETTER ................................................................. 171
SECOND REMINDER LETTER. ........................................................... 173
APPENDIX D: BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................. 175
APPENDIX E: TABLES .............................................................................. 183
APPENDIX F: FIGURES ............................................................................ 185

viii

LISIQEIABLES

Table Page
1. Table 1: Changes in Computer Access Time .................................. 21
2. Table II: School Characteristics (Raw Data Form) .......................... 69
3. Table III: School Characteristics (Ratio Form) ................................. 70
4. Table IV: Hardware Distribution: All Computers ........................ 72
5. Table V: Hardware Distribution-Apple 11 Family ........................ 73
6. Table VI: Location of Instructional-Use Computers ...................... 74
7. Table VII: Years of Instructional Computing .................................. 75
8. Table VIII: Staff Involvement in Computing Programs ............... 76
9. Table IX: Principals' Most Important Computer Uses ................... 80

10. Table X: Most Frequent Clarifying Comments ................................. 81
11. Table XI: Decision-Makers in Planning The Program. ................... 83
12. Table XII: Composition of Computer Committees ......................... 84
13. Table XIII: "People-Hours" Used in Planning ................................. 86
14. Table XIV: # of Years Included in The Plans .................................... 87
15. Table XV: # of Factors Included in The Plans .................................. 88
16. Table XVI: Factors In The Planning Process ..................................... 89
17. Table XVII: Total Per-Student Computer Expenses ........................ 91
18. Table XVIII: Itemized Per-Student Computer Expenses. ............... 95
19. Table XIX: Allocation of Computer Funds ........................................ 95
20. Table XX: Hardware Per-Student Expenses ..................................... 178

ix

 

Table Page

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31 .
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.

Table XXI: Software Per-Student Expenses ...................................... 178
Table XXII: Staff Development Per-Student Expenses .................. 179
Table XXIII: Equipment Maintenance Per-Student Costs. ........... 179
Table XXIV: Improvement Contributors-6 Years Ago .................. 98
Table XXV: Improvement Contributors-N ow .............................. 100
Table XXVI: Improvement Contributors-in 3 Years .................... 101
Table XXV II: Contributors—Consistency Over Time .................... 102
Table XXV III: Barriers to Improvement--3 Years Ago .................. 105
Table XXIX: Barriers to Improvement--Now ................................. 106
Table XXX: Barriers to Improvement-4n 3 Years .......................... 107
Table XXXI: Barriers-Consistency Over Time ............................... 109
Table XXXII: Mean Allocation of Computer Time ........................ 111
Table XXXIII: Actual Allocation of Computer Time ..................... 112
Table XXXIV: Allocation of Programming Time .......................... 113
Table XXXV: Allocation of Applications Time .............................. 114
Table XXXVI: Allocation of CAL Time ............................................ 115
Table XXXVII: Ideal Allocation of Computer Time ...................... 115
Table XXXVIII: Program Maturity Comparisons ........................... 149
x

 

h

HEQEEIGLIBES

Figure Page
1. Figure I: The Number of Students Per School ................................ 180
2. Figure 11: The Number of Computers Per School ........................... 180
3. Figure III: The Ratio of Students Per Computer ............................. 181
4. Figure IV: The Ratio of Students Per Teacher ................................. 181
5. Figure V: Budgetary Correlation: Annual / Recent ........................ 182
6. Figure VI: Contributor Consistency Over Time .............................. 182
7. Figure VII: Barrier Consistency Over Time ..................................... 183

xi

 

CHAEIERI

SIAIEMENIQEIHEEBQBLEM

The 1980's have witnessed the virtual explosion of microcomputers on the
American educational scene. Becker's 1985 national study (Lamon, 1987)
revealed dramatic changes in the two years that followed his first survey
(from 1983 to 1985). Lamon listed the following "highlights" from Becker's
report, "the number of computers in use in schools quadrupled from about
250,000 to over one million, with the typical computer-using elementary
school having gone from two computers in use to six computers...[at the same
time that] the proportion of elementary schools owning five or more
computers went from 7% to 54%." White (1987) updated those findings,
citing a August 1986 National Government Assessment Report that stated
there were "an estimated 1.4 million computers in our schools by the spring
of '86, which approximates a ratio of one computer to 29 pupils, an enormous

change in five years."

These data suggest that even elementary schools have changed dramatically,
so that those without computers are now as much the exception as schools
with them were less than a decade ago. Goor‘s (1982) and Becker's (1985)
studies demonstrated this change, revealing that the percent of elementary
schools providing computer access to their students had increased from 15%

in 1980 to 82% in 1985.

2

The pressure of public opinion and the voice of knowledgeable computing
educators have been the incentive for this massive acquisition of the products
of emerging technology. Experts from across the country extolled the coming
of this "intelligent" machine with its vast instructional potential (Papert,
1980, and Moursund, 1981). Everette Rogers (1984) has called the
microcomputer "potentially the most exciting innovation that has happened
to schools in the past 50 years." Educators, including Moursund (1984), Bork
(1984) and Walker (1983), stress the importance of including microcomputers
in our educational institutions. Winkler et al (1986) concur, asserting that
computers "have been heralded as a great vehicle for improving the quality
of instruction." Shavelson and Salomon (1985) further support that point,
stating that many educators believe microcomputers have unique
instructional capabilities to benefit students. The result, as Winkler et al
(1986) indicate, is that, although the debate on how best to use the technology
continued, "it is clear that public schools and school districts are acquiring

microcomputers at an increasing rate."

However, the mere presence of more computers in schools is unlikely to
achieve the outcomes that experts have predicted. How schools use
computers is critically important. Sadly, despite the potential value to schools
claimed by computer advocates, instructional computing is still lagging far

behind business and industry in using the emerging technologies.

White (1987) examined the effects technology had on many work
environments and contrasted them to the impact made on our educational
institutions. She asks rhetorically, "Is there any difference between what is

happening in education compared to other work settings...? The answer is a

 

3

definite ‘yes.' The difference is that education has not changed a single basic
process that is essential to its operations" while other work settings have
made dramatic transitions. She concludes that education has "kept

technologies far away from the basic processes of learning and teaching."

How can educators change this situation? Suggestions offered to guide the
instructional use of computers have been many and varied. As Snyder and
Palmer (1986) express it, "Without much effort, one can find claims for the
computer as a solution to just about anything. It's better than snake oil! And
a lot more expensive." Most of the claims they reference, however, were
designed to market products, not improve educational practices. These
widely divergent recommendations for educational computing practices have
produced troubling questions which remain unanswered after the excitement

surrounding each new product has subsided.

White (1987) suggests that, [for the most part in America's public schools],
"the technologies have been inserted around the edges of the curriculum...
[and the] rest of the curriculum stays the same: taught the same, tested the
same, and with the same type of textbooks, that now add on a little software
supplement." Snyder and Palmer (1986) go further, asserting that, "most of
what is being done these days [with computers in schools] is disappointing...
the reality of educational computing in the trenches...is rather drab and
equivocal at the moment." Yet, as the reports of Lamon (1987) and White
(1987) indicate, many schools have continued to increase the number of their
computers regardless of uncertainties about how the machines can best be

used. They have acted much as Winkler et a1 (1986) recommend when they

4

state that schools should "continue to acquire microcomputers and

educational courseware."

Although both Becker (1985) and Lamon (1987) pointed out that elementary
schools are rapidly acquiring computers, White (1987) and Snyder and Palmer
(1986) inform us that schools are using the machines to teach the curriculum
in much the same manner as before computers were widely available. The
instructional changes of the magnitude alluded to by Rogers (1984) and others
will need continuing support and carefully thought-out long-range planning.
If the eventual educational impact of computers will be as profound as some
cited here have suggested, it will take time and will need the guidance of
imaginative leaders. Papert (1985) illustrates the point, using an analogous

historical example:

...It took years before designers of automobiles accepted the idea
that they were cars, not "horseless carriages," and the precursors
of modern motion pictures were plays acted as if before a live
audience but actually in front of a camera. A whole generation
was needed for the new art of motion pictures to emerge as
something quite different from a linear mix of theater plus
photography. Most of what has been done up to now under the
name of "educational technology" is still at the stage of the
linear mix of old instructional methods with new technologies.

Can educators in the field expedite the evolutionary process Papert described?
The author's experience suggests that one method used by educators is to
"networ " with colleagues in nearby schools. One way in which educators
network is by sharing the implementation processes they have adopted in
developing their computing programs, including the successes and failures
discovered with their use. The practice has seemed more common in sites
without district-level personnel with whom to confer. Often, however, the

network linkages established are with one's closest associates, not necessarily

in

5

with those who might provide especially sound advice. Thus, though this
idea-sharing process may prove effective at times, it can easily create a self-

perpetuating cycle in which the "blind lead the blind."

This study was designed to provide data to instructional computing leaders in
American elementary schools. It investigated aspects of the instructional
computing programs of selected elementary schools from across the country
which were recommended for inclusion based on the high quality of their
instructional computing programs. Close examination of schools recognized
as leaders in the development of any instructional program is a powerful
approach for identifying high-quality practices which are supported by a

practical "track record" of performance.

mmmm

The purpose of this study was to gather research-based data that might
provide guidance to the decision-makers of American elementary schools,
the leaders who continue to acquire computers for their buildings although
they are often unclear on how to use the machines wisely. The project
investigated characteristics of the instructional computing programs of
elementary schools which were identified as among the leaders in the field.
The findings serve both to guide schools in planning their programs and to
help them orient themselves relative to schools recognized as having

especially successful programs.

The major goal of the study was to identify characteristic elements of high-

quality elementary school instructional computing and to reveal practices

6

common to schools recognized as having high quality instructional
computing programs. These program elements can suggest approaches
which, if adopted, may improve particular aspects of schools‘ instructional

computing programs.

Another of the study's purposes was to reveal unique aspects of these high-
quality programs which illustrate differing approaches despite being all
recommended for the quality of their programs. Although the programs
were all recognized as meritorious, there are many ways to develop and
maintain quality instructional computing programs. Schools with different
philosophies, settings and resources develop programs with differing
priorities. The study indicates which characteristics within the control of the
building-level instructional computing leader seem likely to inhibit or

facilitate program improvement.

The schools included in this study all share at least two important
characteristics. They have high—quality instructional computing programs
with practices which, nevertheless, fall short of the aspirations of educational
computing's visionaries. They also have instructional computing programs
that attracted the attention of leaders "in the field." The programs they have
developed are real ones, not theoretical models of what "should" or "could"

be done.

The instructional computing programs included in the study reflect the
efforts of educational computing proponents to address the complex issues
surrounding the use of computers in elementary schools at a time of

perplexingly rapid technological and societal change. While many of their

7

colleagues complained about the expenses, the confusion, the lack of guidance
or the difficulties associated with developing an instructional computing
program, the leaders of these schools adopted positive approaches to the
situation. As Harvard's John Steinbrunner (1974) pointed out, "It is
inherently easier to develop a negative argument than to advance a
constructive one." The decision-makers in the schools surveyed during the
study avoided that easier alternative. For that reason, their efforts were
recognized by regional computer educators and, as a result, were included in

this study's sample.

Impmtanmnfthsfimdx

It is unrealistic to expect that school leaders will implement sweeping
instructional innovations without assistance and guidance from research and
other support sources. David Gordon (1984) argued that schools need
assistance from outside experts for instructional self-renewal to take place.
The needed assistance includes guidance, informed support and practical

advice on developing successful educational programs.

Connecting that point more closely to instructional computing, Lewis A.
Rhodes (1986) emphasized the importance of providing support to educators
in this period of rapid technological change. Human adjustments must
necessarily accompany these changes. He stressed the human interface with
technology when he said, "Strategic technology use [technology as a tool of
reform] strikes out against an invisible cost that a generation of first-time
tool-users pay. This is not the cost of hardware or software, but of people-

wear-the personal time and energy required to rethink what we do, how we

8

do it, and...why we do it. Most of us are unwilling to invest the time and

energy unless the end makes it worthwhile."

"People-wear" is the part of any program we must seek to minimize, not
maximize, as we often attempt with hardware and software. Research
projects such as this offer one means to reduce the impact of this

phenomenon.

! I' andl' 'I I'

There are several underlying considerations which may affect efforts to make
generalizations from the findings of this study. Steps were taken to minimize
each of these effects, but they remain confounding influences. Each of the
influences are addressed briefly in this section, as well as the measures taken
to decrease their impact on the study. The issues discussed include: (1) the
process used to select schools for inclusion in the sample, (2) the use of vague,
value-laden terms such as "excellent" and "high quality" and (3) issues

related to the use of survey approaches for gathering data in general.

First, the process used to select a nationwide sample of elementary schools
which have high quality instructional computing programs produced a
limited sample. The intent of the study was not to gather the names of all, or
even most, of the elementary schools whose computing programs were
considered excellent. On the contrary, the study identified a sample of schools
recommended as among the pace-setters in various regions of the country
recognized for their leadership in instructional computing. The expectation

was that these schools would have high-quality programs without necessarily

 

9

having their selection restricted by arbitrary "criteria" for excellence that were

pre-determined by the researcher.

Second, in all cases, schools were chosen according to the criteria for
excellence or quality existing in the recommending states and districts.
Appropriate district-level representatives were asked to recommend a very
small number of schools in their area whose instructional computing
programs they considered were their "most outstanding." In some cases, only
one or two schools were recommended from districts noted for their support
of instructional computing with many hundred schools from which to select.
In other districts, the same request resulted in as many five or six schools

being named from a smaller total number of schools.

The final variation in the data may be accounted for, at least partially, by the
differing perceptions of quality of the individual educators who
recommended the schools. However, one instruction was always clearly
stated. If there were any doubt about the program's quality, recommending
fewer schools of higher quality was greatly preferred to more schools of "less
high quality." (For a more complete description of the process used to gather

the individual schools, see Identifying High Quality Computing Pregrams
section in Chapter Three).

The next limitation, interpretation of vague terms such as outstanding,
exeellent, or high gea_li_ty was left nearly entirely to each identified
instructional computing representative to minimize possible interference
with the validity of the results. Stipulating the criteria by which selections

should be made would have resulted in a list of schools which were

10

indicative of those predetermined characteristics of elementary school
instructional computing programs. By leaving the process open-ended, an
examination of the resulting schools would allow the study to uncover
characteristics of "quality" instructional computing as identified by leaders in

the field, not simply by one researcher.

Aggar and Goldstein (1971) reinforce the point: "One cannot construct a valid
theory, whether of nuclear physics or community educational politics, based
on the kind of instant knowledge derived from a single piece of...research."
The study will have served its purpose if it provides a foundation for further
investigations into characteristics of quality instructional computing

programs in elementary schools.

Moreover, the function of the study was never to build a theoretical construct
for elementary school instructional computing excellence and then support it
with empirical evidence. On the contrary, the procedure was first to elicit
examples of quality instructional computing and then to investigate selected
elements of those programs. With this approach, the study sought to identify
elements of instructional computing programs consistently associated with
schools seen as having instructional computing programs which were

identified as being of particular high quality.

The final limitation, one that is inherent in all survey designs, involves the
nature of the responses received. Any response rate of less than one hundred
percent raises the question of how representative the respondents were of the
total population being studied. Response rates of less than fifty percent are

not uncommon in research projects of this nature. Such a low return rate of

11

the data-gathering device would clearly exacerbate concerns about respondent

representativeness.

In this study, however, the rate of response was nearly seventy percent, quite
high for any survey project, let alone one conducted on a national basis.
Studies such as Bancroft (1986) have demonstrated that even schools with
very little to report will often do so when assured of anonymity. Thus, the
general concern regarding the survey approach is less important than it might
otherwise be. Beyond that, given the purpose of the study, there was less
interest in the representativeness of the findings than in the characteristics of
quality instructional computing programs. Still, the high response rate was
gratifying and was perhaps indicative of the importance attached to the topic
itself by those asked to be involved in the study.

IimgramElementsExaminedhxthesmdy

This study investigated nine aspects of instructional computing programs.
The following are the five major elements of the elementary school

instructional computing programs investigated:

a) those factors which principals (or instructional computing leaders)
saw as providing the greatest contributions to improving their
instructional computing programs and the relative stability of those

factors over time;

12

b) those factors which principals (or instructional computing leaders)
saw as providing the greatest barriers to improving their instructional
computing programs and the relative stability of those factors over

time;

c) the proportion of available computer time allocated to each of the
following uses: computer-assisted learning, computer programming
and using the computer as a "tool" to perform a task for another

content area;

d) the manner in which computer-related expenses have been

distributed at the building-level over the last two years;

e) selected aspects of the planning process(es) which have guided the

development of schools' instructional computing programs.

There were also four related areas of instructional computing programs

which the study examined. Those four program aspects were:

f) how long have schools had instructional computing programs?

g) what type of microcomputers have been used and where have they
typically been located?

h) what portion of the full-time classroom teaching staff has been

involved in instructional computing programs?

13

i) what do principals believe have been the most important ways in

which teachers use microcomputers to facilitate student learning?

Each of the specified portions of the instructional computing programs were
assessed through referencing the appropriate topics to the corresponding
items on the survey instrument (see the Relating My egg Researeh
Quesg'ens section in Chapter III). Once collected, the data for the research

questions were analyzed in a manner discussed in Chapter IV.

Anchm'mnftthmdx

The reference sources cited make it clear that computer acquisitions continue
at district and building levels despite concerns about costs and the present
uses to which computers are put in schools. Elementary school decision-
makers need data upon which to base decisions involved in developing
successful instructional computing programs. This study was designed to
provide such data by investigating some of the important characteristics of
elementary school instructional computing programs recommended for their
high quality. In particular, the program characteristics examined were those
typically influenced by the discretionary actions of a building-level principal

or similar instructional leader.

The remainder of this dissertation is divided into four chapters. Chapter

Two, Review 91 I_h_e_ Related Literature, provides a brief review of the

 

 

literature pertinent to the issues investigated in this study. The issues

discussed include the impact of computers on our society, their potential

14

value in schools, and factors influencing the development of an effective

instructional elementary school computing program.

Chapter Three, Research Qcfiign m Methodology, discusses the methods
used in selecting the schools used in the study, conducting the pilot study
which preceded the nationwide study, and gathering the data from the
schools in the sample. Chapter Four, Analysie ef the Research Deg, contains
a detailed examination and interpretation of the information collected from
the schools involved in the study. Chapter Five, Summaries, Cenelusions.

Recommendations and Reflections consists of the conclusions suggested by

 

 

the data analyses presented in Chapter Four and the recommendations both

for practice and further research which grow out of those conclusions.

mu

WQEIHERELATEDLIIERAIURE

This chapter provides a review of the research literature relevant to the
instructional use of microcomputers in American elementary schools. It
begins with a discussion of the importance of computers both to society in
general and schools in particular. The next section examines the minimal
impact, in the estimation of many leading educators, that computers have
made on the instructional practices of American elementary schools. This
section is followed by a detailed examination of the process by which
computers have been introduced into schools, including the difficulty
inherent in the process, the approaches used, the role of the principal and
some related concerns which must be considered in the overall
implementation process. These considerations include relevant aspects of
instructional computing programs such as computer placement in the school
building, allocation of computer access time, budgetary considerations and
factors that have been identified as either barriers or facilitators to the
improvement of instructional computing programs. Finally, the chapter is
concluded with an overall summary of the literature relevant to the issues

concerning elementary school instructional computing programs.

 

I6

111:de

The enormous impact that computers are making on our lives has been
documented for years by writers such as Alvin Toffler (1971) and Christopher
Evans (1979). Naisbitt (1982) reported that more than 60% of Americans have
jobs that involve some form of information-handling. Most of those
positions involve computers either directly or indirectly. In addition to the
impact computers have made on the business world, Iuliussen (1984)
estimated that by the year 1992, the home computer market could well reach

as much as $14 billion.

Educators, including Moursund (1984), Bork (1984) and Walker (1983), have
emphasized the importance of using microcomputers in our educational
institutes. The competent use of technology seems certain to be among the
proficiencies expected of successful entrants into the careers of tomorrow's
world. Developing the competencies needed to use the technological
applications can begin early in students' educational experience. It is
important for all students to have an opportunity to acquire those skills, not
just the ones whose parents can afford to purchase computers for use at
home. This recommendation should be adhered to as consistently as the
fiscal realities of our school systems allow. The eventual framework should
include students' future needs as well as their present ones. The necessary
coping skills in the future lives of today's elementary students are very likely

to include an ability to use computers competently.

17

A decade from now, when many of today's elementary school students begin
their careers, this ability will be an entry-level expectation for many positions.
In fact, Stone (1986) points out that a knowledge of computers, as an entry-
level job expectation, already exists. She notes that, "...most companies use
questions on their job application forms to sieve out the potential
employees...and everybody who wants a good job has to have some computer
experience." Opportunities to acquire the most worthwhile computer
experiences should be provided to as many students as possible. Cohen et a1
(1983) support that point, suggesting, as a specific example, that the use of
computer applications in content area classes could better prepare students for

using computers when their schooling was completed.

However, there are reasons for using computers instructionally in schools
even more compelling than the need to provide students with the
appropriate coping skills for their potentially computer-reliant future careers.
The factors motivating instructional change should not be confined to those
associated with future employment competencies. Carefully considered
instructional use of computers can help teachers facilitate students' learning
in ways not previously possible. Lowd (1986) lists a number of ways in which
computers can be used in schools: to improve basic skills, to individualize
instruction, to train minds, to encourage problem-solving or discovery
learning and to change the nature of the teacher-student relationship, putting
students more in charge of their own learning. As she points out, which
applications are encouraged depends on the expected learning outcomes as

well as the philosophy of the schools and teachers who implement them.

18

Everett Rogers (1984) has called the microcomputer the "most exciting
innovation" to impact on schools in the past 50 years. Winkler et al (1986)
assert that computers "...have been heralded as a great vehicle for improving
the quality of instruction." Many other educators believe microcomputers
have unique instructional capabilities (Shavelson and Salomon, 1985) which
benefit students. Evidence gathered from studies comparing computer-based
and traditional instruction suggest that computer-based instruction can
improve both students' performance and their rate of learning (Kulik et a1,
1983, and Bangert-Drowns et a1, 1985). The computer offers schools a

powerful instructional potential not previously available.

IheMinimallmpactnanmmnmnnSshmls

Still, despite the urging of educational leaders, computers have yet to impact
on the instructional practices of schools across the country to the extent that

many had hoped. Goodlad (1983) makes the point clearly in _A_ Place Called

 

SelLoel: "...perhaps, as with radio and television, computers will become
peripheral to the school experience. If so, schools could well become
peripheral to the human experience." White (1987) reinforces Goodlad's
displeasure with the absence of any significant computer presence in
American schools. She emphasizes the difference in the impact that
technology has made on other work settings compared to its impact on
education, suggesting that "...education has not changed a single basic process
that is essential to its operations..." while the other work settings have made

dramatic transformations. She concludes that the American education

19

system has "...kept technologies far away from the basic processes of learning

and teaching."

Bork (1984) expresses his own frustration at the lack of change taking place in
educational settings: "...most learning is still taking place through the passive
learning modes that have been dominant for hundreds of years: books and
lectures." Goodlad (1983) carries his concern for the situation he found in
schools further, asking how we "...can continue to be almost completely
unconcerned about this inexcusable omission of one of the most important
inventions of all time, the basis of a social revolution capable of molding the
destiny of every human being?" Walker (1983) recommends caution after
observing several school instructional computing programs. He believes
that "...microcomputers...[may] aggravate several of the most serious current
problems confronting education-~notably equity, school finance, and

divergent public expectations."

These statements from educators involved in computer education suggest
that the instructional advantages possible through the use of computers have
not been made widely available in American elementary schools programs.
Despite the great potential, establishing instructional computing programs in

elementary schools does not appear to have been accomplished in practice.

Harvard president Derek Bok (1985) is more pessimistic in his reaction to the

extant situation. He recalls the fate of technology-based, educational

20

innovations in general, when he says, "Experience should...mal<e us wary of
dramatic claims for the impact of the new technology." He supported this call
for a cautious approach by alluding to the impact of the phonograph, radio
and television. The technological advances by themselves were not sufficient

to guarantee that lasting impact would take place.

Sinclair (1984) suggests that "...each new step in technology brings misery
rather than contentment but this is because it brings change faster than
benefits~and change...is always disturbing." This point echoes Rhodes' (1986)
concern about the cost in "people-wear" inherent in technological change
processes. For the computer integration process to minimize these factors, it
must be carefully planned, guided by research and provided with continued

strong support.

One principle of educational innovation is that the teacher plays a critical role
in determining whether the change will be widely adopted or conscientiously
avoided. Moursund (1981), who had previously tried to encourage the
widespread use of calculators in mathematics classes, shares the common
frustration with the lack of change in teaching techniques. However, he
underscored the difficulty teachers have in adopting an instructional
approach that includes the use of computers: "The computer is a powerful
tool, but it is a complex tool. To use a general range of computer capabilities

effectively takes considerable knowledge, training and a measure of courage."

Another critical factor, if students are expected to use computers widely, is the
extent to which computers are accessible to students. Moursund and Ricketts

(1987) have developed a table to portray the estimated changes in computer

21

per-student ratio and computer availability for American public school
students over the last four years. Despite the large increases in hardware that
the table reflects, it is interesting (and somewhat discouraging) to note the
very small per-student computer access time increases that the additional
machines have produced. An increase of approximately one million
microcomputers only produced a daily difference of about 8 minutes per

student. Their data for the years 1983-84 through 1986-87 is shown in Table I.

Table]: mmmmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students to Computer
School Number of Computers Minutes Per
Year Computers Ratio Student per Day
83-84 400.000 1 - 100 4 minutes
85 700.000 1 - 57 6 minutes
85-86 L000.000 1 - 40 9 mingtee
86-87 1.400.000 1 - 29 12 minutes

 

 

 

 

 

Table I points to some of the complexity in the issues being considered and
suggests one major difficulty in affecting change. The relationship between
the two ratios listed in the table remained relatively constant over the four
year period (1983 to 1987) with "students per computer" decreasing by twenty-
nine percent while "computer minutes per student per day" increased by
thirty-three percent. If we accept the figures, we reach the inevitable

conclusion that the daily computer access increase of eight minutes per

22

student noted required a near quadrupling of the computers available to

students (1983-84 to 1986-87)

Schools must consider the amount of computer time available to students
before they devise plans that their extant hardware cannot possibly support. If
schools doubled the number of computers they presently have (a major
financial decision), it would only provide each student an average of one
hour extra per week on the machines. Those sixty instructional minutes
would be very expensive ones! The instructional activities planned must be

developed with all due consideration for their cost-effectiveness.

Given the importance attached to the use of computers by educators such as
Goodlad, Moursund and White, the improvement of elementary school
instructional computing programs deserves to have priority consideration.
The issues involved are complex and a well-considered approach is needed to
address them. Snyder and Palmer (1986) suggest that we learn from the past:
"...a 1978 Rand Corporation study found that many of the innovative
programs of the sixties failed to take hold largely due to a failure to conceive
of schools as complex social systems. We must learn from that experience, or
waste another decade." We cannot rely on student interest, parent support or
the zeal of computer enthusiasts to successfully guide the approach to
implementation. It is likely that elementary school principals need assistance

in making decisions about their instructional computing programs based on

23

sound principles-decisions designed to help their programs avoid the fate of

the innovative programs of the sixties.

Certain elements must be available for any innovation to succeed. Carnine
(1984) considers several variables as critical for an effective implementation
plan to integrate computers into the curriculum: sufficient resources,
availability of quality software and carefully devised implementation
methods. This research project was designed to address implementation

methods in particular.

Lowd (1986) wonders if "...the uncertainty about goals [for using computers in
education is] the reason that involving more educators is becoming more and
more difficult?" She believes this is the case and wonders whether "...we
want computers to help schools do more effectively what they've always
done, or do we want to change the goals of the schools and...their methods?
My answer...is that computers bring us a golden opportunity to improve
education...[and make it] more relevant to our rapidly changing world." The
issues of why and how computers will be used must be resolved before any
cogent instructional computing programs can be developed. They need to be
answered at the local level in a way that is consistent with each school's

instructional philosophy.

Lowd's point about goal-setting is well taken, but as White (1987) warns, "If
we do not rethink what we are doing...[with our use of technology in
education] our schools could be left behind as education moves out into all
those other places that are already changing...more quickly than our schools."

The decisions made in developing instructional computing programs must

24

be grounded in an awareness of the many inter-related elements influencing
the process. Those elements include an understanding of the benefits
available with the differing instructional methods of using computers as well
as the often widely varied perspectives of community, business, student and

parent group representatives.

The decisions made might mitigate between gradual and radical educational
change processes. Ricketts (1987), former editor-in-chief of I_he Computing
Teacher, points to the potentially far-reaching nature of the computer impact
on schools: "Computer education history over the past ten years supports
continuing the evolutionary [or gradual] approach, but the My o_f t_h_e_
computer egg i_n_ germ suggests get computers yym ESL“. g; destabilize
eehgpls M _1_922."Ricketts believes that this "revolution" will occur as a
result of an abundance of microcomputer-owning and microcomputer-

competent students who will fill our elementary schools by the year 1992.

The decisions that will determine the approach and characteristics of any

particular instructional computing program are typically made by the local
administrator, frequently in consultation with computing enthusiasts and
other members of staff. Nonetheless, the local administrator has a crucial

role in the process.

The administrator is a key player in the adoption process for any educational
innovation. Lindelow (1984) emphasizes that principals can be instrumental
in helping teachers overcome their computer fears and can greatly facilitate
the computer integration process. Winkler et al (1986) also cite a number of
studies which demonstrate the importance of the administrator's role in
encouraging innovation: "Commitment from school administrators
is...necessary for successful implementation and staff development." They
asserted that "...previous research shows clearly that the level of commitment
demonstrated by...school administrators helps to determine the success of

educational innovations."

Further, effective implementation requires a supportive school principal
(Bergman and McLaughlin, 1978, Fullan and Pomfret, 1977, Leithwood and
Montgomery, 1982, McLaughlin and Marsh, 1978), usually one who provides
instructional leadership (Purkey and Smith, 1977, McDonnell, 1983, Cohen,
1983). In addition, the principal also encourages successful staff development
activities by providing strong leadership (Fullan and Pomfret, 1977, Griffin,
1983), strong personal commitment to the activities (Moore and Hyde, 1981,
Jensen, Betz and Zigarmi, 1978) and resources (McDonnell, 1983).

In situations involving more specifically technology based innovations,

Winkler et al (1986) suggest the

...best contribution...school administrators can make is to
provide innovators with technical support, which gives them a
clear signal that the innovation is taken seriously (McLaughlin

26

and Marsh, 1978). Technical support implies all the necessary
resources: equipment, supplies, training opportunities, and
assistance for users of the innovation.

Sheingold (1981) and Wilson (1982) also found that administrators can
positively influence computer use by developing articulated plans for

computer acquisition and by encouraging interested personnel.

Shotwell (1983) emphasizes that the single most important consideration in
implementing an instructional computing program is the training of the
teaching staff. As the instructional leader of his staff, encouraging the
implementation of a comprehensive staff development is the responsibility

of the principal.

3mm mummmmmsmmmg

The location of the computers in a school is one of the first decisions that
must be resolved in the planning process. The placement of the computers
within a building often has a great influence on their eventual use.
Responding to the integration of computers into elementary schools, Derek
Walker (1983) suggests that now "...schools have computer centers and offer a
completely new subject, computer programming, with little formal teacher
training, no reliance on the base budget, and enthusiastic support of many
parents." Robert Ferguson (1985), on the other hand, advises that computers
in labs should result not only in more teachers and students using computers
regularly, but also in students having more total computer time. He states
that although having computers in individual classrooms limited the

number of teachers using computers regularly, it did result in computer usage

27

across the curriculum. Placing computers in labs, however, did not appear to

encourage this wide range of applications.

Stone (1986) suggests that isolating computers in labs can produce inequitable
situations. Creating computer labs can establish situations in which
"...computers are kept in special rooms, taught by special teachers for special
students, with the message computers are not for everyone. We need to
make it clear that the computer is a multi-purpose tool, useful to many

different people in many different ways."

In contrast, placing a single computer in a series of individual classrooms
creates some daunting management problems which involve coordinating
one computer and a classroom of students. Ferguson (1985) cautions that
locating a single computer in a classroom tends to limit usage to computer-
assisted learning programs that could be easily scheduled and coordinated
with the extant curriculum. Olsen (1986) found that most computers situated
in classrooms tend to result in "teach yourself" approaches characterized by
rota-scheduled student use of computers that consist primarily of easy-to-use,

drill and practice programs used by students without teacher intervention.

Richard McLeod and Beverly Hunter disagree, saying that a "..microcomputer
neven only one to a classroomucan make possible an approach to
teaching...that until very recently was impossible... When we shift our focus
from the computer itself to what it can do for us, the limitation of one

computer per classroom proves to be no limitation at all."

28

Patrick Dickson (1987) suggests that having a single computer available for
use in individual classrooms could encourage the development of the word
processing skills of all the students involved. If that is correct, it may mean
that computer-as-a-tool usage is possible in varied settings, given the

availability of applications programs appropriate for the specific situation.

Allocation of computer access time is another concern that needs to be
addressed. Which skills should be developed or practiced given the finite
amount of available computer access time? Moursund (1985) suggested that
the advent of affordable computer power should herald a shift in emphasis to
higher level thinking skills in our schools. However, Snyder and Palmer
(1986) found that the typical elementary school student has about twenty
minutes' computer access time per week. Of those twenty minutes, they
reported that about forty percent is spent with drill and practice programs, one
third with computer programming and nearly all the rest with educational
"games" which Snyder and Palmer feel are really just another form of drill

and practice programs.

The differences between Snyder‘s and Palmer's daily averages (twenty
minutes per student), which are only for elementary school students, and
those drawn from Moursund and Ricketts' table (roughly forty minutes per
student), which are for all students, reflect the greater computer access time
that older students have enjoyed in American schools. The findings

Moursund and Ricketts (1987) compiled show that, even if the number of

29

available machines were increased by nearly a factor of four, only a fairly
insignificant increase in the amount of computer access time available to
students would result (an average daily increase of about eight minutes per
student). With the costs involved even with rapidly decreasing computer

prices, computer access time must be wisely allocated.

If funds were available to purchase additional hardware, for which activities
should the extra computer time be allocated? Walker (1983) states we should
"...expect a continued interest in cultivating powers of discovery, invention,
and researchuthe higher-order cognitive skills. That is the primary

imperative of a technological age." Moursund (1983) discusses the dilemma

that confronted schools:

...Some schools use their computers mainly for drill and practice
on conventional subject matter, while others have students
involved with word processing, electronic spreadsheets,
information retrieval systems, Logo and other programming
languages. What are the best uses of computers in an
educational environment?

How best to use computers remains a question that elementary principals

must help their schools resolve.

Ricketts and Moursund (1987) assert that the use of computer—assisted
learning (or CAL) can be supported if the educational objectives are to
strengthen basic skills: "There is strong research evidence that CAL is a cost-
effective aid to students. The evidence is strongest...at the lower-order level of
Bloom's taxonomy. Computerized drill and practice works!" If one of the

school's goals is to improve basic skills, CAL can assist in the process.

30

Using the computer as a tool is also widely endorsed (Moursund, 1986, Taylor,
1980), but the practice is clearly hardware intensive. For instance, process
writing in a word processing environment is a frequently praised computer
application. If adopted by a school, Ricketts and Moursund (1987) estimate
that its successful implementation would require that one computer for every
10 to 12 students be dedicated only to process writing. If word processing is
one of many computer applications encouraged by a school, a substantial
investment in computer hardware is necessary to support the program. If, in
addition to uses stressing computer applications, computer time was also
allocated for other activities such as computer programming, further
hardware acquisitions will certainly be required. All of these activities mean
extensive computer hardware requirements. This reality creates budgetary
considerations which schools must consider as they design and implement

their instructional computing programs.

Elementary educators must also take into account the allocation of funds
available for computer-related purchases. As Hawley et a1 (1986) point out,
"In the last five years, the cost of computing has dropped enough to enable
every segment of society to access computer technology. [Nonetheless,
few]...school administrators are, as yet, familiar with the issues surrounding

these advances in microcomputer technology."

Moursund (1984) proposes that funds be allocated roughly according to this

predetermined formula,

31

...Hardware: approximately one-half of the total funds, software
and support materials: approximately one-sixth of the funds,
inservice education: approximately one-twelfth of the funds,
computer coordinator: approximately one-sixth of the funds,
contingency: approximately one-twelfth of the funds.

By contrast, Levin (1986) found that hardware costs accounted for only 11% of
total computer expenses, with computer software costs varied from $119 to
$431 per student. Furthermore, Levin feels that software costs exceed
hardware expenses and that personnel costs are "...a substantial and often

neglected portion of...costs, accounting for about 40 percent of the total."

More recently, Ricketts and Moursund (1987) have suggested that in planning
for computer expenses on a five year basis, per-student hardware
expenditures will grow from $5 to $15 whereas software expenses will rise
from $3 to $9. These figures modify the hardware to software ratio Moursund
had previously suggested from a roughly three-to-one ratio to a ratio less than
two-to-one. Ricketts and Moursund also anticipate that the computer-related

budget will triple during that five year period.

Hawley et a1 (1986) point out that it "...is not enough for decision-makers to
know that a new instructional capability is effective. Many effective
instructional capabilities are not used because their cost is prohibitive."
Instructional computer usage must render an appropriate value for the costs

that it incurs.

In terms of the cost-effectiveness of instructional computing, Levin (1986)
found that students could be provided with computer-assisted instruction for
10 minutes per day for a cost of roughly $120 per student per year. By

comparison, Hawley et al (1986), found that if the setting was

32

microcomputer-based within the regular classroom instead of a computer lab,
the costs were roughly one-third those reported by Levin. All of these

findings have budgetary implications for administrators to consider.

Relateanncgms: mmmmm

Since the goal is to improve the instructional computing programs of
elementary schools, it makes sense to identify and remove, where possible,
the factors which may inhibit the development of the programs. Several of
these difficulties were examined in other sections of this chapter. These
factors include a lack of administrative support, insufficient resources and the
intense hardware requirements of many widely-accepted computer

applications such as word processing.

Williams and Williams (1984) assert that no "...component in the
implementation process is more important than the people who manage and
make use of the technology.“ This point was established when Moursund
and others were cited for recognizing the difficulty teachers have in
modifying their instructional strategies to include the use of computers. An
important inhibiting factor to overcome is the difficulty of developing
effective teacher computer inservice training programs. Helen Ditzler (1983)
plainly reinforces the need for such training: "A district that has new
computers and lots of software, but no trained staff, is like an airplane

company with a hundred brand-new 767 jet airliners and no pilots."

33

Other obstacles persist that inhibit the improvement of elementary school
instructional computing programs. In the schools that Hanfling (1986)
visited, "...teachers emphasized the curriculum was already overcrowded, and
computers were ‘another thing' to have to teach." Especially in elementary
schools, teachers in Hanfling's study felt that the school day is already filled
and computers are only one more thing that they have to "cover." Those
teachers felt that if computers are going to be "taught," then some other

content will have to be dropped from the curriculum.

Robert H. Winkler (1985) comments on the difficulty of integrating
computers into classrooms, saying that "...left alone, the average teacher
wouldn't use computer software in the classroom because of an already heavy
burden associated with his teaching." Charters and Pellegrin (1973) and
Bergman and Pauly (1975) also found that lack of time was a factor frequently
cited by teachers as a barrier to implementing any innovation, regardless of its
technology orientation. Shavelson et al (1984) showed that teachers had
many more ideas about how to use computers than they had time to

implement their use.

Walker (1983) shares yet another concern voiced by teachers, saying that
computers are still "lacking in sufficient or appropriate and quality software."
Many other factors, such as the level of funding or physical plant capabilities,
can also be crucial to the ultimate success or failure of the implementation
process. Nonetheless, the role of the teacher is critical to the improvement of

any instructional program.

34

RelachCnncemsz Eacilitamrstntmgramlmpmgment

Just as the factors inhibiting the development of successful instructional
computing programs should be minimized, the factors that facilitate or
contribute most to program improvement should be identified so that they
can be maximized. Stasz and Winkler (1985) discovered that technical
support may be the critical factor underlying teachers' ability to improve their
uses of computers. Technical support includes not only the necessary
equipment, but the other support mechanisms mentioned earlier (by
Moursund and others) as well. Winkler et al (1986) went further in their
study, finding that certain factors were critical for encouraging widespread
computer integration into subject matter instruction. Among the factors they
reported were the following: "...increased number of microcomputers per
teacher, the availability of teacher inservice training..., and the availability of
routine curricular assistance in integrating microcomputers into ongoing

instruction."

In many cases, factors seen as contributors are simply the inversions of those
seen as barriers. As an example, inadequate hardware could be seen as an
obstacle to program development whereas sufficient hardware could facilitate
the process. However, some factors might work only one way—such as the
involvement of an interested "outside expert" whose presence could greatly
aid program development, but whose absence would not necessarily be seen

as a barrier.

Beverly Bancroft (1985) found other factors were tantamount to overall

program success from the viewpoint of the selected computer experts she

35

sampled. Their consensus key factors were (in order of importance):
"...administrative or principal support and involvement, ...adequate funding,
...continuing and quality inservice, and enthusiasm for computing by teachers

and students."

Snyder and Palmer (1986) discuss another perspective:

...educational computer revolution must be a three-dimensional
phenomenon. It takes... affordable hardware of reasonable
quality...[and] exciting, well-designed software. And it takes
significant cultural change, a nation getting accustomed to the
technology, familiar with its strengths and its weaknesses, and
teachers willing and able to make something of it.

The presence of these factors (especially the last) at a local level would help
schools improve their instructional computing programs in ways that would

have previously been impossible.

WMMALH van Literature

The research literature suggests that elementary schools continue to acquire
microcomputers and that they are doing so with increasing frequency.
However, there is still a dearth of research-based evidence to assist the
decision-makers in developing a successful instructional computing program.
The perceptions of leading educators on just what is taking place out in the

field were shown to vary widely on important issues.

Innovational programs designed to utilize computers in public elementary

schools are likely to continue their proliferation. The instructional practices

36

included in these programs are also likely to proliferate, possibly as rapidly as
the number of microcomputers in the schools themselves. For that reason, it

is important that schools have whatever guidance research can provide.

The review of the relevant literature shows that computers have been highly
praised for their instructional potentials. Despite this high regard, many
educators have been disappointed by the minimal impact that computers
have had on American education practices. The reasons for the slow nature
of the change process are complex. Several of the more important
considerations were the difficulty many teachers have incorporating
computers into their instructional approach, the hardware-intensive nature
of many of the most highly-regarded computer applications, as well as the
corresponding funding impact that this produces, and the importance of the
local administrator in developing and supporting a computer integration

plan.

This concludes the review of the relevant literature. Chapter Three provides
a detailed examination of the methodology used throughout the different
parts of the study: the pilot, the identification of schools with high quality
instructional computing programs, and the nationwide data gathering

process.

 

 

CHAPIERIII

BESEARCHDESIGNANDMEIHQQQLQQX

This chapter, which discusses the design and implementation of the study, is
arranged in four sections. The first section provides a general description of
the design of the study. The second section examines both the major and
related research questions which the study was designed to investigate and
details the manner in which the survey instrument's questions correspond to
those research questions. The third section, containing the major
components of the study, is divided into three discussions: the survey
instrument, the pilot study, and the nationwide study. The final section

provides a summary of the study's design and methodology.

mmmmm

The study was undertaken to gather data from schools around the country
whose instructional computing leaders were among the "pacesetters" in the
field. A survey instrument was used to collect the information. The survey
approach was adopted because the distances separating the schools made
interviewing impractical and prohibitively expensive. A mail survey was
used instead of a telephone survey due to the amount of data requested. The
development of the survey instrument is discussed in the Development 9}:

the Survey Instrurment section.

When the instrument was developed, a pilot study was conducted in Eugene,
Oregon. The pilot study was undertaken as a "trial run" to test and improve
the effectiveness of both the instrument and the survey methodology. A
detailed discussion of the pilot study is included in the Pile; Stu—dy section of
this chapter.

After the results of the pilot study had been examined and some
modifications to the survey instrument made, the nationwide survey was
initiated. The first task in this part of the study was to identify elementary
schools with high quality instructional computing programs. Once this was
accomplished, the refined survey instrument was mailed to the schools
included in the sample and the responses gathered. A full description of the
procedures used during the nationwide survey is contained in the The

Nationwide Study section.

ResearchQngstinns

The research questions are listed in two sub-sections, Meier Researeh
Questions and Related Research Questions. The five major research
questions required statistical examination of selected relationships among the
data collected. The four related research questions provided more generally
descriptive data. The manner in which the data gathered with the survey
instrument applied to these research questions is discussed in the

Instrumentatien sub-section.

 

 

39

MaiQchssarshQnestinns

The study was designed to answer five major research questions. These
questions required that the data gathered be analyzed to discover the

relationships that linked several categories of information:

1) What factors do principals feel have provided the greatest
contributions to improving their instructional computing programs?

Are those factors consistent over time?

2) What factors do principals feel have provided the greatest barriers to
improving their instructional computing programs? Are those factors

consistent over time?

3) How is available computer time allocated for computer-assisted
learning, computer programming, and the use of the computer as a

"tool?"

4) How have computer-related expenses been distributed over the last
several years? How consistent has that distribution been? Is there any
relationship between the expenditures and the established base of

computer expenses?

5) Which elements characterize the planning processes used in schools

with high quality instructional computing programs?

40

Related Research Questions

The study also collected data to answer four related research questions. For
the most part, data gathered for these questions provided demographic data
useful in creating a more complete description of the schools in the sample:

6) How long have schools had instructional computing programs?

7) What type of microcomputers have been used and where have they
typically been located?

8) What portion of the full-time classroom teaching staff has been

involved in instructional computing programs?

9) What do principals believe have been the most important ways in

which teachers use microcomputers to facilitate student learning?

Dflaflsnfihcfitndx

This section describes the major elements of the study and is organized in

three sub-sections-Instrumentation fie Pilot Study, and The N atienwide

 

Shier-corresponding to the major portions of the research study.

The Instrumentation sub-section is divided into two discussions: the

development of the instrument and the description of how the research

 

 

41

questions are related to the questions on the instrument. The Pilot Study sub-
section is divided into discussions of its purpose, its components, and its
results. The third sub-section, the Nationwide SEQ, is divided into
descriptions of the procedures used both to identify the sample of schools

included in the study and to conduct the actual data collection.

Instmmgntalinn

The data-gathering instrument is a critical element in any study using a
surveying approach to collecting data. An effective instrument was especially
critical to this study because the survey was conducted by mail. The method
of data-collection made necessary an instrument which provided all necessary
explication within its own text. The questions had to be worded explicitly and

unequivocally.

The initial procedures used to develop and improve the questionnaire are
explained in this sub-section. The survey instrument refinements that

resulted from the pilot study are discussed in the sub—section, Results o_f th_e

Pilot Study.

The sub-section on the instrumentation is divided into two parts: the
development of the survey instrument and the manner in which the

research questions are related to the questions on the survey instrument.

42

anthcflmxlnsmmcm

The survey instrument was developed with great care because of its
importance to the study's eventual effectiveness. The original copy of the
instrument was generated after reference to the survey literature and
consultations with educators in universities, the Michigan Department of

Education, and the school district in East Lansing, Michigan.

Preliminary versions of the survey instrument were developed and tested in
East Lansing. Each refinement was undertaken as a result of feedback from
elementary school principals, university professors, district administrators,
and computer specialists. These individuals were asked to review and
comment on draft copies of the questionnaire during its development. Many
of their suggestions and recommendations were incorporated into the "final"

form used in the pilot study.

Rflaflngfiumxandkmrchflmstim

The manner in which the survey instrument's questions were used to gather
data for the study's major and related research questions is discussed briefly in
this section. Following each research question, the survey questions which
contributed data to their study are listed numerically. Each survey question is
followed by a right bracket. For the full text of specific survey questions of

interest, see the complete copy of the survey instrument in the Appendix.

43

1) What factors do principals feel have provided the greatest contributions to
improving their instructional computing programs? Are those factors
consistent over time?

Data for this question were gathered with survey questions 13],

I4], and 15].

2) What factors do principals feel have provided the greatest barriers to
improving their instructional computing programs? Are those factors
consistent over time?

Data for this question were gathered with survey questions 16],

17], and 18].

3) How is available computer time allocated for computer-assisted learning,
computer programming, and the use of the computer as a "tool"?
Data for this question were gathered with survey questions 8], 9],

10], 11], and 12].

4) How have computer-related expenses been distributed over the last
several years? How consistent has that distribution been? Is there any
relationship between the expenditures and the established base of computer
expenses?

Data for this series of questions were gathered with survey

questions 3](a), 3](c), 4], 5], 6], and 7].

5) Which elements characterize the planning processes used in schools with

high quality instructional computing programs?

44

Data for this question were gathered with survey questions 19],

20], 21], 22], and 23].

6) How long have schools had instructional computing programs?

Data for this question were gathered with survey question 3](b).

7) What type of microcomputers have been used and where have they most
frequently been located?
Data for the first part of this question were gathered with survey
question 3](c). Data for the second part of the question were

gathered with survey question 24].

8) What portion of the full-time classroom teaching staff has been involved
in instructional computing programs?

Data for this question were gathered with survey questions 2](a)

and 210)).

9) What do principals believe have been the most important ways in which
teachers use microcomputers to facilitate student learning?

Data for this question were gathered with survey question 25]

and the portion at the end of the survey designated for

additional clarifying comments.

 

 

 

45

1113211915de

During the summer of 1987, a pilot study was conducted in Eugene, Oregon,
designed to improve the overall effectiveness of both the surveying
methodology and the data-gathering instrument. The pilot study also
provided an opportunity for field-based feedback from professional
counterparts of the individuals who would later be asked to complete the
survey forms. This was important since the nationwide study did not allow
for one-to-one interaction between the researcher and any of the instructional

computing leaders involved in supplying the actual data.

The pilot study was conducted by distributing the questionnaire to a sample of
elementary principals in Eugene who were selected to represent the
elementary schools in that district. The schools involved were chosen with
the assistance of Dr. Dave Moursund, a faculty member of the University of
Oregon's Department of Education and a leader in instructional computing,
in cooperation with Dr. Jack Turner, the District Computer Coordinator for

the local school district (4] School District).

Eurpnsgsnfthefiilnt

The pilot study was planned to precede the data collection from the
nationwide sample of elementary schools for two major reasons. First, a pilot
study offered an opportunity to test both the survey instrument and the
overall research design and to receive feedback on ways of improving each of

them. Second, the pilot study provided a setting in which to discuss the

 

 

 

responses with the individuals who originally made them. The purpose of
these discussions was to establish a better understanding and insight into
interpreting the completed questionnaires received during the national
survey. In all cases, the primary goal was to improve the nationwide study's

overall effectiveness.

The intent of the pilot study was to allow field-based reactions and to ensure
that the instrument ultimately used was clearly stated, easily understood and
time-efficient. Easy completion of the instrument was a primary
consideration because a survey-based research study is only as effective as its

procedures for gathering data.

Closely associated with the goal of improving the survey instrument was the
desire to encourage feedback on the overall surveying process that was
planned for gathering the data. The pilot study used the same methods as
those planned for the nationwide research. These practices permitted
suggestions from participants on any part of the process they found confusing,

inappropriate, or otherwise in need of modification.

Aside from improving the research design, the pilot study also offered the
opportunity to discuss with questionnaire respondents the intentions
underlying their responses. These discussions facilitated the interpretation of
the responses from the surveys. In particular, they provided a way to
determine that the respondents‘ intentions were as consistent as possible
with the interpretations drawn from the completed questionnaires. The
discussions provided a forum in which the selected principals could react to

the design without being confined by the restraints of the instrument.

 

 

 

JL

47

Afiensralncscrintinnnfthgfiflmfimd!

Eugene, Oregon, was selected as the location for the pilot study primarily for
convenience. As a leader in the field of instructional computing, the
University of Oregon offered extensive opportunities for further study while
the pilot was conducted. Conducting the study in Eugene also made it
possible for leading members of the International Council for Computers in
Education to review the design and instrumentation and to offer suggestions

for improving either.

Dr. Moursund was contacted and the study discussed with him. In particular,
he was asked to recommend a district that would be suitable for conducting
the pilot study. The ideally suitable district would be close to Eugene, would
have elementary schools with quality instructional computing programs, and
would be willing to support research. Moursund suggested that the local
school district, the 4] District, although frequently involved in research
projects, would probably be willing to participate. He felt the district could
provide some examples of good elementary school instructional computing
programs. Moursund further recommended that Dr. Jack Turner, the 4]
District Computer Coordinator, be contacted and the purposes of the pilot
study discussed with him. His support was important if local schools were to

be involved in the pilot study.

A meeting was held with Turner to discuss and explain the study. Based on
this discussion, he readily agreed to supply the names of elementary school

principals in the district whose building instructional computing programs

 

 

 

ranged from outstanding to ordinary (in Turner's estimation). The principals
included in the pilot represented schools with instructional computing
programs ranging from the district's most advanced to one considered
average, at best (again, the assessments are those of the computer

coordinator).

Instructional computing programs of different standards were requested to
improve the value of the pilot by testing the design's effectiveness with
programs of varying quality. It was anticipated that the schools included in
the nationwide sample, despite having been recognized for the high quality of
their approach to instructional computing, would vary considerably in aspects
of their programs. The schools in the pilot study, although few in number,

could reflect at least some of that variation.

The decision on how many schools to include in the pilot study was based on
three factors. The most important consideration was that sufficient feedback
be provided to permit an assessment of the instrument and design. Balancing
that factor, for which "the more the merrier" was the general rule, were the
amount of time each survey/ interview required and the number of
principals willing and able to participate during the summer. Eventually,
four principals were included in the pilot study with the understanding that
more would be added if the results of those interviews indicated a need for
additional points of view. An expansion of the pilot study would have been
judged necessary if either widely differing reactions were received or

extensive modifications to the design were recommended.

49

The principals recommended by Turner were contacted and asked to
participate in the pilot study. A cover letter and a questionnaire were mailed
to each principal following a telephone conversation which guaranteed that
each was willing to participate. When the completed surveys were returned
and inspected, each response was followed up with a verifying interview with
the principal to ensure the responses submitted had conveyed the
information that was intended by the respondent. As a result of these
procedures, the survey instrument was modified, as noted in Resdlts e_f_ the
P_i_l_et Smdy . The changes noted were suggested by the principals in responses
made during both the follow-up interviews and in comments they made on

the survey instruments.

The original plan for the pilot was to provide the survey instruments and
cover letters to the principals, have them complete and return them as if they
were part of the national study, and then have them participate in subsequent
meetings for debriefing. This plan operated in three of the cases. In the
fourth case, the principal in the school with the most "ordinary" instructional
computing program was unavailable, first due to a field trip to Mexico and
later because of conflicting vacation plans. Thus, the pilot was conducted
with three schools: two with "good" instructional computing programs and

one whose program was considered "outstanding."

In each case, the completed survey was reviewed soon after it was returned.
A conference was arranged to discuss both the questionnaire and the
principal's responses and reactions to it. A major part of that meeting
included a debriefing during which the principal was asked to clarify his/ her

responses to particular items. For the remainder of the interview, each

 

1
——— —-—-—_ ..n u-

50

principal was asked to act as an evaluator of the instrument itself, offering

any insights, criticisms, or suggestions for its improvement.

In this manner, the meetings began and ended with the principal in the role
of critic. The middle portion of the conference was used to discuss and clarify
the meaning of his / her responses, increasing the level of comfort each
principal felt. Despite these safeguards, one limitation to the pilot study
design was the absence of a disinterested third party to conduct the follow-up
conferences. Nonetheless, the principals said they were satisfied with the

arrangements and were willing to be completely candid in their comments.

In all three cases, the principals believed the questions were clearly stated,
easily understood, and visually non-threatening. They also commented on
the questionnaire's ease of completion and well-structured format. On the
average, they needed roughly thirty to forty-five minutes to complete the
survey instrument. Still, although they were generally pleased with the
clarity of the questions, changes to the questionnaire were made in response
to requests for clarification of specific points they challenged (see Results 91

the Pilot Study).

 

 

The feedback they offered was reassuring. The responses of the pilot study
participants were quite positive. None of the recommended changes required
major revisions to the design or the format of the survey instrument. The
fact that completion time was considerably less than an hour was also
important information. Due to the positive nature of the responses, an
expansion of the pilot study was not considered necessary. The survey

instrument changes effected are discussed in detail in the next section.

 

 

 

51

Bgsnlisnfflmliiloifimdx

The principals' suggestions for improving the survey instrument can be
grouped into several main categories. Their suggestions included clarifying
unclear terminology or wording, modifying the response format for several
series of questions, adding several questions on aspects of planning judged to
be particularly important to developing instructional computing programs,
and resequencing several series of questions. The questions that were
changed are listed below in a set format. First, the original survey question is
listed; then the change and the reason for making that change are presented;
finally, the survey question after the change is listed. A line of equal signs
separates each change that is discussed. Only questions that were modified as
a result of the pilot study are listed here. For the full text of the final survey

instrument, see Appendix.

3] c) Of the computers available for instructional use, how many are:
Apple IIe's IBM compatibles TRS 80's
MacIntosh's __ others (specify)

 

An additional option, Apple IIc, was added to permit easier
completion of this question for the many schools using those

machines.

3] c) Of the computers available for instructional use, how many are:
Apple IIe's IBM compatibles __ TRS 80's
Apple IIc's MacIntosh's __ other (specify)__

 

 

 

52

4] Are computer-related purchases a permanent line-item in your budget or
are the purchases effected using non-recurring funds? If they are a
permanent line-item, for how long have they been one?

_ Not a permanent line-item Line-item for 1 year
_ Line-item for 2 years Line-item for 3years
_ 4 or more years I don't know

The phrase "(funds are allocated annually)," was added after the
words, "If they are a permanent line-item," to avoid possible

confusion over what was meant by a permanent line-item.

4] Are computer-related purchases a permanent line-item in your budget or
are the purchases effected using non-recurring funds? If they are a
permanent line-item (funds are allocated annually), for how long have they
been one?

__ Not a permanent line-item Line-item for 1 year
__ Line-item for 2 years Line-item for 3 years
__ 4 or more years I don't know

 

5] Estimate the total cost of all the computer-related items used for

instructional purposes (hardware, software, support material, etc.) that
presently exist in your building.

___None _Less than $1,000
_Between $1, 000 8: $5, 000 _Between $5,000 8: $10,000
_Between $10, 000 8: $20, 000 _Between $20,000 8: $30,000
_Between $30, 000 8: $50, 000 _Between $50,000 8: $75,000
_Between $75,000 8: $100,000 ____other (specify) $

The phrase, "(regardless of the fund's source: building budget,
fund raiser, etc.)," was added after the words, "total cost," to make
the meaning more explicit. In addition, the numerical
sequencing of the choices was changed to vertical to replace the
combined horizontal and vertical arrangement to permit easier

completion.

 

53

5] Estimate the tota_l cost (regardless of the fund‘s source: building budget,
fund raiser, etc.) of all the computer-related items used for instructionnl

(hardware, software, support material, etc.) that presently exist in
your building .

__None _Between $20,000 8: $30,000
_Less than $1,000 _Between $30,000 8:$50,000
_Between $1,000 8: $5,000 _Between $50,000 8: $75,000
_Between $5,000 8: $10,000 _Between $75,000 8: $100,000
_Between $10,000 8: $20,000 ____other (specify)$

 

8] What percent (approximately) of your school's total computer usage time is
actually dedicated to each of the following activities:
_those using computers as a "tool" with an application program.
(word processing, data base management, spreadsheet usage...)

__those using computers to practice "basic skills"

(drill 8: practice programs, simulations, content tutorials)
_those emphasizing programming computers in acomputer language

(BASIC, Logo, Pascal, Pilot...)
_others (specify) I don't know

9] What percent of your school's total computer usage time, in your opinion,
should ideally be dedicated to each of the following activities:

those using computers as a "tool" with an application program.

those using computers to practice "basic skills"

those emphasizing programming computers in a computer language
_others (specify) I don't know

10] Of the time spent using computers as a "tool" with application programs,
approximately what percent is dedicated to each the following activities:

_using data base programs _using word processing programs
_using electronic spreadsheets _using printer utility programs

(Print Shop, Crossword Magic)
_others (specify) _I don't know

 

11] Of the time spent using computers for computer assisted learning,
approximately what percent is dedicated to each the following activities:

_using drill and practice programs using tutorial programs
_using content area simulations using educational games
_others (specify) I don't know

 

12] Of the time spent on computer programming approximately what percent

of it is dedicated to each the following activities:

programming in BASIC programming in Logo
other language (specify) I don't know

 

The order of the responses for the questions 8], 9], 10], 11], 12] was
altered to comply with an alphabetical order arrangement
(where it was not prevented by spacing problems on the page).
The changes were made to minimize any intentional weighting
of responses by their location in the sequence of possible choices.
This convention was followed for all other survey questions

where other factors did not render it impractical.

In addition, question 9] was resequenced so that its new order
was as question number 12]. Each of the subsequent questions
(10], 11], 12]) were renumbered as questions 9], 10], 11]. This was
done to preserve the questions relating to the actual computer-
access time in a logical progression and follow them by the one
question on the instructional computing leader's ideal computer

time allocation.

8] What approximate percent of your school's total instructional computer
usage time is actually dedicated to each of the following activities:
_those emphasizing programming computers in a computer language
(BASIC, Logo, Pilot...)
_those using computers as a "tool" with an application program.
(data base management, spreadsheet usage, word processing...)
_those using computers for computer assisted learning.
(drill 8: practice programs, simulations, content tutorials...)
others (specify) _1 don't know

9] Of the time spent on computer programing approximately what percent
of it is dedicated to each the following activities:

programming in BASIC programming in Logo
other language (specify) I don't know

55

10] Of the time spent using computers as a flop]: with application programs
approximately what percent is dedicated to each the following activities:

_using data base programs _using word processing programs
_using electronic spreadsheets _using printer utility programs

(Print Shop,Crossword Magic)
___others (specify) _1 don't know

 

11] 0t thetime spentusingsomoutersformmouterassistedleaming.

approximately what percent is dedicated to each the following activities:

_using drill and practice programs _using tutorial programs
_using content area simulations _using educational games
_____ others (specify) I don't know

 

12] What percent of your school's total computer usage time, in your opinion,
should ideally be dedicated to each of the following activities:

_those emphasizing programming computers in a computer language
_those using computers as a "tool" with an application program.

_those using computers for computer assisted learning

_others (specify) __I don't know

 

For all 3 questions on this page, please check the 3 factors you feel were, are, or
will be the greatest contributors to the improvement of your instructional
computing program.

The explanation preceding the three questions 13], 14], 15] was
changed to read: "For all 3 questions on this page, check the
factors you feel were, are, or will be the 3 greatest contributors to
improving your instructional computing program. Please limit
the options you check to the 3 most important factors. Put a +
next to other factors you feel are very important, just not as

critical as the ones by which you placed a check."

 

 

56

The most important change effected by this revision was the
addition of a + sign to the directions and, potentially, completion
procedures. In effect, although the restriction on only 3 most
critical factors was maintained, schools were free to indicate as
many additional factors as they felt were very important to their
instructional computing program's improvement. This
modification was made to permit adequate data-supplying
options to schools whose programs had multiple important
factors which combined to create the "critical mass" necessary to

establish quality instructional computing programs.

For all 3 questions on this page, check the factors you feel were, are, or will be
the 3 greatest contrilrutors to improving your instructional computing
program. Please limit the options you check to only the 3 most important
factors. Place a «1» next to other factors you feel are very important, just not as

critical as the ones by which you placed a check.

 

For all 3 questions on this page, please check the 3 factors you feel were, are, or
will be the greatest obstacles to the improvement of your instructional
computing program.

The changes detailed for the last series of questions (13], 14], and
15]) were also implemented for the next three questions 16], 17],
18]. The one major difference is that the wording addressed the
factors which were obstacles to instructional computing program
improvement instead of those which were contributors to it.
The justification for the modifications made is the same as the

one previously detailed.

57

For all 3 questions on this page, please check the factors you feel were, are, or
will be the 3, greatest obstades to improving your instructional computing
program. Please limit the options you check to only the 3 most important
factors. Put a + next to other factors you feel are very important, just not as
critical as the ones by which you placed a check.

 

 

 

19] In developing your instructional computing program, did you set goals for
your program first and then purchase the appropriate equipment, or did you
purchase equipment first and then decide on your goals?

__ Goals were developed first _ Equipment was purchased first

The original question 19] was replaced with one intended to
better address the decision-making processes which contributed
to the development of instructional computing programs. The
previous form of the question asked principals to state whether,
as they developed their instructional computing program, they
had first established program goals or purchased equipment.
The consensus was that the question was unlikely to gather
accurate data due to the negative implications typically
associated with educational actions taken with no objectives in
mind. The data gathered by the new version of the question was

considered more valuable to the study.

19] Which one of the following choices best describes how most decisions
guiding the development of your instructional computing program are
presently made at the building level? Decisions are primarily being made by:
_ Computer Committee _Computer Enthusiast/ Coordinator
__ Building Principal _District-level administrator

__ Other _I don't know

58

20] In the planning done for your instructional computing program, which of
the following individuals were involved in the process:

_Building principal _District-level administrator
_Classroom teacher(s) _Media specialist/ librarian
_Parent representative _Community representative
__"Outside expert" _I don't know

_____others (Specify)

 

Question 20] was restructured to further investigate the data
gathered by the new version of question 19]. The new wording
is: "If your instructional computing program is presently being
guided by a standing computer committee, which of the
following individuals are members of that committee?" An
additional option has also been included to reflect the new
wording: "No standing computer committee exists." These
changes were made to examine more closely the composition of

computer committees in schools where they exist.

20] If your instructional computing program is presently being guided by a
standing computer committee, which of the following individuals are
members of that committee?

Building principal District-level administrator
Classroom teacher(s) Media specialist/ librarian
Parent representative Community representative

__"Outside expert"(s) _others (Specify)

 

No standing computer committee exists _I don't know

21] Estimate the total number of people hours used in the process of planning
your school's instructional computing program.

No planning time yet Less than 25 hours
Between 25 8: 50 hours Between 50 8: 100 hours
Between 100 8: 200 hours Between 200 8: 500 hours

More (specify hours) I don't know

 

59

The following words were added to question 21], "(people x
number of hours) used in planning over the years,"
immediately after the phrase, "total number of people hours."

The words were added to clarify the meaning of the question.

21] Estimate the total number of people hours (peeple x number of hours
required) spent over the years in the process of planning your school's
instructional computing program.

 

No planning time yet Less than 25 hours
Between 25 8: 50 hours Between 50 8: 100 hours
Between 100 8: 200 hours Between 200 8: 500 hours
More (specify hours) I don't know

25] {There was no earlier version of this question.

The original questionnaire ended with question 24.)

One open-ended question was added to the instrument in an
attempt to gather additional valuable data that could not be
identified by the original questionnaire. The new question asked
principals to list what they believed were the most important
instructional uses of computers. The question was added to give
principals an opportunity to recognize the portion of their
instructional computing programs they believe best

demonstrates the potential instructional value of the computer.

25] What is the one aspect of your instructional computing program which
you feel is most clearly an example of how computers can be used to help
teachers provide an educational experience for students more effectively (or
better) than they would have been able to if the computers were not available
to them? Please describe it in as much detail as you feel appropriate.

 

 

 

Ihehlationnidefimdx

Upon completing the pilot study and resulting changes to the survey
instrument, the nationwide survey was initiated. The study required that
two primary tasks be performed-identifying the schools in the sample and
gathering data from them. This sub—section is divided into two parts which

correspond to those two aspects of the nationwide study.

The first part of the sub-section discusses the procedures used to identify the
schools which were included in the study. A national sample of elementary
schools identified as having high quality computing programs had to be

selected. The procedures used to identify those schools is described in the

section, Identifying High Quality Computing Programs.

 

Once selected, the schools had to be surveyed and the data they supplied
collected for analysis. The second part of this sub-section, Survey Methods.

describes the steps used to conduct the actual data-gathering.

Identification of an appropriate sample was an initial prerequisite for
conducting a nationwide survey of elementary schools with high quality
instructional computing programs. The intention was to gather schools
whose computing programs were of very high quality, as opposed to finding

the schools whose programs were the nation's very best. The first step was to

61

identify districts in states across the nation that were recognized as leaders in
instructional computing. Once that was accomplished, the next step was to
contact knowledgeable representatives in those districts and ask them to
recommend specific elementary schools within their jurisdiction whose
programs they felt were of the highest quality, the "creme de la creme," so to
speak. The result of this procedure, it was felt, would be schools whose
instructional computing programs which were, if not the very best, at least of

quite high standard.

The process used to locate the schools began by identifying a leader in
educational computing with a national perspective. This was accomplished
by contacting a senior analyst at the Office of Technology Assessment in
Washington, D. C. After discussing the study, she supplied an Office of
Technology Assessment report, Information Technology arm It_s Impa_ct on
American Education. This document included a series of case study reports
on regions around the country which were selected for their encouragement

of technology in their educational systems.

Representatives from these areas mentioned in the report were contacted and
the nature of the study explained to them. They were then asked to
recommend specific school districts within their "spheres of influence" which
they felt had developed especially high-quality instructional computing

programs.

The districts recommended in this manner, which typically included the
name of the appropriate contact within the district, were approached next.

Each individual was asked to recommend specific elementary schools within

62

his/ her own district with the highest quality instructional computing
programs. In every case, the district representatives were told that the study
had not established any "quota system." The number of schools
recommended was not the major consideration; the high quality of the
schools' programs was. One or two schools whose instructional computing
programs were of the highest quality were preferred to a greater number of

schools with programs of lesser quality.

The final sample of the schools with high-quality instructional computing
programs was developed over a period of months using this process of
branching contacts with the regional leader as the inceptive contact. In some
cases, the process was simple, with the contact making no recommendations
outside of his/ her own domain. In other situations, the leaders had statewide
or even national stature and could recommend other districts outside of their
own direct "spheres of influence." In all cases, the guiding consideration was
that fewer schools of higher quality programs were preferred to more schools

with programs of a lesser quality.

The procedures needed to persuade the regional leaders and district personnel
to involve their schools in the study also varied widely. Briefly tracing two
actual situations which represent, in a general way, the variation in reactions
encountered, will convey a sense of what the process involved. For the sake
of simplicity, the approaches will be referred to as scenario one and scenario

two.

Scenario one involved an instructional computing leader from a large school

district which is nationally recognized for its success in encouraging the use of

63

technology within its schools. She was very interested in the study and
highly supportive of educational research in general. The study required a
list of the schools in her district which had the highest quality instructional
computing programs. When this was explained to her, she readily agreed to
participate, asking for several days to prepare the information. Three days
later, she returned the call and supplied the requested list, complete with the

names of principals and building-level instructional computing leaders.

Scenario two involved an instructional computing leader from a state which
has been in the forefront of instructional computing for more than a decade.
His own district was one the "lamplighters" within the state. He was
interested in educational research but sceptical of the study's importance,
particularly its value to the educators in his district compared to the amount
of time their participation would require. During an hour-long telephone
conversation, he posed perceptive and difficult questions about the study's
purposes and design. Eventually, he requested that an abstracted copy of the
study's proposal and data-gathering device be mailed to him along with a
cover letter responding to the points examined during the telephone
discussion. During the next several weeks, he initiated two additional
lengthy telephone discussions during which he posed concerns and
suggestions. Eventually, he supplied a list of selected schools containing all

the required information.

It should be noted that the schools in the scenario one district were the only
ones with a final response rate of less than fifty percent despite two reminder

letters and additional telephone contacts. By contrast, the schools of the

64

scenario two district were one of several in the study that achieved a one

hundred percent response rate.

In any case, when the list of elementary schools for the nationwide survey
was finally assembled, it included seventy-three separate schools. The
schools were located in states from the West Coast, New England, the South
and the Midwest. Once the sample was identified, the next portion of the

study involved the surveying procedures used to gather the data.

SumyingMflhods

All the research data were gathered in a manner that assured the anonymity
guarantee extended in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire.
Aside from this consideration, the primary goal of the surveying process was
to strive for as high a response rate of completed questionnaires as possible.

The steps taken in an attempt to assure that aim are discussed below.

Once the schools to be included in the sample had been determined, they
were all mailed the following: a cover letter explaining the scope and
purpose of the study, a copy of the survey instrument and an addressed,
stamped envelope for use in returning the completed survey to Michigan
State University. The cover letter requested that the completed forms be
returned within six weeks of the date of mailing. A total of seventy-three
separate schools were included in the original mailing. All envelopes were

addressed to either the building principal or the instructional computing

65

leader or both. The cover letter (see Appendix) was personalized and

included the same address and name(s) appearing on the envelope.

As the completed questionnaires were received, they were encoded using an
alpha-numeric coding system. This code was kept in a locked file drawer
separate from the storage cabinet of the original questionnaires. This
procedure ensured the identities of individual schools would not be

accidentally divulged.

Three weeks after the original mailing, a first reminder letter (see Appendix)
was sent to each school that had not returned the survey instrument,
requesting that the completed questionnaire be returned as soon as possible.
The letter also asked that any school whose survey might be in the mail at
that time to disregard the letter. A total of fifty-two first reminder letters were

mailed.

Next, five weeks after the original mailing, a second reminder letter was
mailed to schools whose completed questionnaires had not yet been returned
in an attempt to generate a still higher response rate. This letter extended the
return deadline by two weeks. Again, it requested schools whose survey
instruments were in the mail to disregard the letter. A total of thirty-four

second reminder letters were mailed.

During the interim period, between the original mailing and the deadline for
data inclusion, a number of phone calls were also initiated, received and
returned, additional information provided, and lost or discarded c0pies of the

questionnaire replaced.

Of the original seventy-three survey instruments that were mailed to the
national sample, a total of fifty-one completed responses were received. This
resulted in a very satisfactory response rate of nearly seventy percent. In
addition, of the fifty-one schools that responded, nearly sixty percent of them

requested that a summary of the findings be sent to them.

SummarxoftheflesignandMethodology

Chapter III contains a discussion of the research design and methodology used
during the different parts of the study. The first section of the chapter
provides a general overview of the study's design. The next section includes

a discussion of the research questions the study was designed to answer.

The final section contains discussions of the three major elements of the
study. The first sub-section examines the development of the instrument and
its relation to the research questions. The second sub-section discusses the
steps used during the pilot study, including its purpose, its procedures, and its
results. In the third sub-section, a detailed account of the procedures used in
conducting the nationwide survey is presented. This account includes the
process used first to identify schools with high-quality instructional

computing programs and then to collect data from them.

This concludes the discussion of the methods used during the research study.
The next chapter, Analysis o_f me Research Data, contains a description and

evaluation of the information gathered by the surveying process.

CHARIEBI!

ANALYSISQEIHEBESEABCHDAIA

This chapter contains an analysis of the information gathered using the
methods described in Chapter III. The data were analyzed, for the most part,
using percentage distributions and descriptive statistics. The resulting
descriptions characterize the elementary schools which were included in the
study for the high quality of their instructional computing programs.
Educators can use these descriptions both to assess their own instructional

computing programs and to plan the steps they can take to improve them.

The chapter is arranged in sections corresponding to the study's related and

major research questions. The initial section includes a discussion of general
characteristics of the schools and contains comparisons of the schools both in
numeric form (numbers of students, teachers and computers) and ratio form

(students per computer, students per teacher and computers per teacher).

The four sections following the initial section pertain to the related research

questions. The first section is a discussion of the types of computers being

68

used and their locations in the elementary schools. The second section is an
examination of the data on the time periods for which schools have had
instructional computing programs. The third section is a discussion of the
degree of involvement that the teaching staffs have in the instructional
computing programs. The fourth section is an analysis of the responses that
principals gave as the most important ways in which teachers have used

microcomputers to facilitate student learning.

The next five sections are discussions of the findings associated with the
study's major research questions. The first section provides a review of the
data on the planning processes which the selected schools use to guide their
instructional computing programs. The second section is an examination of
the schools' budgetary practices. The third section is a discussion of the
factors which the principals felt provided the greatest contributions to
improving their instructional computing programs. The fourth section is a
discussion of the factors which principals believed were the greatest obstacles
to improving their instructional computing programs. The fifth section
contains an analysis of the data on the manner in which the available
computer access time was allocated. The final section provides a summary of

the information discussed in the data analysis.

fieneralDescriotiyeData

The schools included in the nationwide sample varied widely in the more
frequently investigated categories associated with instructional computing

programs. The variation was expected, to an extent, because of the great

69

differences extant in the educational practices of different states, districts, and
elementary school buildings. Table 11 lists central tendency statistics
illustrating some of the variation found (in numeric terms) for the categories:

number of students, number of teachers and number of computers in the

 

 

schools.
Table 11. School Characteristics mimetic Eonnl
Central
Tendency Number of Number of Number of
Statistic Students Teachers Computers

 

 

The category ranges (differences between the maximum and minimum
values) indicate the extent of the variation. The student bodies ranged in size
from that of a small school of 147 students to a very large school enrolling
roughly 1650 students. The teaching staffs varied correspondingly, ranging
from seven to sixty teachers. The greatest proportional variation was in the
number of computers that schools had available for instructional use, with
numbers ranging from one school with only nine computers to another

school with a staggering two hundred twenty-two machines.

Table III displays the statistics for selected ratios of interest. The ratios of

computers per student indicate that the "typical" school had one computer for

70

roughly every twenty students. The majority of schools also had less than
two computers (1.3) per classroom teacher, with each of those teachers

responsible for nearly twenty-six students.

Central Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of
Tendency Students Computers Students
Statistic Per Computer Per Teacher Per Teacher

 

Although the overall variation is less pronounced numerically when ratios
rather than numeric data are compared, the ranges remain large and

proportional differences are as great as for the numeric values shown in Table

II.

One point worth noting: the three central tendency statistics-mean, median
and modem-remain quite close in value for each of the six data fields
illustrated in Tables II and III. This pattern suggests that the distributions of
the data may approximate normal curves, with data points clustering around
the values representing the majority of schools. This conjecture is generally
supported by the distributions of the data from Tables 11 and 111, some of
which are illustrated in Figures I through IV. Four distributions are
illustrated: Figure lathe number of students per school, Figure II—the

number of computers per school, Figure HI--the ratio of students per

71

computer and Figure IV--the ratio of students per teacher (see Figures in the

Appendix).

Although the data from all the schools sampled are included in the
discussions which follow, the study's focus more particularly concerns the
shared aspects of quality programs rather than the singular features.
Although it is worth noting that one school, for example, had acquired two
hundred twenty-two computers, whereas another had managed only nine,
the study focused primarily on the practices of the schools that have acquired
from twenty to forty machines. The emphasis of the analysis is, therefore, on
the characteristics of the majority rather than on those schools which are the
outliers. To avoid repetition, the phrases "majority of schools" or "typical
school" will be routinely replaced by the single word "School" (with a capital
S). The School will refer to that school which is "typical" of the high-quality

schools surveyed in the study.

Hardemeflonsioerations

The first related research question examined the factors associated with
computer hardware. The question was, "What type of microcomputers have
been used and where have they typically been located?" Data were collected
to answer this question with two survey questions written in completion

format. A summary of the information collected is displayed in Table IV.

 

72

Even a cursory examination of the data reveals great consistency in terms of
the brand of computers used in the schools surveyed. Nearly seven times as

many Apple II computers were used as all other brands combined.

 

Total % of % of the
Number Total Schools
Type of of # of With that

Computer Computer

 

 

In ninety-six percent of the schools, at least some of their computers were
from the Apple II family. Nearly every school had some Apple II computers.
In contrast to the prevalence of the Apple computers, eighty-seven percent of
IBM compatible computers were found in only three schools, with the other

thirteen percent spread thinly between many other schools.

Table V shows the manner in which the various Apple II models were
distributed in the schools. When the data for the Apple II family of
computers are examined separately, the Apple He clearly is the predominant
model. Approximately five times as many Apple IIe's are used as all the

remaining Apple II models. Nonetheless, there are still more Apple

 

73

computers, even excluding Apple He's, than all other non-Apple computers.

Both Apple 11c and Apple IIgs were more common than any non-Apple

 

 

computer.
Iahle X. Hardware Distribution: Apple II Emmy
Total Percent Percent of
Type Number of the Schools
of of that Total With That
Apple II Apple II Apple II's Apple II

 

" Due to Rounding

The information associated with the locations of the computers in schools is
shown in Table VI. Although considerably more computers were located in
labs (17% more), slightly more schools placed computers in classrooms (86%)
than placed them in computer labs (84%). In addition, over half of the
schools placed computers in their media centers, although the number of

machines located there was usually quite small.

Some related findings that are not reported in Table VI are, nevertheless,
worth noting. All but six percent of the schools located their computers in
more than one place. Also, seventy-two percent of the schools arranged their
hardware for use in both classrooms and computer lab(s). The other twenty-
eight percent of the schools were evenly divided in the way they organized

their computer placement. Fourteen percent of the schools had their

74

computers located in laboratories and other places excluding classrooms. The
remaining fourteen percent of the schools placed their computers in

classrooms and other locations excluding a computer lab.

IahleMI; Loeationoflnstmetionafllseflomouters

Location Total # of Percent % of Schools

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Within Computers of the With Comp's
the in that Total in That
School Location Computers Location
Computer Lab 977 55% 84%
Classroom 679 38% 86%
, Media Center 73 4% 52%
Others 43 2% 22%
TOTAL 177; 99%* NA

 

 

 

 

* Due to Rounding

When the data in Tables II and VI are combined, projections about the nature
of the typical high quality instructional computing program can be made. The
School arranged its thirty-five Apple IIe computers so that nearly twenty were
located in computer lab(s), thirteen were placed in individual classrooms and

the remaining two were placed in other locations such as the media center.

LengthofIimeComputinnggramsHaerxisted

The second related research question concerned the length of time that
schools have had instructional computing programs. The question was,
"How long have schools had instructional computing programs?" The data

to answer question two were gathered using a restricted choice question on

 

 

 

75

the survey. The survey question, which asked respondents how long their
schools have had instructional computing programs, offered five response

options ranging from "1 or 2 years" to "9 or more years."

Iahlelll: XearsoflnstmetionalComouting

 

Years Schools have % of Schools With

Had Instructional Computing Programs
Computing Program For that Time

 

 

The data presented in Table VII show that although no schools have had

instructional computing programs for less than three years, only eight percent
have had computing programs for longer than eight years. Over three-
quarters of the schools (excluding the "don't know" responses) have had
instructional computing programs for between three and seven years. The
"typical" school with an identified high quality instructional computing
program has had the computing program for between approximately three

and six years.

76

Eztentofflassroomleaehersllnmlxement

The third related research question considered the amount of involvement
that the teaching staffs have in their schools' instructional computing
programs. The question was, "What portion of the full-time classroom
teaching staff has been involved in instructional computing programs?" Data
were gathered to answer the question with two survey questions which asked,
first, the size of the instructional staff and, second, the number of teachers

involved "regularly each week" with instructional computing.

Ten percent of the respondents omitted one or both of the answers necessary
for their data to be used. Fifty percent of those surveys which had valid data
indicated that their entire teaching staffs were involved with instructional

computing on a regular basis each week.

TablethtaffInxolmentinQomputingELograms

Portion of the Classroom % of Schools With
Teaching Staff Involved That Portion of
in Instructional Computing Staff Involvement

 

" Due to Rounding

77

Table VIII presents a summary of the information generated from the two
pieces of data that respondents supplied. Over eighty percent of the schools
supplying valid data had more than half of their teachers involved regularly
with the instructional computing programs. In sixty-three percent of those

schools, more than three-quarters of the teaching staffs were involved.

The typical school with a "high-quality" computing program enjoyed a very
high level of teaching-staff involvement (nearly one hundred percent) in

their instructional computing programs.

The final related research question considered the outstanding aspects of the
instructional computing programs. The question was, "What do principals
believe have been the most important ways in which teachers used
microcomputers to facilitate student learning?" Data were gathered to answer
the question in two different places on the survey. First, the survey's final
question asked that respondents identify the part of their computing
programs that represented the most important way in which teachers used
computers to help students learn. The question was open-ended to permit
respondents the freedom to suggest any program aspect they wished. That
survey question was followed by a request that respondents supply any
additional comments they believed would add to the understanding of

unique elements in their instructional computing programs.

Eighty-six percent of the respondents answered the final question, supplying

the computer-uses they thought were the most important facilitators of

78

student learning in their programs. Sixty-five percent of the completed
instruments also included additional comments in the space provided for

clarifying remarks.

Since the final question was open—ended, the data supplied were less easily
summarized than the data for the previous research questions, which were
collected with survey questions written in either completion or forced-choice
formats. Nevertheless, there were clear patterns in the computer-uses that
respondents considered most important. The most frequently listed
computer-uses were word processing to improve writing skills, drill and
practice to develop basic skills and individualize instruction, tutorials and
simulations to enhance the existing curriculum, "problem-solving"
approaches to develop both problem-solving strategies and critical thinking

skills, and data base manipulation to improve information-handling skills.

Fifty-five percent of the respondents specified aspects of word processing as
their most important instructional use of computers. One respondent
commented, "It's one great way to teach writing." Many respondents
mentioned that students' attitudes toward writing had been changed by the
easy editing of their work which a word processing program allowed them.
In the opinion of many respondents, students' use of word processing
programs had produced not only an increased pride in their work, but also an
improved standard in their writing. In addition, students were more
enthusiastic about writing and were motivated to write more often. In the
words of another respondent, "Students become better writers...and create
products of which they are proud, regardless of their ability." In addition,

keyboard practice, an activity often connected with word processing, was

79

mentioned on twenty-nine percent of those survey which listed word

processing (sixteen percent of the total responses).

A second group of related comments involved the use of computers to help
with the mastery of basic skills. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents
listed the use of drill and practice programs among their most significant
computer activities. Another eighteen percent mentioned that the
opportunity to individualize basic skills instruction was a powerful element

of their use of computers with quality drill and practice software.

A third group of associated responses concerned computer-uses that extended
the extant curriculum. Eighteen percent of the respondents mentioned that
computer-use to enrich the curriculum was a very important part of their
program. A further fourteen percent of the surveys listed activities that
strengthened the development of problem-solving and critical thinking
skills. In addition, eleven percent of the respondents felt that the use of data
base programs to organize and handle large amounts of information was one

of their instructional computing programs' most important use of computers.

Five percent of the responses also mentioned that fostering student self-
reliance was a major focus of their instructional computing programs. One
respondent discussed the emphasis: "Our 'student-centered' approach has a
philosophy of 'empowerment'...[in which] students make choices and assume

new responsibilities, [while] the teacher [assumes the role of] the facilitator."

The most frequently occurring responses are summarized in categories in

Table IX.

 

Activity Percent of the
Considered Responses To that
Most Important Question Listing
By Principals That Activity

 

Finally, the clarifying comments which respondents added (sixty-five percent
of the total surveys) contained several frequently recurring themes. Nearly
half (48%) of those responding mentioned the importance of their staff
development programs. Twenty-seven percent also felt that their curriculum
development process was crucial to establish a quality instructional
computing program. Twenty-one percent suggested that the presence of a
computer enthusiast had been a critical component in the development of
their programs. Another eighteen percent mentioned that administrative
support, both district-level and building-level, had been a key to the success of

their programs.

The comments that were most often mentioned are summarized in Table X.
Many other considerations were mentioned on the surveys. Nine percent of
the respondents felt that a computer lab was a necessary element in their

programs' continued success. Some respondents believed that particular

81

pieces of hardware were worth mentioning-for instance, networking
systems, double disk drives for every computer, printer access for every
computer, interface cards that permit push-button printing of either graphics

or text and demonstration-size monitors.

IahleX: Mostmouemflafihdnemmments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theme of Percent of the
The Comment Responses To that
Mentioned by Question Which Listed
The Principals That Comment =4
I============================================================
S_taoff Development Progrem 48%
Curriculum Development Program we
, Presence of Computer Enthusiast 21%
. Administrative Support 18%

 

 

To summarize, the computer-uses that principals considered most important
in facilitating student learning were varied. Among the most frequent
responses were word processing to improve writing skills, drill and practice to
develop basic skills and individualize instruction, tutorials and simulations
to enhance the extant curriculum, "problem-solving" to develop both
problem-solving strategies and critical thinking skills, and data base
manipulation to improve information-handling skills. The additional
comments most often mentioned as important to developing their
instructional computing programs were the staff and curriculum
development programs, the influence of a computer enthusiast, and the

continued support of the administration.

82

The first of the major research questions considered the planning processes
that were used in developing the instructional computing programs. The
question was, "Which elements characterize the planning processes used in
schools with high quality instructional computing programs?" The data to
answer the research question were gathered from five associated survey
questions. The questions, written in restricted choice format, examined the
decision-makers involved in the planning process, the composition of the
planning teams, the total amount of time spent planning, the time period for
which plans had been made, and the factors included in the planning process.

The findings are presented sequentially in the following paragraphs.

The first issue concerns the decision-makers who guided the process of
developing the instructional computing programs. Of particular interest was
whether the decisions were made primarily by principals, computer
enthusiasts, computer committees, or some interactive arrangement

involving several of them. The data in Table XI summarize the findings.

The table is organized with the decision-makers, prefixed with a letter from
(A) to (E), listed down the left column. The digits across the row from each
decision-maker indicate the percentage of schools in which the decisions
involving instructional computing were made primarily by that decision-
maker alone or in consultation with committee (A), enthusiast (B), building
principal (C), or a combination of them. The first row, for example, shows
that computer committees made decisions by themselves in twenty-two

percent of the schools, in consultation with the computer enthusiast (B) in

83

another twelve percent of the schools, and with the building principal (C) in a
further twelve percent of the schools. The total percentage of schools in
which committees were involved in the decision-making process, forty-three
percent, results from the fact that some schools had their committees consult
with both the enthusiast and building principal, creating a data-sharing

situation.

Ialzlefl: Whom n '11 Them

--—- ———- - I
.2

Decisions are made primarily by Decision-Maker in consultation with:

Total
The No % of
Decision-Maker One (A) (B) (C) Schools

fl»

 

 

" Differences reflect schools with overlapping inputs

Several points from the data presented in Table XI are worth noting. First,
the guiding decisions were made by one group or individual in nearly three-
quarters of the schools (although in many cases, the computer committees
included principals and others-see Table XII). Second, principals made
decisions unilaterally in only ten percent of the schools. The computer
enthusiasts (47%) and the computer committees (43%) were identified as the
primary decision-makers in nearly twice as many schools as were the building
principals (25%). The primary decision-makers in most of schools were not

in the administrative positions usually expected to make the decisions.

 

Included in Percent % of Schools
the Composition of the With Computer
of the Computer Total Committees
Committee Number of Including

(if any) Schools These Rep's.

 

 

The next aspect of the planning process considered was the composition of
school computer committees and the frequency of their occurrence. The data
presented in Table XII show that thirty-seven percent of the schools did not
have arrangements that were considered to be committees. The thirty-seven
percent figure is reached by adding the twenty-nine percent of the schools that
responded they had no committees to the four percent that responded "Don't
Know" and the four percent that suggested their committees were comprised

of a single member.

85

In the sixty-three percent of the schools that had computer committees, the
presence of classroom teachers (97%) and building principals (91%) was
virtually guaranteed. For ninety-one percent of the schools with committees,
the committee was comprised of classroom teachers, the building principal,
and a variety of other members. Parent representatives (28%), for example,
were committee members in more than one quarter of the schools. The

percentages for the other members are listed in Table XII.

The next two issues of the planning processes related to aspects of time. The
first concern was the number of "people-hours" (the number of people
involved in the planning, multiplied by the number of hours spent by each)
spent by the planners in developing the plans. The second of the time related

issues concerned the number of years considered by the plans.

Table XIII summarizes the data on the number of "people-hours" needed
during the planning process. One fifth of the respondents did not estimate
the number of hours their planning had required. Of the respondents who
did estimate, over half had spent more than two hundred "people-hours" in
planning their programs. The average time spent exceeded three hundred
total "people-hours" (although the survey instrument question's forced-

choice format lessens the value of the statistic).

Data from schools at the lower end of the time-spent continuum have
questionable validity, especially the 6% of the respondents who indicated that
they had spent less than twenty-five total hours. For two-thirds of those
particular schools, the estimates submitted would suggest a total of less than

five "people-hours" per year had been spent in the planning of their

 

86

instructional computing, an unlikely event. Nevertheless, the data have

been included in the calculations and have been presented in the table for

 

completeness.

Iahle XIII: Elieoplezflours! Used in Planning
The Total Number of % of Schools
"People-Hours" used With Planning
in Planning the Processes Needed
Computing Program That Many Hours

 

* Due to Rounding

The other time related issue was the time period for which plans had been
made. The data were collected with a forced-choice survey question offering
options from "no plans have been made" to "plans exist for the next 5 or
more years." The summarized data are presented in Table XIV. Although
twelve percent of the schools have planned for the next five or more years,
over two-thirds of them have made plans only for the next two years or less.
The most frequently occurring responses were from schools that have made

plans accounting for only the present academic year.

87

IahleXIX: tofxearslneluoedinIheElans

 

 

Total Number of Percent of Schools

Years for Which With Plans Which
the Plans Created Accounted for that
Will Account Number of Years

 

,5 or More Years 12%

. The next 3 or 4 years 18%
The next 2 years 27%
, For only this year 41 %

, No plans made 2%
, Total: 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The final planning issue involved the considerations that schools included in
their planning processes. The survey question listed nine factors as possible
options, plus an open-ended "other" category. With this format, schools
could stipulate planning processes which included few or many different

elements. The summarized data are presented in Tables XV and XVI.

Table XV shows the data related to the number of factors which schools
included in their planning. As the table shows, schools have established
plans that include from one to nine different elements. The School has
included slightly more than five considerations in the plans made to guide its
instructional computing program. In fact, nearly two-thirds of the schools
(64%) responded that five or more factors were considered in their planning.
Over three-fourths (76%) of the schools had plans which included between

four and eight factors.

IalzleXX; fiofEaetorslnelndedInIheflans

 

Number of Factors

Included in The Percent of Schools
Planning for the With Plans Having
Computer Program That Many Factors

 

" Due to Rounding

Table XVI shows how frequently the factors were listed by the schools
surveyed. More than two-thirds of the schools mentioned that computer
integration (82%), staff development (82%), software purchase software (80%),
hardware purchase (67%) and computer goal development (67%) were factors
that they included in their plans. In fact, the first three of those
considerations were included in the plans of eighty or more percent of the

schools.

It is worth noting that only one—half (51%) of the schools had a planned
evaluation component as part of their instructional computing program. The
smaller responses for maintenance can be explained, to an extent, by the fact
that maintenance is a service provided by districts for fourteen percent of the

schools (see Budgetary Considerations).

 

89

IableXMI: EaetorsInIheBlanninngLocess

 

 

Factors Included in % of Schools
the Planning of the With the Factor
Computing Programs in Their Plans

 

Using the data from this section, characteristics of the planning process that
the School used to develop and guide its instructional computing programs
can be identified. The decisions that guided its development were, most
often, delivered through consultations between a computer enthusiast and a
computer committee comprised of classroom teachers, the building principal,
and others such as the media specialist, a district administrator, and a parent
representative. The planning processes required more than three hundred
"people-hours." The plans accounted for the next year or two and had five
major components: computer integration, staff development, hardware

purchase, software purchase, and computer goal establishment.

90

Budgflarxfiomioerations

The second major research question concerned the manner in which the
funds available for computer related expenses were allocated. The research
question was, "How have computer related expenses been distributed over
the last several years? How consistent has that distribution been? Is there
any relationship between the expenditures and the established base of

computer expenses?"

The data to answer the question were gathered with a series of related survey
questions which asked whether computer expenses were permanent line
items (if so, for how long), the manner in which computer funds had been
allocated for both the 1986-87 and 1987-88 school years, and the total expense
incurred on all computer related items in the building. The following

paragraphs examine these issues.

The first concern was whether computer expenses were permanent line items
in the schools' budgets and, if so, for how many years. The data showed that
only twenty-nine percent of the schools had computer expenses as permanent
line items in their budgets. The schools that had computer expenses as
permanent line items (29%) varied in the amount of time for which that had
been true. Sixty percent of those schools had maintained the line item for
four or more years, twenty-seven percent for three years, and the other
thirteen percent for only two years. However, nearly two-thirds of the

schools (65%) indicated that computer expenses were still not permanent line

91

items in their budgets (six percent of the respondents used the "Don't Know"

option).

The second concern involved the manner in which the funds available in
1986 and 1987 for computer related expenses had been allocated. The
available data were manipulated to determine the total computer related costs
per student for the two years being considered. The resultant per student
figures permit easier analysis by avoiding the complicating influence of
student body size. The percentage distributions of the per student budget
information for 1986 and 1987 is presented in Table XVII.

mum Mmmmmmflmm

 

Percent Percent % of the
Total Expenses of the of the Total
per Student ‘ Total ‘ Total Schools:
for Computer- Schools: Schools: Annual
Related Items 1986 1987 Average

 

* Due to Rounding

The first two columns to the right of the per student figures illustrate the

percentage of schools spending that amount in 1986 and 1987. The figures for

92

1986 and 1987 represent the total per student computer expenses reported by
respondents, including staff development and equipment maintenance costs.
The column on the far right lists the percentage distribution for the average
annual per student expenses. That figure represents the costs incurred
annually during the development of the instructional computing programs
(total cost divided by the number of years computing; that answer divided by
the total number of students). The average annual per student figure

includes only the costs of hardware, software and computer-related materials.

The table shows a downward trend in the per student expenses during the last
several years, particularly when the average annual per student expenses data
are included in the comparison. For instance, in 1987, fifty-three percent of
the schools spent less than $10 per student on computer related items. In
1986, forty-seven percent of the schools spent less than $10 per student. Only
twelve percent of the schools spent less than $10 per student during the years

in which they were developing their instructional computing programs.

If only the schools which supplied valid data are included in the calculations,
the trend is even more apparent. Of those schools supplying data, sixty-four
percent spent less than $10 in 1987, fifty-two percent spent less than $10 in
1986, and only twelve percent spent less than $10 during the years that they

were developing their instructional computing programs.

The conclusion that expenses have declined during recent years can be
graphically illustrated by an examination of the means and medians for the
percentage distributions presented in Table XVII (see Table XVIII). The mean

for the average annual expenses was $28.90; the mean for 1986 expenses was

93

$18.75; the mean for 1987 was $15.02. The pattern is even more striking for
the medians since the presence of several large outliers is less significant. The
median for the average annual expenses was $20.00; for 1986, it was $8.80; for
1987, it dipped to $4.90. Thus, after five years of roughly $20 per student
annual expenses to develop the program, the typical school expense dropped
to less than $5 per student by 1987.

The importance of this dramatic decline may be mitigated, to an extent,
because of differences in the wording of the three relevant survey questions.
In determining the average annual expenses, the data used reflected expenses,
regardless of the source of the funds. The data used to determine the 1986 and
1987 computer budget figures, however, reflected only the monies specifically

available for allocation by the building principal.

Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the average annual expense figures do
not include either staff development or equipment maintenance costs,
whereas the figures for 1986 and 1987 did. Thus, the decline in per student
expenses was noted despite the inclusion of additional budget categories in

the 1986 and 1987 figures.

It seems probable that some portion of the total funds used to develop the
high quality instructional computing programs came from sources other than
the principals' budgets-for instance, fund-raisers or grants. However, if the
large differences detected were mainly attributable to outside funding sources,
then those sources must have accounted for the majority of the available
funds over the years that the programs were being developed. When the 1986
and 1987 figures are compared, the declines of fifty-six percent between the

94

two medians and of twenty-five percent between the two means (from 1986 to
1987) suggest that the budgets may fluctuate widely. Unfortunately, the study

lacked the data necessary to clarify questions of budget allocations beyond the

two years specified.

The next issue concerns the manner in which the monies available for
computer expenses were allocated for 1986 and 1987. Again, the data were
examined using per student figures to enhance their value for further

interpretation.

More than one-half of the schools spent less than ten dollars per student for
hardware in both 1986 (51 %) and 1987 (53%). Well over one-half of the
schools spent less than two dollars per student for software in both 1986 (68%)
and 1987 (57%). Staff development expenses were even less, with the large
majority of schools spending less than one dollar per student in 1986 (61%)
and 1987 (67%). Finally, equipment maintenance expenses were the smallest
part of the budget, with the majority of schools spending no money at all on
maintenance either in 1986 (59%) or 1987 (51 %). For the complete
distributions of the per student expenses for hardware purchases (Table XX),
software purchases (Table XXI), staff development costs (Table XXII), and

equipment maintenance costs (Table XXIII), see the Tables section of the

Apgndix.

 

The itemized budget data for the years 1986 and 1987 are presented, using
means and medians, in Table XVIII. The table indicates, in an approximate
fashion, the manner in which the available funds have been allocated by

school leaders for the two years.

 

Specific item
from the Mean Mean Median Median
Computer Budget 1986 1987 1986 1987

 

 

* Due to Rounding
“ Data are Total Budget figures, not column summations

The major budget item both years was the purchase of hardware. Expenses
for hardware were followed sequentially in importance by expenditures for
software, staff development, and equipment maintenance costs. The sizeable
differences, proportionally, between the means and medians for all the budget
items reflect the influence of very large outliers which had a much greater

mathematical impact on the means than one the medians.

IahleXIX: Allocationofflomouterfiunds

Specific item Percent of Percent of
from the the Total the Total
Computer Budget 1986 Budget 1987 Budget

 

 

96

Table XIX displays the 1986 and 1987 means from Table XVIII so that the
proportional allocation of the available funds can be examined. With this
table, it can be seen that hardware expenses accounted for a large majority of

the computer budget expenses in both 1986 (65%) and 1987 (73%).

Furthermore, while software costs have remained the second largest expense,
the portion of the total budget spent on software dropped from twenty-four
percent in the 1986 to fifteen percent in 1987. Staff development and
equipment expenses, although minor, both remained relatively constant over

the two year period being considered.

It is worth noting that the average annual per student expense figure shows a
strongly positive correlation with the averaged per student expenses for 1986
and 1987 (the amounts for those two years averaged). Only seventy-six
percent of the respondents supplied the data necessary for the calculations,
but the data from those schools resulted in a Pearson Product-Moment
Coefficient of Correlation (r) of .77. This finding supports the supposition
that the pattern of declining computer expenses is highly consistent across the
entire sample of schools. The relationship is illustrated with the scattergram

in Figure V (see Figures in the Appendix).

To summarize, then, the School has not yet included its computer expenses
in its budget as a permanent line item. Nevertheless, the School spent
roughly $20 per student annually for computer related expenses while its
instructional computing program was being developed. That figure dropped
by over seventy-five percent to its 1987 level of a less than $5 ($4.90) per
student. That $4.90 was allocated so that $3.57 went to the purchase of

97

hardware, $0.74 went to software, $0.44 went to staff development and $0.15 to

equipment maintenance.

ContributorstoComputngrogramlmomement

The third major research question considered the factors that principals felt
had contributed most significantly to the improvement of their instructional
computing programs. The research question was, "What factors do principals
feel have provided the greatest contributions to improving their instructional

computing programs? Are those factors consistent over time?"

The data to answer the question were collected with a series of three related
survey questions which asked respondents to identify the factors they
believed were the most important contributors to improving their
instructional computing programs in the past, present, and future. The
respondents were asked, first, to indicate the three most important
contributing factors to their programs' improvement. In addition to those
three critical factors, respondents could also, if they chose, indicate other
factors they believed were very important contributors with the use of a

different symbol (+).

To answer the research question, the first step was to examine the factors
respondents felt were the most important contributors to the improvement
of their instructional computing programs, as the programs were at a time
approximately three years before the study was conducted (in September,
1987). The summarized data are presented in Table XXIV.

98

IahleXXIX: lmoroxementflontribinorsuaxearsAgo

 

% Schools % Schools Total
Factors in Which in Which Percent of
t have Factor Factor Was Schools in
to Was One Listed but Which the

              

Improvement of 3 Most Not one of Factor was
the Programs Important the Top 3 Important

The table is arranged with the second column from the left representing the

percentage of occurrences as one of the three most important contributors, the
third column indicating the percentage of occurrences as an important
contributor but not one of the top three, and the right hand column showing
the total percentage of occurrences (the summation of the two preceding
columns). Sixty-six percent of the respondents noted more than just the three
most crucial factors were important to the improvement of their programs (as
they were three years ago). Some schools felt as many as ten contributors
were necessary to create the "critical mass" needed to improve their

programs. The mean number of contributors was roughly five factors for

99

each of the three time periods (approximately 4.5 contributors for the time

period: "in three years' time").

Adequate hardware (54%) was the only factor that appeared as one of the
schools' three most important contributors on a majority of the surveys,
although administrative support (48%) was very close. When total
percentages are considered, six different factors were listed on more than one-
half of the surveys: adequate hardware (68%), administrative support (68%),
adequate software (52%), the willingness of teachers to change (52%), the staff
inservice program (50%) and the influence of a computer enthusiast (50%).
The "willingness of teachers to change" choice was the only one of those
factors mentioned less frequently as one of the three most important
contributors than it was as an additional factor. Perhaps, if the administration
was not supportive and if there was insufficient hardware and software, the
fact that teachers were willing to change might not be a very important

consideration.

The second set of questions asked respondents to note the factors contributing
most to the improvement of their programs as they are "now"--at the time of
the survey: September, 1987. The collected data are again summarized in a
table formatted identically to Table XXIV. For this time period (September,
1987), sixty-one percent of the surveys mentioned more than three most
important contributors to improvement. The resulting data are presented in

Table XXV.

 

 

100

Iahleml: Imomemmtfiontrihutorrfloe:

 

 

: - —-‘ :——:
---- :——

% Schools % Schools Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Factors in Which in Which Percent of
that have Factor Factor Was Schools in
Contributed to Was One Listed but Which the
the Improvement of 3 Most Not One of Factor was
of the Programs Important the top 3 Important
Adequate Hardware 63% 8% 71%
Adeguate Software 53% 18% 71%
Teachers Willirg 27% 24% 51%
Inservice Progr_am 20% 31% 51%
Student Interest ;3% 24% 47%
Admin. Support 29% 14% 43%
Comp. Enthusiast 25% 18% 43%
Long-Range Plans 8% 2.2% 37%
Parental Support 12% 18% 30%
gaff Network 8% e2}. 30%
Community Serpport 0% 10% 10%
Others 8% 0% 8%

 

 

 

 

It is worth noting the dramatic increase in the importance of having adequate
software during the three year time period from "3 years ago" to "now." It
was listed, along with adequate hardware, on a majority of the surveys as one
of the three most important factors. The importance of administrative
support fell significantly, from being listed by sixty-eight percent of the
respondents for the first time period to less than one-half (43%) of them for
the "now" time period. Two of the factors involving teachers, staff inservice
and teachers' willingness to change, remained important contributors for the
majority of schools, but there was an interesting juxtaposition in their
column sub-totals for the two time periods. Teachers' willingness to change

was mentioned as a more critical issue than it had been in the past, whereas

 

101

the primary importance of the staff inservice program was somewhat

diminished, particularly in schools where teachers were not willing to

 

 

change.
Ialzle m Imoroeement Contributors—1n 3 Years
% Schools % Schools Total

The Factors in Which in Which Percent of
that have Factor Factor was Schools in
Contributed to Was One Listed but Which that
the Improvement of 3 Most Not one of Factor was
of the Programs Important the Top 3 Important

 

 

 

 

 

For the third time period, respondents were asked to predict what they

believed would become the most important contributors to the continued

improvement of their programs "in three years." Only fifty-nine percent of

the surveys indicated more than the three most important considerations.

The data gathered from those responses are summarized in Table XXVI.

Respondents predicted that adequate software would become the most

important future contributor to the improvement of their instructional

 

102

computing programs. The software option was noted on nearly three-
quarters (71 %) of the surveys. Adequate hardware (61 %) remained an
important although less critical factor than it had been, but both staff

inservice programs (58%) and administrative support (57%) gained in
importance. The "others" option had varied responses, with the most

frequently mentioned involving those associated with money (grants).

The final issue concerning the factors contributing to program improvement i
was the consistency of those contributors over the six year time period. Of
primary interest was whether the same contributors remained important to
particular schools over time or if the column percentages (in Tables XXIV,
XXV and XXVI) reflected some random rearranging of the factors from one

time period to the next. The relevant data are shown in Table XXVII.

IahleXXMII: Conhibutors—Comistenexfleerlime

 

 

 

% of Total % of The % of The
The Factors Schools in Schools Schools
that have Which the Listing Listing
Contributed to Factor was Factor Factor
the Improvement Listed "3 Again Again "in

of the Programs Years Ago" "Now" 3 Years"

 

103

The table is organized with the first figure to the right of the contributor
representing the total percentage occurrence of that factor in schools "3 years
ago" (from Table XXIV). The next figure is the percentage of schools for
which that factor remained an important contributor during the next time
period ("now"). The last figure shows the percentage of the schools from the
first column for which the factor remained an important contributor in the
third time period ("in 3 years")~-thereby appearing as an important
contributor to all three time periods.

Table XXIV shows, for example, that fifty—two percent of the respondents
believed that adequate software was an important contributor three years ago.
Forty percent of the schools felt that software was an important contributor to
improving their program in both the "3 years ago," and "now" time periods.
Thirty-two percent of the schools that listed software in those first two time
periods, believed it Would continue in importance "in 3 years." The
contributors, especially those mentioned most frequently, continue to be
consistently associated with the schools listing them over the six year time
period. The relationship is illustrated graphically with a bar graph in Figure
VI (see m in the Appendix).

To summarize, the typical school had approximately five factors that were
considered important contributors to improving its instructional computing
program over the last six years. Adequate hardware was the most critical
contributor for the first two time periods, the past and present. Adequate
software was identified as the most consistently important contributor as well
as being the overall most important contributing influence in the near future.

Other factors that consistently provided important contributions to program

104

improvement included administrative support, the willingness of teachers to

change and staff inservice program.

Ban'mstoflomrzutinglirogramlmoroxement

The fourth major research question concerned the factors that principals felt
had provided the most significant obstacles to the improvement of their
instructional computing programs. The research question was, "What factors
do principals feel have provided the greatest barriers to improving their

instructional computing programs? Are those factors consistent over time?"

The data to answer the question were gathered with a series of three related
survey questions which parallel those in the section on contributors, except
that the questions concerned obstacles instead of facilitators. Respondents
were asked to identify the three most critical barriers to their programs'
improvement, plus any additional factor(s) they felt were also very significant
obstacles. The data collected are summarized in four tables following the

same format as those shown in the section on contributors.

The first step in addressing the research question was to examine the factors
that respondents felt had provided the most significant barriers to improving
their instructional computing programs as those programs were "three years
ago" (roughly September, 1984). Respondents identified fewer barriers to
improvement than they did contributors, with only thirty-seven percent of
the school leaders indicating more than the three most critical barriers

(compared to sixty-six percent for contributors). Overall, respondents listed

 

105

an average of slightly fewer than four (3.6) barriers for the time period "three

years ago." The summarized data are presented in Table XXV III.

IahleXXXIII: Banierstolmomemenk-filearsAgo

% Schools % Schools Total

The Factors in Which in Which Percent of
that have been That Factor That Factor Schools in
Barriers to the Was One of Was Listed Which that
Improvement of The 3 Most But not 1 Factor was
the Programs Important of top 3 Important

 

 

 

Only two considerations, lack of quality software (57%) and inadequate staff
training (51%), were mentioned by more than one-half of the respondents as
being among the three most significant barriers to improving their programs.
The four barriers which the majority of schools listed as providing the most
critical obstacles to improvement were inadequate staff training (67%), lack of
quality software (61 %), insufficient hardware (55%) and lack of staff

commitment (47%).

 

106

-- _Z -:
--:

% Schools

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% Schools Total

The Factors in Which in Which Percent of

that have been That Factor That Factor Schools in

Barriers to the Was One of Was Listed, Which that
Improvement of The 3 Most But not one Factor was

the Programs Important of top 3 Important

Teachers Resisting Change 3% 4% 43%
Inadequate Staff Training 37% 4% 41%
Insufficient Hardware 35% 6% 41%
Lack of Staff Commitment 27% 8% 35%
Lack of mality Software 24% 8% 32%
No Program Evaluation 22% 0% 22%
Lack of Long-Range Plans 20% 0% 20%
Difficulty of Computer Use _1_2% 2% 14%
No Administrative Support 10% 2% 12%
No Computer Enthusiast 2% 2% 4%
Others (lack of moneyltime) __20% 2% 22%
Missing Data 4% - 4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

The respondents indicated even fewer barriers in the "now" time period

(September, 1987), with only eighteen percent of the schools mentioning

more than the three most significant. The typical school identified just three

factors per school. The findings are presented in summarized form in Table

XXD(.

All but three of the barriers ("teachers resisting change," "no program

evaluation," and "others") were mentioned less frequently in this time

period than they were in the previous time period. Seventy-five percent of

the "other" barriers were responses associated with finances-"funds,"

"grants," "money" or simply "$." Of the four most frequently occurring

 

107

barriers-teachers resisting change (43%), inadequate staff training (41 %),
insufficient hardware (41 %) and lack of staff commitment (35%)--three of
them were directly related to teachers. Teachers can provide significant

obstacles to the improvement of instructional computing programs.

For the last time period considered, respondents were asked to predict the
factors they felt would become barriers to improving their instructional
computing programs in three years' time. There was only an eighty percent
completion rate for this question, and just one-fifth of those who did respond
identified more than the three factors they felt would be the most important
barriers. The average number of barriers identified was slightly more than

three (3.1) per respondent. The summarized data are presented in Table XXX.

IahleXXX: Barderstolmnmemenk-Infilears

 

% Schools % Schools Total
The Factors in Which in Which Percent of
that have been That Factor That Factor Schools in
Barriers to the Was One of Was Listed, Which that
Improvement of The 3 Most But not one Factor was

the Programs Important of top 3 Important

         

108

The three most frequently identified barriers were insufficient hardware
(35%), teachers resisting change (33%), and a lack of staff commitment (31%).
Although these factors were the most frequent responses on the surveys, it is
worth noting that they occurred, at best, on roughly one-third of the surveys.
The significance of teachers as obstacles to program improvement remains
great, with three of the five factors most frequently mentioned involving the
teaching staff. Also, the number of respondents using the "others" category
again increased. Variations on the need for "money" still accounted for
seventy-five percent of the category's responses, but "lack of time" and

"scheduling difficulties" were also frequently listed as barriers.

The final consideration regarding the barriers to program improvement was
the consistency of the obstacles over the six year time period. Again, the
primary interest of the study was to determine whether the same barriers
remained significant for particular schools over time or whether the column
percentages presented in the preceding tables reflected random occurrences of
the factors from one time period to the next. The relevant data are
summarized in Table XXXI, which is organized in the same manner as Table

XXVII.

The columns show the consistency of factors which were barriers over the
three time periods. The data in Table XXXI show that the barriers which the
computing programs' leaders identified were less consistent than the
contributors to improvement. The only factor that remained constant for
more than fifty percent of the original respondents over the six year period

was one from the "others" category, "lack of money." Among the frequently

 

109

recurring responses, the most consistent was the "teachers resisting change"

choice. The relationship is illustrated graphically with a bar graph in Figure
VII (see Figures in the Appendix).

IahleZQQQ; Barflers—ConsistenerxerIime

 

% of Total % of The % of the
The Factors Schools in Schools Schools
that have been Which that Listing Listing
Barriers to the Factor was The Factor The Factor
Improvement of Listed "3 Again for Again "in

the Programs Years Ago" "Now" 3 Years"

        

   

In summary, the School identified fewer barriers than contributors to its

program improvement. In general, the School identified three or four factors
as most significant obstacles to the improvement of the instructional
computing program over the six year time period examined. The four factors
considered important "three years ago" were inadequate staff training, lack of
quality software, insufficient hardware, and lack of staff commitment. Those
four factors were surpassed in importance by the "teachers resisting change"
option for the "present" and "in three years" time periods. Although none of

the factors were particularly consistent obstacles to schools over the six years,

 

 

110

the resistance of teachers to change was the most constant of the frequently
occurring barriers. The single most consistent consideration was the "lack of

money" factor noted under the "others" category.

AllocationofoailahleComonterIime

The final major research question concerned the manner in which the
available computer access time was allocated among the potential
instructional computing activities. The research question was, "How is
available computer time allocated for computer-assisted learning, computer
programming, and the use of the computer with an application program?"
The data to answer the question were gathered with a series of five associated
survey questions. Four of the questions considered the actual allocation of
available computer access time, and the fifth asked respondents to indicate

their ideal computer access time allocation.

The first topic considered was the overall manner in which the schools
allocated their computer access time. Respondents were asked to specify the
percentage of their computer access time devoted to computer programming,
computer-assisted learning, computer applications, and other uses. The
means for both the major categories of use as well as specific uses within each

category are presented in Table XXXII.

Most schools divided their available computer access time between computer
programming, computer applications (using the computer as a "tool"), and
computer-assisted learning (CAL). In terms of total time, the two most
important of the activities were computer applications and computer-assisted

learning. The average allocation times were roughly fourteen percent for

111

computer programming, twenty-nine percent for computer applications, fifty-
five percent for computer-assisted learning activities, and two percent for
various other activities. The three specific activities which occurred most
frequentlyudrill and practice (24%), word processing (18%), and tutorials

(12%)-accounted for more than half (54%) of the total computer access time.

IahleXXXII: MeanAlloeationofComonterIime

 

 

Mean % of total

Type of Access time
Computer Devoted to each
Activity Activity

 

--.I -
-—-: -

 

 

" Equal roughly 0.3%

The data distributions for the major categories of computer access time for all
the schools in the sample are presented in Table XXXIII. The table shows the

programming was the least important of the three major activities, with

 

112

nearly one-fourth (24%) of the schools indicating that they allocated no time

to computer programming. A total of sixty~five percent of the respondents

spent one-tenth or less of their time in programming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent of Computer Computer Computer

The Computer Pro- As a Assisted Other
Access Time gramming "Tool" Learning Uses
81% to 100% 2% 4% 8% 0%
61% to 80% 0% 6% 31% 0%
41% to 60% 6% 16% 29% 0%
21% to 40% 10% 24% 18% fig
1% to 20% 55% 47% 10% 12%
0% (no time) 24% 0% 0% 82‘7
Missig Data 4% 4% 4% 4%
Total 101%* 101%* 100% 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Due to Rounding

Every school supplying data on the question of computer access time

allocation indicated that they devoted time to both computer applications

(using computer as a "tool") and computer-assisted learning (CAL). Nearly

one-fourth (24%) of the respondents allocated fifty percent or more of their

time to some type of computer application. However, the most important

type of activity in terms of time allocation was clearly CAL. Two-thirds (67%)

of the respondents indicated that they spent one-half or more of their

computer time on some form of CAL. The vast majority (82%) of the schools

reported that they spent no time on any other type of activity than the three

discussed.

 

113

The percentage distributions for the particular activities within each category
are included in the next three tables. Table XXXIV presents the findings for

the allocation of programming time between the two languages, BASIC and

 

Percent of
The Computer Programming Programming
Access Time in BASIC in Logo

 

 

* Due to Rounding

Most schools that indicated they allocated time to programming
(approximately twodhirds of the schools) divided that time between BASIC
and Logo, with nearly sixty-four percent more time spent on Logo. Sixteen
percent of the schools allocated all their programming time on Logo, whereas
only two percent of them devoted all their programming time on BASIC.
Eighty-six percent of the schools indicating that they spent some of their
computer time for programming, allocated one-half or more of that time on

Logo.

Table XXXV shows the percentage distribution for the allocation of the time

devoted to applications. All schools that responded indicated that they

 

114

allocated some time to word processing. Nearly all (92%) of the respondents
also allocated time to the use of printing utility programs. The majority of
the responding schools indicated that they spent time on word processing
(100%), printing utilities (92%), and data base programs (57%). Some schools
(22%) also spent small amounts of their computer time using electronic

spreadsheets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent of Word Data Spread Printer
The Computer Pro- Base Sheet Utility Other
Access Time cessing Use Use Use Uses
81% to 100% 16% 0% 0% 0% 0%
61% to 80% 39% 0% 0% 12% 0%
41% to 60% 16% 4% 0% 16% 0%
21% to 40% 24% 6% 0% 14% 0%
1% to 20% 4% 45% 20% 49% 6%
0% (no time) 0% 43% 78% 8% 92%
Missing Data 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
TOTAL 101%" 100% 100% 100% 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Due to Rounding

Table XXXVI shows the distribution of the computer-assisted learning time.
Most of the responding schools (excluding "missing data") divided the total
time they allocated to CAL between drill and practice programs (96%),
tutorials (82%), simulations (86%), and educational games (84%). The
parenthesized percentages indicate the portion of schools that allocated some
CAL time to that use. A small portion (8%) of the schools also reported that
they spent time on other activities such as keyboarding practice, music

composition, and computer-assisted design (CAD).

115

 

Iahle XXXVI: Allmation of CA1. Iime
Percent of Educa-
The Computer Drill and Simula- tional Other
Access Time Practice Tutorials tions Games Uses

 

   

* Due to Rounding

The last survey question concerning computer time allocation asked
respondents to indicate how they would ideally allocate their available

computer time between the major computer activities.

meme IdealAlloeationofCommtterIirne

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent of Computer
The Computer Computer Computer Assisted
Access Time Programming As a "Tool" Learning
81% to 100% 2% 2% 2%
61 % to 80% 0% 10% 12j/o
41% to 60% 4% 35% 35%
_2o1 % to 40% 20% 31 % 2M
1% to 20% 45% 18% 20%
0% (no time) 25% 0% 0%
Missing Data 4% 4% 4%
Total 100% 100% 100%

 

 

 

 

 

116

The summarized data are presented in Table XXXVII. The differences
between the manner in which computer time has actually been allocated and
the way respondents would ideally like to allocate their time are not dramatic

(compare the percentage distributions shown in Tables XXXIII and XXXVII).

However, although there were no dramatic differences between the actual
and ideal time allocations, one notable change suggests that respondents
would like to shift time from CAL to computer applications. Forty-five
percent of the schools indicated that they would ideally allocate one-half or
more of their total computer time to CAL, down from the sixty-seven percent
of the schools that actually allocated that amount of their computer time to
CAL. In contrast, forty-seven percent of the respondents said they would
ideally spend one-half or more of their computer time to computer
applications, up from the twenty-four percent of the schools that actually

allocated that amount of their computer time to computer applications.

In summary, the School divided its available computer access time between
three major activities: computer programming, computer applications (using
the computer as a "tool"), and computer-assisted learning (CAL). The two
most important of these activities, in terms of the total time spent, were
computer-assisted learning and computer applications. The School allocated
its available computer time in such a way that fourteen percent was spent on
computer programming, twenty-nine percent on computer applications, fifty-
five percent on computer-assisted learning activities and two percent on
various other activities. The three specific activities which occurred most
frequently-«drill and practice (24%), word processing (18%), and tutorials
(12%)-accounted for more than one-half (54%) of the total computer access

time.

M . .
r_._-.-’E-r'

117

Most schools that included computer programming allocated time to both
Logo and BASIC, with about sixty-four percent more time spent on Logo. The
majority of schools had CAL programs which included the use of, in order of
importance, drill and practice programs, tutorials, simulations, and
educational games. The majority of schools also encouraged word processing,
the use of printing utilities, and the manipulation of data bases. Finally, the
instructional computing leaders indicated that they would prefer to devote
less time to CAL and more time to computer applications as the major

difference between the actual and ideal allocation of computer time.

SummaryofthenataAnalysis

The schools which were surveyed varied widely in many of their responses
despite the fact that they were all recognized for the high-quality of their
instructional computing programs. Nevertheless, the majority of the schools
responded in a similar fashion to the survey questions. Although the data
from outliers were included in the calculations and presented in the tables,
the primary focus of the study was on those schools which were most
representative or "typical" of all the schools with high-quality computing
programs, referred to here as the School. The characteristics of the School are

summarized in this section.

The School had one computer for roughly every twenty students. It also had
slightly less than two computers (1.6) per classroom teacher, with each of

those teachers responsible for nearly twenty-six students.

118

The School located its thirty-five Apple IIe computers so that nearly twenty
were in computer lab(s), thirteen were in individual classrooms, and the
other two were either in the media center or some other location. The
School has had an instructional computing program for roughly five years
and has enjoyed a very high level (nearly 100%) of teaching-staff

involvement in its computing program.

The computer uses which the School's principal considered most important
for facilitating student learning were varied. Among the most frequently
mentioned uses were word processing to improve writing skills, drill and
practice to develop basic skills and individualize instruction, tutorials and
simulations to enhance the extant curriculum, "problem-solving" to develOp
problem-solving strategies and critical thinking skills, and data base
manipulation to improve information-handling skills. Additional factors
that were often listed as important for developing a quality instructional
computing program were the staff and curriculum development programs,
the influence of a computer enthusiast, and the support of the

administration.

The decisions guiding the School's development of its instructional
computing program were rendered through consultations between the
computer enthusiast and the computer committee, comprised of classroom
teachers, the principal, and others (such as the media specialist, a district
administrator, and parent representative). The planning process required
more than three hundred "people-hours." The plan which the School

developed took into account the next year (or two) and included five major

119

components: computer integration, staff development, hardware purchase,

software purchase, and computer goal establishment.

The School does not yet have its computer expenses as a permanent line item
in its budget. Nonetheless, it spent approximately twenty dollars per student,
annually, for computer related expenses during the five years its instructional
computing program was being developed. That amount dropped to its 1987
level of less than five dollars ($4.90) per student. That $4.90 per student was
divided so that $3.57 were spent on hardware, $0.74 went to software, $0.44

was spent on staff development and $0.15 on equipment maintenance.

Five factors were considered especially important contributors for improving
the School's instructional computing program over the last six years.
Adequate hardware was the most critical consideration for the "three years
ago" and the "now" time periods. Adequate software was identified as its
most consistently important contributor to program improvement as well as
being its most important factor "in three years" time. Other factors that the
leaders of the School felt were consistently important to its improvement
included administrative support, the willingness of its teachers to change,

and its staff inservice program.

The School's leaders identified fewer barriers than contributors to program
improvement. There were three factors which provided significant obstacles
for improving the instructional computing program over the last six years.
Four factors considered important "three years ago" were inadequate staff
training, lack of quality software, insufficient hardware, and lack of staff

commitment. Those four factors were passed in importance by "teachers

 

120

resisting change" in the "now" and the "in three years" time periods.
Although none of the factors were particularly consistent obstacles over the
six years, "teachers resisting change" was the most constant of the frequently

mentioned barriers.

The School divided its available computer access time between three major
activities: computer programming, computer applications, and computer-
assisted learning. The first two activities were the most important in terms of
the total time spent on them. The available computer time was allocated
with roughly fourteen percent for computer programming, twenty-nine
percent for computer applications, fifty-five percent for computer-assisted
learning activities, and two percent for varied other activities. The three
specific activities with the highest frequency of occurrence-drill and practice
(24%), word processing (18%), and tutorials (12%)--accounted for more than

half (54%) of the total computer access time.

The School allocated some computer programming time to both Logo and
BASIC, but more was spent on Logo. The School's computer-assisted
learning program included the use of (in order of importance) drill and
practice programs, tutorials, simulations, and educational games. The School
also encouraged word processing, using printing utilities, and manipulating
data bases. The one major difference between the way in which the
instructional computing leaders of the School actually allocated their
computer time and would like to do so ideally was a preference to devote less

time to CAL and more time to computer applications.

121

This concludes the analysis of the data gathered during the study. The final

chapter, Summaries. Conclusions. Recommendations and Reflections.

 

contains the interpretations of the data presented in this chapter, as well as
the conclusions and recommendations that can be drawn from those

interpretations.

Hmi

CHARTER!

ANDREW

The intent of Chapter V is to examine the descriptive findings of Chapter IV,
focusing on the study's nine research questions, presented in Chapter I. The
chapter is organized in three sections. The first section presents summaries of
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations to instructional computing
leaders generated by the nine research questions. The second section offers
recommendations for further investigations based on the findings of this
study. The third section provides reflections on the meaning of the study's

major findings.

This section is organized according to the results associated with the nine
research questions. In each case, a fixed format has been adopted: the
pertinent research question is stated first, then the summarized findings
associated with the question are presented, and finally, conclusions and any
appropriate recommendations to instructional computing leaders are offered.
The sequencing of the research questions corresponds to the order in which

the findings were presented in Chapter IV.

arr-“=3

123

The range of the descriptive data revealed by the survey instrument indicated
appreciable variation among the schools recognized for the high quality of
their instructional computing programs. Substantial differences were
detected among the schools in terms of numbers of pupils, numbers of

computers, students per computer ratios, and students per teacher ratios.

These differences were important because they showed that schools with
widely varying characteristics apparently can develop high quality
instructional computing programs. In addition, the data were presented as an
argument against any suggestions that quality instructional computing
programs can only be developed in schools possessing particular demographic

characteristics.

Despite the interschool variation, the median ratio of students per computer,
approximately twenty-one, was far superior to the national average of twenty-
nine that White (1987) reported for all American public schools. That
difference was especially noteworthy because the data from this study were
only gathered from elementary schools and other studies have found that
elementary schools have trailed both middle and high schools in acquiring
computer hardware. The schools in the sample were clearly well ahead of the
national averages in terms of the computer equipment they have available
for instructional use. It is also clear that one important consideration in
establishing a quality instructional computing is the availability of adequate

computer equipment.

124

Hardware Considerations

Research Question
The inquiry into this topic was focused by the question: What type of

microcomputers have been used and where have they typically been located?

Findings

The "typical" school in the sample located its roughly thirty-five (Apple IIe)
computers so that approximately twenty were placed in computer lab(s),
thirteen were located in individual classrooms, and the other two were likely
to be used in the media center. Nearly all the schools (84%) shared their

available hardware between classrooms and computer labs.

Conclusions

The placement of computers in both lab(s) and classrooms was clearly the
predominant practice among the schools with high quality instructional
computing programs. It was also apparent that schools were continuing to

acquire primarily one brand of computer, the Apple IIe.

Locating their computers in different places in the school gave school leaders
an opportunity to provide whole class instruction (in labs) as well as large
group instruction or individual practice (in classrooms) in the overall
instructional computing program. Placing the computers throughout the
school was also likely to increase staff participation in the program. As well,

this arrangement addresses some of the equity concerns that Stone (1986) and

ragga.

125

Walker (1983) discuss by providing a variety of instructional and learning

modes to both teachers and students.

Recommendations

Leaders should consider arranging their available computers so that some are
placed in both computer labs and individual classrooms. The computer lab(s)
should have enough computers to approximate a classroom "set" so a
machine is available for each student (roughly twenty computers per lab).

The computers placed in individual classrooms should be allocated equitably.
The teaching staffs should be advised to use the different sites for the different

instructional approaches to which each location is best suited.

Length ot Time Computing Programs Have Existed

 

 

 

Research Question
The question guiding this inquiry was: How long have schools had

instructional computing programs?

Findings

More than three—quarters of the schools responding to the survey have had
instructional computing programs for between three and seven years. The
responses also indicated that none of the schools in the sample had been
involved in instructional computing for less than two years. The majority of

schools have had an instructional computing programs for four or five years.

 

126

Conclusions

These findings suggest that an extended period of time may be required for
the development of a successful instructional computing program. The
elements of a successful instructional computing program-acquisition of the
appropriate hardware and software, development and implementation of a
program designed to respond to the needs of an individual school, and
training the staff in the skills needed to support that program--are
complicated activities which require that a great deal of time be devoted to the
project by both the planners and implementers of instructional computing
programs. Carnine's (1984) list of the critical variables (see page 33 for the
complete list) needed to integrate computers effectively into schools should

have another implicit factor added to it--time.

Recommendations

Schools should recognize that the process of developing and establishing
successful instructional computing programs will require many years and
must be accompanied by a long-term commitment to instructional
computing. The commitment should include long-range planning that
details the many important considerations involved with developing
successful programs such as funding, training, resources, and curriculum

development.

127

Extent o_f Classroom Teachers: Involvement

 

Research Question
The question focusing this inquiry was: What portion of the full-time
classroom teaching staff has been involved in instructional computing

programs?

Findings

The schools with high quality computing programs enjoyed very high levels
of teaching staff involvement in their instructional computing programs. In
fully one-half of the schools supplying the necessary data, the staff

involvement level was one hundred percent.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that schools have not adopted the policy of hiring
special "computer teachers" whose task is to "teach computers." Instead,
school leaders must have encouraged all teachers to involve themselves in
the instructional computing programs. A commitment to technology use
must have been made by the teachers working at these schools. Most likely,
this high level of staff involvement was encouraged by various aspects of the
planning process guiding the development of the instructional computing
programs, such as the location of computer hardware, the staff development

practices, and the curriculum development outcomes.

128

Recommendations

Instructional leaders should find ways to encourage involvement in the
instructional computing programs of as many members of their teaching
staffs as possible, instead of hiring special computer teachers whose sole
mission is to teach the discrete subject-"computers." The leaders should also
include in their staff support systems as many motivational approaches as
feasible (2.3;: professional recognition, technology resource support, and

opportunities for continuing professional growth).

However, as Rhodes (1986) warns, a high level of staff commitment may
precipitate the "people-wear" inherent to any technology adoption processes.
The higher the staff participation level, the greater the potential impact of
"people-wear." The effects can be minimized with adoption approaches
which include the factors Winkler (1986) described, such as "training
opportunities" and "continued assistance" for users of the innovation.
School instructional leaders must ensure that these components of the

programs are adequately provided.

Microcomputers' Most Important Contributions

 

Research Question
The investigation of this topic was guided by the question: What do
principals believe have been the most important ways in which teachers use

computers to facilitate student learning?

129

Findings

The leaders of schools with high quality instructional computing programs
identified several particular uses as being most important instructionally.
The current computer uses considered most important in facilitating the
students' learning were: a) word processing to improve writing skills, b) drill
and practice to develop basic skills and to individualize instruction, c)
tutorials and simulations to enhance the extant curriculum, d) "problem-
solving" to develop critical thinking skills and problem-solving strategies,
and e) data base manipulation to improve information handling skills. More
than one-half of the leaders listed word processing as the most important use,

twice as many as the next highest use of computers mentioned.

Conclusions

Given the importance that the instructional computing leaders attached to
these activities, each use deserves careful consideration by educational
leaders. Two of the most highly regarded uses were also the leading activities
in terms of the percentage of available computer time which was allocated to
themudrill and practice programs (24%) and word processing (18%). These
uses address areas of particular educational concernuthe need to improve
both "basic" skills and writing skills. They deserve especially close

consideration by school leaders.

Recommendations
Leaders should consider the current list of the most important computer uses
and find ways to support the activities in their own programs by devoting

computer time to them. Two activities in particular, word processing and

130

drill and practice, were especially favored and deserving of special

consideration.

However, these uses are both hardware intensive activities that are
implemented most effectively in situations in which one computer is
available for every one or two students. Since there is a finite amount of
computer time available, well-considered decisions must be made regarding
its allocation. If hardware intensive uses such as word processing and drill
and practice are encouraged, three outcomes may occur: the amount of
computer access time per student will be limited, the proportion of the total
student body using computers will be small, or the support of other computer
activities will be severely restricted. Alternatively, schools may acquire more

hardware than they presently have or adopt less hardware intensive uses.

The other three uses most favored by leaders--tutorials and simulations,
"problem-solving" programs, and data base managers-—can frequently be used
instructionally in ways that are not hardware intensive. Although these
activities can be undertaken with one computer per student, they can also be
conducted as large group demonstrations or discussions using one computer
for a classroom of students. When computer availability is limited, these
uses may be designated as the most important components of the
instructional computing program. School leaders will have to examine their
educational priorities and integrate them with the hardware availability

realities.

2 r

131

Planning Process Considerations

 

Research Question
The question guiding this investigation was: What considerations
characterize the planning processes which have guided the development of

schools' instructional computing programs?

Findings

 

Decisions guiding the development of the instructional computing programs
were typically rendered through consultations between computer enthusiasts
and computer committees composed primarily of classroom teachers and
building principals with other members including media specialists, district
administrators, and parent representatives. The planning used in developing
the programs demanded more than two hundred "people-hours" in over
one-half of the schools which estimated the time required. The resultant
plans have most often taken into account only the next year or two and
include five factors: computer integration, staff development, hardware

purchase, software purchase, and computer goal establishment.

One notable finding regarding the planning processes adopted in the high

quality schools is the role played by building principals in the planning. In
nearly every instance, principals were personally involved in the decision
making processes. Significantly, the principals were involved as part of

computer committees rather than as independent decision makers.

132

Conclusions

The prevalence of the participatory form of primary decision making suggests
that it was an important consideration in developing the instructional
computing programs. This approach is likely to encourage greater staff
involvement in the instructional computing than a more autocratic style of
leadership. Furthermore, the large amount of planning time demanded for
the program development emphasizes the need for a staff wide commitment

to instructional computing.

Nonetheless, the building principals demonstrated their commitment to the
computing programs by their personal involvement in the decision making
processes. This practice supports Moore's and Hyde's (1981) finding that such
involvement was critical to encourage program adoption. The involvement
was manifested through their roles as computer committee members rather

than as sole decision maker.

The five elements most often included in the plans of the high quality
programs--computer integration, staff development, hardware purchase,
software purchase, and computer goal establishment-demonstrated that
planners had an awareness of the interaction between different elements of
the plans. Each of the aspects listed depends on the others for successful

implementation; none makes planning sense by itself.

Recommendations
Leaders should encourage the adoption of planning processes in which

decisions are made collaboratively with input from many individuals:

133

computer enthusiasts, classroom teachers, building principals, parents, media
specialists and other concerned parties. The computer committees should be
formed with a understanding that the planning will be ongoing and will

require many hours of each members' time-for many years.

The leaders should also examine the factors included in the plans for
developing the computing programs, especially those mentioned most
frequently by the instructional computing leaders surveyed-computer
integration, staff development, purchase of hardware, purchase of software,
and establishment of computing program goals. The leaders should attempt

to include these factors in the plan for developing their own programs.

In particular, the integration of computers into the existing curriculum and
into regular classrooms was the most frequently mentioned planning aspect.
Integrating computers into regular classes requires a staff-wide commitment.
Computer integration also requires well designed and carefully implemented
staff development programs, the availability of adequate hardware and
software, and the existence of clearly defined goals to keep the integration
process focused. These considerations all need to be included in the plans of

schools wanting to develop successful instructional computing programs.

Bu tar Considerations

Research Question
The question guiding this inquiry was: In what manner have computer-

related expenses been distributed at the building-level over the last two years?

134

Findings

Computer expenses were not yet permanent line items in the budgets of more
than seventy percent of the schools surveyed. The median amount that
school leaders spent each year for computer related expenses was roughly $20
per student during the years that they developed their computing programs.
That per student figure dropped first to a 1986 level of $8.80 and then further
to a 1987 level of $4.90 per student. The $4.90 per student was divided so that
$3.57 was spent on hardware, $0.74 on software, $0.44 on staff development

and $0.15 on equipment maintenance.

Conclusions

The per student expenditures are especially noteworthy in light of the study's
other findings. If school leaders intend to adopt the suggested practices, they
must provide the budgetary support the practices require. The necessary
support cannot be provided by continually declining computer budgets. In
addition, the finding that computer expenses were not a line item in the
budgets of most schools' budgets indicates an absence of the ongoing financial

support necessary for instructional computing programs to succeed.

The per student budgetary amounts that the schools in the study supplied
were noticeably different from the figures supplied by either Moursund and
Ricketts (1987) or Levin (1986). Moursund and Ricketts suggested that per
student expenses would total $8 for hardware and software alone (with
expenditures tripling in a five year period). Levin's findings that hardware
costs accounted for eleven percent of the total computer expenses differed
substantially from the percentage discovered in this studyuthat is, nearly 75%
of the budgets.

135

Levin also found that schools spent between $119 and $431 per student on
software, a figure that is significantly higher than any amount which could be
projected from the findings in this study. He reported as well that providing
students with 10 minutes of computer-assisted instruction per student per day
cost roughly $120 a year, while Hawley et al (1986) found costs that were
approximately one-third of those Levin reported, provided the instructional
setting was a classroom instead of a lab. Even Hawley's figures were

substantially higher than those found in this study.

Recommendations

Leaders should create long range plans for developing their instructional
computing programs that take into account the unstable nature of computer
budgets while attempting, where possible, to eliminate the factors creating the
budgetary instability. In particular, leaders should strive to include computer

expenses as permanent line items in their budgets.

The leaders should also strive to stabilize the expenditure levels of their
computer budgets and raise them to such an extent that they permit the
implementation of the programs they are planned to support. In many cases,
this will require substantial increases in the established budgets. In particular,
funds should be provided for comprehensive inservice programs that are
designed to encourage the integration of computers into the existing

curriculum by regular classroom teachers.

The budgetary restrictions of the past several years have apparently had a

great impact on the level of computer expenditure in the schools sampled. If

136

the study's findings are indicative of budgetary practices in most elementary
schools, then computer budgets are now falling fast instead of rising rapidly as

Moursund had predicted. School leaders must attempt to alter this pattern.

Contributors to Computing Program Improvement

Research Question

The question focusing this investigation was: What were the factors which
the instructional computing leaders saw as providing the greatest
contributions to improving their instructional computing programs and

what was the relative stability of those factors over time?

Findings

Five factors were considered especially important contributors for improving
the instructional computing programs over the last six years. Adequate
hardware was the most critical consideration three years ago and at the
present (September, 1987). Adequate software was identified, overall, as the
most consistently important contributor to program improvement and also
as the factor that will be most important in three years' time. Additional
elements which instructional leaders considered important to program
improvement were administrative support, the willingness of teachers to

change, and the staff inservice program.

Conclusions
It seems manifest that adequate hardware would be the sine qua non to

instructional computing program improvement during the years the

137

programs were first being developed. An absence of hardware would clearly
make the establishment of an instructional computing program especially
difficult. However, once adequate hardware is available, other factors become

more important contributors to program improvement.

When schools have acquired "sufficient" computer hardware, the next
important consideration is the quality software necessary to make full use of
the computers' general purpose capabilities. Quality software permits users to
change the computer very simply from a writing tool to a device for

practicing basic skills or to an instrument for managing information.

Once a wide variety of computer uses are provided by the quality software,
appropriate staff inservice training emerges as the most critical factor for
continued program improvement. Implicit in this projection is a supposition
that ongoing administrative support is made available. Many of these
important program components are difficult or impossible to secure without

the support of the building level administrators.

The approaches used in developing the instructional computing programs
were relatively predictable. Administrative support was very important in
early stages of the development to establish the program and to acquire
sufficient hardware and quality software. Once those first critical elements
were in place, considerations involving the instructional staff emerged as
very important for continued improvement. The willingness of teachers to
adopt the new technology was crucial. In addition, effective staff
development programs were essential to helping teachers develop the skills

they needed to integrate computers into their classrooms for successful

138

program development. The projections from this study's findings are
consistent with the findings reported by Stasz and Winkler (1985), Winkler et
al (1986), and Bancroft (1985).

Recommendations

Leaders should be cognizant of the developmental pattern that was
discovered by the study. They should investigate ways to maximize the effect
of the factors identified most frequently as contributors to the development of
instructional computing programs within their own school settings.
Especially, the factors considered should include a continuation of substantial
administrative support, the acquisition of adequate hardware and software,
the encouragement of teachers' willingness to change instructionally, and the

development of effective inservice staff development programs.

As the programs progress developmentally, the leaders should be particularly
conscious of the increased importance that teachers have in determining
whether or not computer integration occurs in a particular school setting.
Accompanying that consciousness should be a commitment on the part of the
leaders to do everything in their power to support the teachers who are

willing to change and to persuade the hesitant ones that it is time to change.

Barriers to Computing Program Improvement

Research Question
The question guiding this inquiry was: What were the factors which

instructional computing leaders saw as providing the greatest barriers to

139

improving their instructional computing programs and what was the relative

stability of those factors over time?

Findings

Overall, the instructional leaders identified fewer obstacles than contributors
to program improvement. Four factors were identified as significant obstacles
to the improvement of instructional computing programs over the last six
years. For the time period, "three years ago," the most notable obstacles were
inadequate staff training, lack of quality software, insufficient hardware, and
lack of staff commitment. Those factors were surpassed in importance by
teachers' resistance to change both in the "present" and the "in three years"
time periods. Although no factor was an especially consistent obstacle over
the six years considered, teachers' resistance to change was the most

consistent barrier that was frequently mentioned.

Conclusions

The identified barriers were predominately associated with instructional staff
considerations. Aside from several sine qua non obstacles (like insufficient
hardware or software), the other major barriers all emphasized the
importance of staff development: lack of staff commitment, teachers resisting

change, and inadequate staff training.

Once schools had adequate hardware and software resources, the critical
consideration involved the personnel who guide the instructional
experiences. This finding recalls Williams' and Williams' (1984) assertion
that nothing in the instructional computing program development process is

more important than "...the people who manage and make use of the

140

technology." Once schools had adequate hardware and software, the findings
show the major obstacles to computing program improvement were those
associated with staff preparation and staff attitudes toward computers. The
factors related to the instructional personnel were critical to continued
program improvement. The results support Shotwell's (1983) finding that
the single most important consideration for the implementation of an

instructional computing program was the training of the teaching staff.

Recommendations

The study discovered an important group of obstacles to successful
instructional computing programs. Leaders should be aware of the
potentially important role that teaching staff considerations have to impede
program improvement. The leaders should consider methods of minimizing
the effect of the factors identified most frequently as barriers to instructional
computing program improvement within their own schools. The
components addressed should include the resistance of teachers to change,
the inadequacy of staff preparation, the insufficiency of computer hardware,
the absence of quality software, and the lack of staff commitment. Particular
attention should be devoted to means of supplying the teachers with ongoing

support and encouragement.

Allocation o_f Available Computer Time

 

Research Question
The question focusing this investigation was: What proportion of the

available computer time was allocated to the following uses: computer-

141

assisted learning, computer programming, and using the computer as a tool

to perform a task for another content area?

Findings

The available computer time was most often divided between the three

major uses: computer applications, computer-assisted learning, and
computer programming. The first two uses were clearly the most important _
in terms of the total time devoted to them and the prevalence of their
occurrence. Computer time was typically allocated with approximately fifty-
five percent for computer-assisted learning, twenty-nine percent for computer
applications, fourteen percent for computer programming, and the remaining
two percent for other uses. The three specific activities with highest
frequency of occurrence accounted for more than half (54%) of the total
computer access time—drill and practice (24%), word processing (18%), and

tutorials (12%).

Some of the total programming time was typically allocated to both Logo and
BASIC, but more time was spent on Logo. The majority of the programs
included the following computer-assisted learning uses: drill and practice
programs, tutorials, simulations, and educational games. Programs also
typically included these computer applications: word processing, using

printing utilities, and manipulating data bases.

There was one noteworthy difference between the manner in which the
instructional computing leaders actually allocate their available computer

time and the way they said they would like to do so ideally. They would

142

prefer to devote less time to computer-assisted learning and more time to

computer applications such as word processing or using printing utilities.

Conclusions

The respondents in the study reported a variety of computer activities were
taking place in their schools. These findings coordinate with practices noted
earlier, such as the emphasis on computer integration, the high level of staff
involvement in the instructional computing program, and varied activities
identified as the most important methods of facilitating student learning at
the present time. It is interesting to estimate the total amount of available
computer time as a way to better understand the total computer usage

situation.

The typical school responding to the survey had one computer available for
approximately every twenty students. Assuming that clever scheduling could
make available a maximum of six computer hours per machine per day and
that all students were given equal access to the computers, the typical school
would have nearly ninety minutes of computer time per week for each
student. Using the computer time allocations found in this study, those
ninety minutes represent a weekly per student average of roughly fifty
minutes for drill and practice, twenty-seven minutes for applications, and

thirteen minutes for computer programming.

These time estimates are very different from the twenty minutes total time
Snyder and Palmer (1986) reported in typical elementary schools. The
manner in which they found that computer time had been allocated--about

forty percent on drill and practice, thirty-three percent on computer

 

143

programming, and most of the other twenty-seven percent on educational
games--also differs from this study's findings. These differences may be at
least partially explained by sample differences-~high quality programs

compared to average ones.

Recommendations

The leaders should allocate available computer time in line with the general
philosophy and goals of their particular school and the more explicit ones of
the specific instructional computing program. Still, they should consider
sharing the available computer time so that varied application and computer-
assisted learning activities can be supported. They should be especially
cognizant of the amount of computer hardware and teacher training that
their time allocation pattern of choice will require and be certain that it can be

supported by the existing funding level in the present computer budget.

The school leaders should also consider the suggested shift in emphasis from
computer-assisted learning to computer application usage. The increase in
the amount of time devoted to computer applications, and the corresponding
decrease in the computer-assisted learning time, may have important
implications for instructional computing program developers. Computer
application usage often demands more computer hardware and more teacher
training than computer-assisted learning. Any increase in the amount of
hardware and training must also be accompanied by an increase in the

expenditure levels afforded to the instructional computing programs.

144

E “'1: 'l l'

During the analysis of the data, questions concerning instructional computing
program maturity developed as an of interest. Are there significant
differences between the characteristics of programs which have been
established for many years and the characteristics of programs that have been
more recently developed? Additionally, if there are discernable differences,

what specific elements of the programs reflect those differences?

For instance, it seems feasible that schools which had the most instructional
computing experience would use their computers differently (and, perhaps,
more wisely) than schools with less instructional computing experience.
However, it is also possible that the leaders of the schools which have
developed their instructional computing programs more recently have
carefully observed programs which they feet are successful and have
examined the trends reported in the growing body of literature concerning
educational computing. In the latter circumstance, schools which have lately
adopted instructional computing may have learned from the experiences of
their computing predecessors and, therefore, might have developed programs

which differ little from the older, more established computing programs.

To investigate the issues involving program maturation, the schools in the
study were stratified into two groups according to the amount of time that
their instructional computing programs have existed. The schools whose
programs have existed for four or fewer years (referred to as the Newer group)
were compared to the schools whose programs have existed for seven or

more years (called the Established group). The comparisons considered the

145

following instructional computing program characteristics: the ratio of
students to computers, the ratio of computers to teachers, the total expense on
computer-related items, the 1986 computer budget, the 1987 computer budget,
the presence or absence of computer expenses as permanent line items in the
budget, the number of years for which instructional computing plans have
accounted, the extent of teaching staff involvement, and the actual and ideal
allocation of the available computer access time. The results of these
comparisons are displayed in Table XXXVIII (page 149) and are discussed
independently.

The two ratios of interest (students per computer and computers per teacher)
both reveal substantial differences between the two groups of schools. The
Established group has a mean of approximately seventeen students per
computer (16.6) while the Newer group had a ratio of nearly twenty-two
students per computer (21.5). This difference means that there are nearly
thirty percent more computers available for each student in the Established

schools than in the schools of the Newer group.

The schools of the Established group also have a correspondingly superior
ratio in the number of computers available for each teacher. The Established
group has a mean of 2.2 computers for each teacher; the Newer group has a
mean of 1.4 computers per teacher. This difference establishes that teachers in
the schools of the Established group have nearly 57% more computers per

teacher available than the teachers in the schools of the Newer group.

The four comparisons involving budgetary considerations also reveal

differences between the Established and the Newer groups. Given the

146

equipment advantages enjoyed by the Established group, it is expected that the
Established group also expends more money on the purchase of their

equipment. The data verified that anticipated result.

The Established group spends 46% more money on the total amount of
computer-related items in its buildings than the schools of the Newer group.
In addition, the 1986 budgets of the Established schools are 22% higher than
those of the Newer group, while the 1987 budgets are 18% higher. All three
comparisons are consistent with the equipment ratios previously presented.
All three sets of budgetary figures also reveal a consistency with the study's
general finding that the computer related expenses of all schools are dropping

significantly.

The final budgetary comparison concerns the presence or absence of
computer-related expenses as permanent line items in school budgets. The
investigation showed that 58% of the schools in the Established group include
computer expenses as permanent line items in their budgets, compared to less
than 7% of the schools in the Newer group. This finding is consistent with
the results from the other examinations of budgetary factors. For all four
budgetary factors, the characteristics of the Established group of schools differ
considerably from the characteristics of the schools in the Newer group.
Furthermore, in each situation, those differences favor the Established group

of schools.

The next factor examined involves an important consideration of the
planning process guiding the instructional computing program

development—that is, the number of years accounted for by their planning.

147

In the Newer group, 53% of the schools have planned for only the current
year, compared to only 33% of the Established schools. On average, the
Established schools have planned for the next 2.75 years, while the Newer
schools have planned for only the next 1.9 years. Again, there are significant
differences between the characteristics of the two groups of schools, with the
schools in the Established group planning for a nearly 45% longer period of

time.

The next comparison concerns the extent of the teaching staff involvement in
the instructional computing programs for the two groups. The mean
involvement level for the Newer group of schools is 57% of the staff; for the
Established group, the involvement level is 85% of the staff. In addition, 67%
of the Established schools has achieved total staff involvement (100%),
compared to 41% of the schools in the Newer group. Both of these
comparisons suggest that a much higher level of teaching staff involvement
exists in the instructional computing programs of the schools in the

Established group.

Allocation of the available computer access time is the final aspect of the two
groups' instructional computing programs examined. The mean time
allocation for all schools in the study (see Table XXXII) is 14% for computer
programming, 55% for computer-assisted learning, 29% for computer
applications, and 2% for any other uses. The mean computer access time
allocation for the Schools in the Established group is 16% for computer
programming, 46% for computer-assisted learning, 35% for computer
applications, and 3% for any other uses. The mean time allocation for the

Schools in the Newer group is 18% for computer programming, 59% for

148

computer-assisted learning, 21% for computer applications, and 2% for other

uses.

The most significant difference these data reveal is the manner in which the
schools in the two groups allocate the roughly 80% of the computer access
time devoted to computer applications and computer-assisted learning. The
Established group devote nearly 14% more time to computer applications
than the schools in the Newer group. The Newer group allocate a
correspondingly greater amount of their available computer access time (13%)

to computer-assisted learning than the schools in the Established group.

There are also clear differences in the manner that instructional leaders in the
two groups report they would ideally like to allocate their available computer
time. Of the total available time, the leaders of the Established group would
devote 9% to programming, 40% to computer-assisted learning, and 51% to
computer applications. By comparison, the leaders of the Newer group
would like to allocate their available time according to the following formula:
19% to programming, 46% to computer-assisted learning, and 35% to
computer applications. Both groups project substantial increases in the
amount of time devoted to applications (up 16% for the Established group
and 14% for the Newer group from actual allocations). Both groups also
project declines in the amout of time devoted to computer-assisted learning,
although the decrease for the Newer group (13%) is greater than for the
Established group (6%). The Established group also projects a proportionally
substantial decrease in the time devoted to programming (down from 16% to
9% of the total time) while the Newer group actually projects a small increase
in the time allocated to programming (up from 18% to 19%). The two groups

149

differed substantially both in the way they actually allocate their available
computer time and in the way they would ideally like to allocate the

computer time.

IABLEZQQCYIII ErommMahrrihLComoarisons

Instructional Findings for Findings for
Computing the schools with the schools
Program Established with Newer
Considerations Programs Programs

 

 

‘programming%, computer-assisted learning%, computer applications%

Clearly, the Established and Newer groups of schools differ in many other
ways besides the length of time for which they have had their instructional
computing programs. Each of the instructional computing program
characteristics examined—equipment availability, budgetary considerations,
the number of years for which plans have been made, the extent of teaching
staff involvement, and the actual and ideal allocation of computer access
time-reveal substantial differences between the two groups. To summarize,
the schools in the Established group have developed plans covering longer
periods of time and have extablished permanent budget line items to ensure

the funds needed to implement the plans. The Established programs

150

involve a greater number of teachers in their programs and provide a greater
ratio of computers to both teachers and students. The Established programs
also place significantly more emphasis on computer applications and less on
programming and computer-assisted learning than the more recently

developed programs.

The length of time for which instructional computing programs have existed
appears to influence many important characteristics of the programs. In some
cases, the differences are to be expected. It seems reasonable that instructional
computing programs which have been established for longer periods of time
have acquired more computer equipment (and spent more money on its
acquisition), have had more time to involve their teaching staffs in the
instructional computing programs, and have had more opportunity to
establish a solid budgetary foundation for implementing the program. Less
obviously, the more mature programs should necessarily allocate their
computer access time in substantially different manners or develop plans
which encompass many more years than the more recently established
programs. These findings have implications for both educational leaders and
researchers. The results clearly warrant a more detailed investigation into the
factors which might be influenced by an instructional computing program's

relative maturity.

Reeommeodationsforfurtherfimdx

The leaders responsible for guiding elementary schools and those who are
involved in educational research must cooperate to maintain and increase

the knowledge base for the constantly changing area of technology's impact

151

on education. In particular, leaders of both research and practice must
cooperate on continued investigations into important considerations
concerning the field of instructional computing. The following suggestions

for additional investigations are offered as a result of this study.

1) A study should be conducted to gather data from a sample of
elementary schools within a selected region in the United States or
from a different country and the findings compared to the results of
this study. These findings should be analyzed to determine the ways
in which those schools' instructional computing programs differ from
the high quality programs of the schools included in the present study.
These disparities will indicate the characteristic ways in which the
practices of the instructional computing programs of the "average"
schools differ most dramatically from the practices of the schools with
high quality programs. The program elements identified in this
manner should warrant particular consideration in any national
planning to improve the quality of elementary school instructional

computing.

2) An ethnographic study using in-depth interviews with participants
from this study should be conducted to verify and expand upon
selected findings: allocation of available computer time, the nature of
the instructional staff's involvement in the computing program, and
details of the computer budget during the years the computing
program was being developed. These interviews should provide more
in-depth data to use in better understanding the instructional practices

of schools recognized for the high quality of their instructional

152

computing programs. The qualitative data gathered should enrich the
identification and understanding of the program elements which are
most important to establishing and maintaining high quality

instructional computing programs.

3) A study should be conducted to examine in greater detail the
suggested shift in time allocation from computer-assisted learning to
computer applications discovered by this study and the implications
that the suggested shift might have on budget, staff development

programs, and placement of computers in schools.

4) A study should be conducted to investigate the differences in the
budgetary findings of this study and those reported by Levin, Hawley,
and Moursund and Ricketts. The study should gather detailed
budgetary data for each of the years that the instructional computing

programs have existed.

5) A study should be conducted to investigate selected aspects of the
collaborative planning processes that the respondents in this study
reported they used in developing their instructional computing
programs. A sample of respondents from this study could be identified

for further investigation.

6) A study should be conducted to investigate the issues relating to
instructional computing program maturity that were discussed in the
previous section. The study should compare characteristics of

programs that have been established for a relatively long period of time

153

with ones which were more newly developed. The following
characteristics examined briefly by this study should be more fully
investigated: the manner in which computer access time is actually
allocated, the manner in which instructional leaders would ideally like
to allocate their computer access time, the extent of the teaching staff
involvement in the instructional computing program and the degree

to which long-term planning exists.

Sumatrandneflections

The intent of this study was to offer guidance to the elementary school
instructional computing leaders. The study's recommendations have been
based on its findings and the researcher's experience with the instructional
realities of elementary schools. These findings can help bridge the chasm that
often separates researchers from practitioners. Many of the findings also have
implications for leaders of teacher education programs as well as for
individuals responsible for directing the instructional programs of public

schools.

The opportunities and disappointments associated with educational
computing were discussed in Chapters One and Two. The possibilities are
legion but examples of success very limited. The schools investigated in the
study were recognized for their high quality computing programs. The
strengths and weaknesses of those programs can provide insights for those

wishing to actualize the possibilities.

154

One of the study's most disturbing findings concerned the volatility of school
budgets and the precarious nature of computer expenses within those
budgets. The monies expended on computer programs by the median school
in the sample plunged by more than four hundred percent from the level of
expenditure maintained during the years the program was being developed to
the figures in the 1987 budget. School leaders appear to believe that they have
already spent the "necessary" funds on instructional computing. The time
has now come to shift their attention to other, more pressing matters. If that

is an accurate interpretation of the data, that trend must be reversed.

The impact of the trend may be compounded by another of the study's
findings relating to the disparity between the actual and the ideal allocation of
computer access time. Respondents expressed a preference for changing the
manner in which time is allocated so that less time was devoted to computer-
assisted learning and more time was available for computer application uses.
Although the shift would be welcomed by those who support an increased
emphasis on higher order thinking skills, some implications of the change
are more problematic. Computer uses such as word processing—the most
highly favored application of the schools sampled—require more hardware
and more teacher training than typical computer-assisted learning uses. More
hardware and more training demand increased spending on instructional
computing. This demand is inversely related to the present budgetary

practices indicated by the school leaders in this study.

The number of computers available to the students in the schools sampled
(roughly one computer for every twenty students) is certainly an

improvement over previous national figures. However, for computers

155

genuinely to have a major impact on students' educational experience, they
must be much more routinely available than they are at the present. Schools
must continue to purchase the hardware and quality software they need to

implement and develop their instructional computing programs.

If schools do acquire additional computer hardware and software, they should
consider carefully how to use them instructionally with students. They
should recall the suggestions of this study's respondents. School leaders
listed the instructional computer uses they believed were presently among
the most valuable aspects of their programs. Schools should consider also the
aspects of elementary school educational experiences which are frequently
seen as least successful. Ideal computer usage should focus on instructional
situations where computers can be used most beneficially and where

elementary schools have had most limited success.

Instructional areas in which computer use warrants strong consideration
include the development of higher order thinking skills, the development of
flexible problem-solving strategies, the individualizing of basic skills
instruction, the improvement of process writing skills, the development of
information handling skills, and the development of general technology
competencies. Each of these topics represents an area in which the
instructional use of computers is appropriate and in which schools need
assistance. However, the major problem does not simply entail identifying
areas of need or the instructional potential of the microcomputer, but rather

involves the educational system's capability to use the best available tools.

156

Computer use is already an essential skill for much of today's work force.

The task is to encourage all teachers and students to become competent
computer users. Students must view computer access as a routine portion of
their educational experience. The use of computers with their many
applications-word processor, data-base or spread-sheet manager, or printing
utility controller-must be encouraged in ways consistent with the philosophy

and goals of the particular school.

For schools to avoid the fate of Ditzler's (1983) "airline company" with many
new airplanes but no pilots, comprehensive inservice training must be
provided for the teaching staff. When a major goal of the instructional
computing program is to integrate computer usage into existing curricula,
elementary school teachers will have to use computers as a tool to facilitate
student learning in many content areas. Teachers must be provided the full

range of technical support they require to meet this challenge.

The opportunity exists today to support innovative processes which can help
teachers facilitate student learning in ways that were not possible less than a
decade ago. However, the computers themselves will not produce any
changes. Goodlad warned in 1983 that if computers become peripheral to the
school experience, schools may become peripheral to the human experience.
This assertion is still valid. The way to avoid that situation is to maintain the

earlier commitment. Now is the time to strengthen that commitment.

Marge Kosell, a noted software designer, gave the keynote address at a 1987
Oregon computer conference. During that address, she commented that there

was finally cause for optimism about the current state of instructional

157

computing in American schools. To paraphrase her comments, "There is
now reason to hope. It took twenty years for overhead projectors to make it
from bowling alleys to schools... and there are now computers in bowling
alleys!" The purpose of this study is to shorten Kosell's score of years and to
convince educational leaders that there is no time to spare. On the contrary,

now is the time to strike.

WA; WWW

AERENDIXIB WW

AP__P___XENDI Qt W

MWWWW

131m REMINDER LEJ‘JZER

SEQQNDREMINDERLEHER

APEENQLX ll; W

MEWS

APEEEQIX E3, M5

t __
.1

158

WQEIERMS

Application Programs:
Computer programs (such as word processing or data base
management programs) which are designed to be general purpose
"tools" to solve problems or carry out tasks in a variety of situations.

BASIC:
The acronym stands for Beginners' All-purpose Symbolic Instructional
Code. It is a common high-level computer language developed to

provide an introductory programming experience for students. It is the
resident language in many microcomputers.

Cathode Ray Tube:
Another name for the display screen or monitor used for viewing
computer output electronically instead of on paper with a printer.

Computer-as-a-Tool:
Computer applications using software like word processing, electronic
spreadsheet, or data base programs to convert the computer into a

general purpose tool for solving a range of problems or performing a
wide range of tasks.

Computer-Aided Instruction:

The use of computers (perhaps with other instructional aids) to teach
something. A less "stand-alone" instructional mode than computer-
assisted instruction.

Computer-Assisted Instruction: (also called CAI)
The direct use of computers for instructional purposes (such as for the

learning of spelling words or the practicing of basic math skills) (also
see: Computer-Assisted Learning).

Computer-Assisted Learning: (also called CAL)
Learning that is facilitated with the assistance of computers and
appropriate software (also see: Computer-Assisted Instruction).

it

“C“

159

Computer Programming:
The writing of a series of instructions in a given computer language to
direct a computer to perform some pre-determined action.

Data:
The information (words and / or numbers) that is available for use by a
computer (or human). The data can range from word processed files to
the records and fields of a data base.

Data Base Program:
A computer application that allows easy management of large amounts
of information in a way that also permits the power to search, organize,
or arrange the information contained within specific files.

An object that allows you to store relatively large quantities of data or
programs on it by the means of its magnetic properties. Most micros
use either the common 5.25 inch "floppy" diskette or the somewhat
newer 3.5 inch diskette.

Disk Drive:
A device that lets you store and access data onto/ from diskettes for
longer-term, external storage of information outside of the computer
system.

Hardware:
The "physical" components of the computer system that include: the
keyboard and central processing unit, the monitor, the disk drive(s),
the printer, the joy stick, the mouse, and graphic tablets.

A high-level computer language developed to introduce even young
students to computer programming. It was designed to encourage
procedural thinking and top-down design to problem-solving in the
approach to coding.

160

Microcomputer:
A small, stand-alone computer that historically was distinguishable
from mini-computers and mainframes by its relatively limited powers
in terms of processing speed and available memory. More recently,
technological developments have rendered those distinctions far less
clear.

Monitor:
A special screen, similar to a television, designed to give sharper
resolution for computer-generated characters and graphics. (see
cathode ray tube)

Pascal:
A newer, high-level language designed to encourage a structured
approach to computer programming. Its use has been widely adopted
by high school and college computer science programs.

Pilot:
A high-level computer language designed to facilitate the "authoring"
(or creating) of computer-assisted learning programs.

Printer:

A device that prints on paper information that has been entered into
the computer.

Program:
The set of instructions needed to direct a computer to perform
particular tasks or operations.

Software:
The programs that direct a computer to perform certain designated
tasks or operations such as those involved with computer applications.
Frequently, the programs are stored on external diskettes, but they can
be stored on internal hard drives, magnetic tape, or even on special
computer chips.

161

Simulation:
A computer program designed to imitate a real-life situation by using
the graphics-generating or processing capabilities of a computer. Often
these programs are used to represent situations that are too time-
consuming, too hazardous or too difficult to recreate in a classroom
environment.

Spreadsheet:
An application which is an electronic adaptation of an accountant's
tool which allows "what-if" questions to be posed and answered or
mathematical models to be created and tested with ease.

Tutorial:
Computer software that is designed to teach specific concepts or facts to
students through a series of interactive steps.

Word Processing Program:
An application program that greatly facilitates the process of writing,
editing, and printing any textual material.

F

1] Total number of students enrolled in your school.
2] a)__ Total number of full— time classroom teachers in your school.
b)___ Number of those teachers involved regularly each week in

instructional computing: Grades K- 3_ Grades 4- 6____

 

3] a) Total number of computers available for instructional use.
b) For how many years has your school used computers instructionally:
1 or 2 years 3 or 4 years
5 or 6 years 7 or 8 years
9 or more years I don't know

c) Of the computers available for instructional use, how many are:
_ Apple IIe's _ IBM compatibles __TRS 80's
_ Apple IIc's _ MacIntosh's _Other (specify)_

4] Are computer-related purchases a permanent line-item in your budget or
are the purchases effected using non-recurring funds? If they are permanent
line-items (funds are allocated annually), for how long have they been one?

Not a permanent line-item Line-item for 1 year
Line-item for 2 years Line-item for 3 years
4 or more years I don't know

5] Estimate the _tota_ cost (regardless of the fund' 5 source: building budget,
fund raiser, etc.) of all the computer—related items used for instructional
purposes (hardware, software, support material, etc.) that presently exist in

your building .
None Between $20,000 and $30,000
Less than $1,000 Between $30,000 and $50,000

. Between $1,000 and $5,000 Between $50,000 and $75,000
Between $5,000 and $10,000 Between $75,000 and $100,000
Between $10, 000 and $20, 000 __other (specify) $

 

6] Estimate the total 1M expenses (regardless of the funds' source) for any
of these computer-related items in your school (to nearest $10):

$ Purchase of hardware $ __Purchase of software

$ Staff development or training $ __Equipment Maintenance
$ __ Others (specify) I don't know

163

7] Estimate the total projected 128L288 expenses (regardless of the funds'
source) for purchasing any of the following items for your school.

Purchase of hardware Purchase of software
Staff development or training Equipment Maintenance
others (Please specify) I don't know

 

8] What approximate percent of your school's total instructional computer
usage time is actually dedicated to each of the following activities:
_those emphasizing programming computers in a computer language(s)
(BASIC, Logo, Pilot...)
_those using computers as a "tool" with an application program
(data base management, spreadsheet usage, word processing...)
_those using computers for computer assisted learning
(drill and practice programs, simulations, content area tutorials)
__others (specify) I don't know

9] Of the time spent on computer programming approximately what percent
of it is dedicated to each of the following activities:
programming in BASIC programming in Logo
other language (specify) I don't know

10] Of the time spent using computers as a {[toolfl with application programs
approximately what percent is dedicated to each of the following activities:

using data base programs _using word processing programs
using electronic spreadsheets _using printer utility programs
_____others (specify) I don't know

 

11] Of the time spent using computers for computer assisted learning,
approximately what percent isdedicated to each of the following activities:

using drill and practice programs using tutorial programs
using content area simulations using educational games
_____ others (specify) I don't know

 

12] What percent of your school's total computer usage time, in your opinion,
should Ideally be dedicated to each of the following activities:

_those emphasizing programming computers in a computer language(s)
_those using computers as a "tool" with an application program.
__those using computers for computer assisted learning

____others (Specify) __ I don't know

164

For all 3 questions on this page, check the factors you feel were, are, or will be
the 3 greatest contributors to improving your instructional computing
program. Please limit the options you check to only the 3, most important
factors. Place a + next to other factors you feel are very important, just not as
critical as the ones by which you placed a check.

 

time?
Adequate hardware _Adequate software
Administrative support _Existence of long-range planning
High level student interest _Parental support/ encouragement
Staff inservice program _ Staff support group / network
Teachers willing to change _ Presence of computer enthusiast
Community support / encouragement I don't know

other (Please specify)

 

14] Consider your educational computing program as it pour emists. In your
estimation, which of the following are now providing the greatest
contributions to improving your school's instructional computing program?

 

Adequate hardware _Adequate software
Administrative support _Existence of long-range planning
High level student interest _Parental support/ encouragement
Staff inservice program _ Staff support group / network
Teachers willing to change __ Presence of computer enthusiast
Community support / encouragement I don't know

other (Please specify)

 

improvement of your school's instructional computing program?

 

Adequate hardware _Adequate software
Administrative support _Existence of long-range planning
High level student interest _Parental support/ encouragement
Staff inservice program _ Staff support group / network
Teachers willing to change __ Presence of computer enthusiast
Community support / encouragement I don't know

other (Please specify)

 

165

For all 3 questions on this page, please check the factors you feel were, are, or
will be the 3 greatest obstacles to improving your instructional computing
program. Please limit the options you check to only the Smost important
factors. Put a + next to other factors you feel are very important, just not as
critical as the ones by which you placed a check.

16] Think of your educational computing program as it teas 3 years ago. In
your estimation, which of the following were the greatest barriers to
improving your school's instructional computing program at that time?

_ Absence of computer enthusiast _ Difficulty of using computers
__ Insufficient hardware _ Inadequate staff training
_ Lack of quality software _ Lack of administrative support
_ Lack of community support _ Lack of long—range planning
__ Lack of staff commitment _ Lack of student interest
__ No computer program evaluation _ Teachers resisting change

__ Other (Specify) _ I don't know

 

17] Consider your educational computing program as it non: exists. In your
estimation, which of the following are now providing the greatest barriers to
improving your school's instructional computing program?

__ Absence of computer enthusiast _ Difficulty of using computers
_ Insufficient hardware _ Inadequate staff training
__ Lack of quality software _ Lack of administrative support
__ Lack of community support __ Lack of long-range planning
_ Lack of staff commitment _ Lack of student interest
__ No computer program evaluation _ Teachers resisting change

__ Other (Specify) __ I don't know

 

18] Try to imagine your educational computing program as it nill he in129_0, 3
years from now. At that time, in your estimation, which of the following will
then be providing the greatest barriers to improving your school's
instructional computing program?

_ Absence of computer enthusiast Difficulty of using computers

_ Insufficient hardware _ Inadequate staff training

__ Lack of quality software _ Lack of administrative support
__ Lack of community support _ Lack of long-range planning
_ Lack of staff commitment _ Lack of student interest

_ No computer program evaluation _ Teachers resisting change

_ Other (Specify) _ I don't know

I66

19] Which one of the following choices best describes how most decisions
guiding the development of your instructional computing program are
presently made at the building level? Decisions are primarily being made by:

Computer Committee _ Computer Enthusiast/ Coordinator
Building Principal __ District-level administrators
_ Other (Specify) _ I don't know

 

20] If your instructional computing program is presently being guided by a
standing computer committee, which of the following individuals are
members of that committee:

 

 

Building principal District-level administrator
Classroom teacher(s) Media specialist / librarian
Parent representative Community representative
"Outside expert"(s) _ _ Other (Specify)

No standing computer committee exists I don't know

21] Estimate the total number of pe0ple hours (people x number of hours
required) spent over the years in the process of planning your school's
instructional computing program.

 

 

No planning time yet _Less than 25 hours
Between 25 and 50 hours _Between 50 and 100 hours
Between 100 and 200 hours _Between 200 and 500 hours
More, about hours __I don't know

22] In the planning done for the instructional computing program at your
building level, for what period of time have plans been developed:

No plans have been made Plans only this year
Plans for the next 2 years Plans for the next 3 or 4 years
Plans for the next 5 or more years I don't know

23] Which of the following factors are included in the planning process that is

guiding your instructional computing program:

_ Purchase of hardware _ Hiring "computer literate" teachers

_ Staff development/ training __ Maintenance of equipment

_ Replacing obsolete equipment _ Purchase of software

_ Developing computing goals/ objectives __ Program evaluation

_ Integrating computers into general curriculum __ I don't know
other (Please specify)

 

167

24] How many of your computers are located in each of the following places:

 

individual classrooms Permanently stationed? _yes _no
computer laboratories Permanently stationed? __yes __no
media / library centers Permanently stationed? _yes __no
other locations I don't know

 

25] What is the one aspect of your instructional computing program which
you feel is most clearly an example of how computers can be used to help
teachers provide an educational experience for students more effectively (or
better) than they would have been able to if the computers were not available
to them? Please describe it in as much detail as you feel appropriate.

NB: Any additional comments you care to provide will be greatly
appreciated. For example, are there factors not mentioned which you feel
were especially important in developing your educational computing
program? Please supply any details you believe would enhance our
understanding of either your responses or the process of improving
instructional computing in general.

If the enclosed envelope is misplaced, please mail the completed survey to:
John F. Beaver

By October 30, 1987 401 Erickson Hall
(Earlier, if at Michigan State University
all possible.) East Lansing, MI 48824-1034

(517) 353-9521

168

September 18, 1987
PRINCIPAL'S NAME
SCHOOL NAME
STREET

CITY, ZIP CODE

Dear PRINCIPAL,

TOPIC:

MWQEIHEWNALWWS
QE WWWWWW
WWWMWW

Enclosed is a questionnaire prepared for distribution to a selected sample of
public elementary schools around the United States. The survey is part of a
dissertation research study conducted by John F. Beaver at Michigan State
University which will examine specific elements of the instructional
computing programs of American public elementary schools. It is anticipated
the study will reveal important characteristics which are shared by those
schools whose programs have been rated as outstanding.

The major elements of the respective elementary school instructional
computing programs that will be investigated are the following:

a) Which factors do principals (or instructional computing leaders) feel
provide the greatest contributions to improving their instructional
computing programs and how do those factors change over time?

b) Which factors do principals (or instructional computing leaders) see
as those providing the greatest barriers to improving their
instructional computing programs and the stability of those factors
over time?

c) What portion of available computer time is allocated to each of these
uses: computer-assisted learning, computer programming and using
the computer as a "tool" with some application program?

d) In what manner have computer-related expenditures been
distributed at the building-level over the last 2 years?

e) Which aspects of the planning process appear most important in
guiding the development of exemplary instructional computing
programs?

169

Your school is one of a very small number of public elementary schools
selected from across the country to participate in this study. Your building
was included due to the perceived excellence of your instructional computing
program. The selection process by which you were chosen began with the
recommendations of national technology leaders such as Linda Roberts at
The Office of Technology Assessment in Washington, D. C. The
recommendations provided were in terms of outstanding district-level
programs around the United States. Knowledgeable individuals were then
contacted at the appropriate state or district levels. They were asked to list
some of the most outstanding building level instructional computing
programs within their jurisdiction.

You are to be congratulated that your school was one of those that were listed!
For this reason you have been mailed the enclosed questionnaire. It is hoped
the data that you and the other schools around the country supply will help
us better understand the process of developing and maintaining a successful
instructional computing program at the elementary school level. The
ultimate purpose for the study is to help guide the development of

instructional computing programs in the public elementary schools across the
country.

For the investigation to achieve its goals, it's important that a large portion of
the schools selected respond to the survey. Nonetheless, your participation in
the research project is totally voluntary. No penalty whatsoever will result if
you decide not to participate. Still, I hope you'll agree to give the necessary
time to fill out and return the form within the indicated six weeks so the
results can be included in the summary of the findings.

Be assured that any information you provide will be held in strictest
confidence. Your responses will be encoded to protect the identity of
individual respondents. Data will only ever be released in summary form to
guarantee that no school or individual could ever be identified.

The questions appearing on the survey have been discussed with educational
computing experts to help ensure both their appropriateness and ease of

completion. Attempt to answer all questions as completely and accurately as
you can, though some may well not be applicable to your particular situation.

170

If you do not know the answer to a given question or feel it isn't applicable to
your situation, use the "I don't know" choice provided for each question.

Please complete the questionnaire and return it to John F. Beaver at the
address on the enclosed stamped envelope by October 30, 1987. Thank you
greatly for your time and assistance.

Sincerely,

John F. Beaver

Department of Teacher Education
401 Erickson Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, 48824-1034

(517) 353-9521

 

If you would like a copy of the summarized findings of this research study
when it is completed, please fill in the mailing information below and return
this section of the letter to the address indicated above.

YOUR NAME:

 

 

SCHOOL NAME:

ADDRESS:

CITY: ZIP

171

October 9, 1987
PRINCIPAL'S NAME
COMPUTER DESIGN EE
SCHOOL NAME
STREET

CITY, ZIP CODE

1987 SIQDY QB THE INSTRUCTIONAL CQMPQI ING PROGRAMS
@ SELECTED AMERICAN Pg SLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

REMINDERLEIIEBIQW

Your school was one of a small number of elementary schools from across the
country selected to participate in a dissertation research project conducted by
John F. Beaver at Michigan State University. The study is examining
elements of the instructional computing programs of selected American
elementary schools. Your school was chosen due to the perceived excellence
of your instructional computing program. You are to be congratulated that
your school was one of the few chosen. Once selected as a participating
school, you were sent an envelope (on September 18) containing a letter
explaining the research, a copy of the data-gathering questionnaire developed
for use in the study, and an envelope for returning the completed
questionnaire.

We hope the data that you and the other schools supply will help us better
understand the process of developing and maintaining a successful
elementary school instructional computing program. The purpose of the
study is to aid the development of American elementary school instructional
computing programs. For the investigation to achieve this goal, a large
portion of the schools selected need to respond to the survey.

If you received the envelope and have mailed it to us during the last week,
please disregard this letter. Thank you very much for your willingness to
participate in the research.

If for some reason you never received the envelope or are unable to locate it
now, please contact us at the number or address listed below and we will
immediately send you another one.

172

If you received the envelope and have not yet completed and returned the
enclosed questionnaire, we hope you'll agree to give the necessary time to fill
out and return the form within the next few weeks so the results can be
included in the summary of the study's findings. Be assured that any
information you provide will be held in strictest confidence. Data will only
ever be released in summary form to guarantee that no school or individual
could ever be identified.

Please complete the questionnaire and return it to John F. Beaver by October
30, 1987. Thank you greatly for your time and assistance.

Sincerely,

John F. Beaver

Department of Teacher Education
401 Erickson Hall, Michigan State U.
East Lansing, 48824-1034
(517)353-9521 or (517)355-3063

173

October 26, 1987

PRINCIPAL'S NAME and COMPUTER DESIGN EE'S NAME
SCHOOL NAME

STREET

CITY, ZIP CODE

MBEMINDEBLEHEBIQW

1987 STUDY _QE THE INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTING PROGRAMS
QB SELECTED AMERICAN PQSLIC ELEMENTARY SCHQQLS

As you are likely aware, your school was one of a small number of
elementary schools across the nation selected to participate in a dissertation
research project conducted by John F. Beaver at Michigan State University.
The study is examining elements of instructional computing in American
elementary schools chosen for the perceived excellence of their programs.

On September 18, you were sent an envelope containing a letter explaining
the research and a copy of the data-gathering questionnaire developed for use
in the study. Several weeks later, on October 9th, you were sent a reminder
letter, again requesting that you supply the data necessary to complete this
research in a satisfactory manner.

For the investigation to achieve its goals, a larger portion of the schools
selected from your state need to complete and return the questionnaire. The
response rate was not high enough from your region to ensure the
representativeness of the survey forms that were received. We hope the data
schools in your state supply will help us better understand factors involved in
developing and maintaining a successful elementary school instructional
computing program there.

If you received the original envelope and have mailed it back to us during the
last week, please disregard this letter. Thank you very much for your
willingness to participate in the study.

174

If for some reason you never received the envelope or are unable to locate it
now, please contact us at the number or address listed below and we will
immediately send you another one.

If you received the envelope and have not yet completed and returned the
enclosed questionnaire, we hope you'll agree to give the necessary time to fill
out and return the form within the next few days so the data you provide can
be included in the summary of the study's findings. Data will only be
released in summary form to guarantee no school or individual can ever be
identified, so you can rest assured any information you supply will be held in
strictest confidence.

Please do complete the questionnaire and return it to John F. Beaver as soon
as possible. The original deadline of October 30, 1987, has been extended
several weeks to permit each state chosen the opportunity of having as
complete a data set as possible. However, the form must be received by
November 15th, 1987 to be included in the study. Thank you again for your
time and assistance.

Sincerely,

John F. Beaver

Department of Teacher Education
401 Erickson Hall, Michigan State U.
East Lansing, 48824-1034

(517) 355-3063 or (517) 353-9521

 

175

Aggar, R. E., and M. N. Goldstein. Who _wfl rule tlm schools: A
cultural class crisis. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
1971.

 

Andelin, John et al. Information Technology and tts Impact g
American Education. Office of Technology Assessment, U. S.
Congress. Washington, D. C. November, 1982.

Bancroft, Beverly Anne. "A Child' 5 Present in a Futures-Oriented fl” \ t; ‘_. ‘1
Society." Dissertation. Michigan State University, 1985. ‘

Becker, H. J. "School Uses of Computers: Results from the Second
Survey." Paper presented at Educational Testing Service Sociology
of Education Seminar. Princeton: ETS Publications. 1985.

"Computers in Schools Today: Some Basic
Considerations." American |ournal o_f Education. 93, November
(1984), pp. 23-29.

. "Our National Report Card: Preliminary Results From
the New John Hopkins Survey." Classroom Computer Learning.
January, 1983.

Berman, Paul, and Milbrey Wallin McLaughlin. "Implementing and

Sustaining Motivations." Federal Programs Supporting
Educational Change. v. 3: Santa Monica, CA: The Rand

Corporation. 1978.

Borg, W. R. and M. D. Gall. Educational Research: _A__n Introduction
(4th edition). New York. Longman.1983. : 3;~_

176

Bork, Al. "Computers in Education Today-and Some Possible
Futures." lilti Delta Kappan, 6 (December, 1984), pp. 239-44.

Carnine, Douglas. "Mainstreaming Computers." Educational

Leadgship, 21 (1981).

Cohen, Michael. "Instructional, Management, and Social Conditions
in Effective Schools." In School Finance mid School Improvement
Linkages fo_r the 19805. Ed. Allan Odden and L. Dean Webb.
Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company. 1983.

C0119“, Me I. Levin, H. Mehan, and R. Souviney. Exemplary Classroom
M @ A Time for Tools. San Diego: University of .«

California Press. October, 1983.

Dickson, Patrick. Excerpt from colloquium on instructional
computing. East Lansing: Michigan State University. March, 1987.

Ditzler, Helen. Montana Office of Public Instruction. 1983.

English, Fenwick W. "The Dynamics of School-Community
Relationships." In IfiS Association tor Supervision m
Curriculum Development Yearbook: Alexandria: ASCD. pub.
1985.

Evans, Christopher. T_heMigomillenium. New York: Washington
Square Press. 1979.

Ferguson, Robert. "Designing and Implementing a Quality Computer
Education Program." California: Fallbrook Union Elementary
School District Publications. September, 1985.

Fullan, Michael. T_l_1e Meaning of Educational Change. Toronto: The
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Press. 1982.

177

Fullan, Michael and Allan Pomfret. "Research on Curriculum and
Instruction Implementation." Review of Educational Research.
Vol. 47, No. 1, Winter (1977), pp. 335-397.

Goodlad, John I., A Place Called School: Prospects tcu th_e Future. New
York: McGraw-Hill. 1983.

 

 

 

Goor, J. Sade—m Cg o_f Computers i_n_ Schools. Washington, DC:
National Center for Educational Statistics. 1982.

I
l

Griffin, Gary A. "Toward a Conceptual Framework for Staff

Development." In Staff Development (Eighty-Second Yearbook oi

the National Society {cu th_e Study o_f Education). Ed. Gary A.
Griffin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1983.

Hanfling, Seymour Samuel. "A Formative Evaluation of Elementary
and Secondary Staff Development Inservices on Integrating
Computer Innovations into the Curriculum." Dissertation,
University of Oregon. December, 1986.

Hawley, David E., J. D. Fletcher, and P. K. Piele. "Costs, Effects and
Utility of Microcomputer- Assisted Instruction." Eugene: Center
for Advanced Technology in Education. November, 1986.

Hood, John F. and Staff of the Curriculum Information Center, a
division of Market Data Retrieval. Microcomputers _iu Schools

1984-8S: A Comprehensive Survey m Analysis. Westport:
Market Data Retrieval. May, 1985.

 

Jensen, Darrell, Loren Betz, and Patricia Zigarmi. "If You Are Listening
to Teachers, Here Is How You Will Organize Inservice." N ASSP
Bulletin. Vol. 62, No. 417, April (1978).

Juliussen, Egil. "Personal Computers in the 1990's." Creative
Computing 11(19), (1984), pp. 258-67. . f,- f

178

Kulik, James A., R. L. Bangert, and G. W. Williams. "Effects of
Computer-Based Teaching and Secondary School Students."
lournal of Educational PsychologyI Vol. 75, No. 1 (1983), pp. 19-26.

Lamon, William E. "The Instructional Uses of Microcomputers in The
State of Oregon: Spring 1987. Assessment of the Oregon
Elementary School!" Paper presented at the 6th Annual
"Extending the Human Mind: Computers in Education"
Conference. Eugene: University of Oregon. August, 1987.

Leithwood, K. A., and D. J. Montgomery. "The Role of the Elementary
School Principal in Program Improvement." Review o_f
Educational Research. Vol. 52, No. 3, Fall (1982).

Levin, H. M. "Cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction:
Some insights." Stanford: Stanford Education Policy Institute
Report. September, 1986.

Lindelow, John. Administrator's Guide t_o Computers i__ th_e
Classroom. Eugene: ERIC/CEM Publications. 1983.

Lowd, Beth. "The 'Right Ways' to Use Computers." fie Computing
Teacher. 14, October, (1986), p. 4.

Market Data Retrieval. Microcomputers i_rt Schoolsl 1283-S4: A

Comprehensive Survey m Analysis. Westport: Market Data
Retrieval. 1984.

McDonnell, Lorraine M. "School Improvement and Fiscal
Retrenchment: How to Improve Education When Resources are
Declining." In School Finance and School Improvement Linkages
tcu me 1980s. Ed. Allan Odden and L. Dean Webb. Cambridge:
Ballinger Publishing Company. 1983.

McLaughlin, M. W., and D. D. Marsh, "Staff Development and School
Change." _Leachers College Record. Vol. 80, No. 1, (1978).

 

 

179

McLeod, Richard, and Beverly Hunter. "The Data Base in the Laborat .
ory." Science and Children. 24, January, (1987), p. 30.

Mehan, Hugh, et al. "Computers in the Classrooms: A Quasi-
Experiment in Guided Change." Teacher Education Program.

Report NIE #6-83-0027. San Diego: University of California Press.
1985.

 

Montana Office of Public Instruction. "How to Start a Computer

Education Program." The Elements ct Computer Education.
Helena: Montana Office of Public Instruction. 1984.

Moore, Donald R., and Arthur A. Hyde. "Making Sense of Staff
Development Programs and Their Cost in Three Urban Districts."
In Dgigns fo_r Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1981.

Moursund, Dave. "The Future of Computers in Education." IE
Computing Teacher 14, September, (1986), p. 4.

. "Workshop on Leadership in Educational Computing."
International Council of Computing Educators. Eugene:
University of Oregon Press. July, 1986.

. "In Two-Percent Solution." The Computing Teacher. 11,
March, (1984), p. 3.

. "In Search of Controversy." fleComputing Teacher. 11,
August, (1983), p. 3.

. "Beware of Sabre-Toothed Tigers." The Computing
Teacher. 8, February, (1981), p. 3.

Moursund, Dave, and Ricketts, Dick. Long-Range Planning flu

Computers in Schools. Eugene: Information Age Education Press.
1987.

180

Naisbitt, John. Megatrends. New York: Warner Books. 1982.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation a_t Risk:

Jhe Imperative m Educational Reform. Vol. 65. Washington, D.
C.: U. S. Department of Education. April, 1983.

Olson, John K. "Computers in Canadian Elementary Schools:
Curriculum Questions from Classroom Practice." Document of
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational
Research Association. San Francisco, California. April, (1986), p.
41.

Papert, Seymour. Quoted by Nina McCain in "Project Plans ‘Schools of
the Future.'" _B_oston m 23, March, 1985.

. Mindstorms: Children. Computers and Powerful Ideas.
New York: Basic Books, Inc. 1980.

 

Purkey, Steward C., and Marshall 5. Smith. "Effective Schools: A

Review." The Elementary School lournal. Vol. 83, No. 4, March
(1983).

Rhodes, Lewis A. "Reform's Missing Tools." Educational Leadership.
Vol. 44, No. 1, September, (1986), p. 8.

Ricketts, Dick. "Evolution Before Revolution." Eugene: Information-
Age Education Press. Vol. 1, No. 2. August, 1987.

Rogers, Everett M. "Foreword" in Williams, Frederick, and Victoria

Williams. W _ih Elementary Education. Belmont:
Wadsworth Publishing Company. 1984.

Shavelson, Richard, and G. Salomon. "Information Technology: Tool
and Teacher of the Mind." Educational Researcher. Vol. 14. (1985),

p. 1.

181

Sheingold, K. A. "Issues Related to the Implementation of Computer
Technology in Schools: A cross-Sectional Study." Paper presented
at the NIE Conference on Issues Related to the Implementation of
Computer Technology in Schools. Washington, D. C. February,
1981.

Shotwell, Steven. Quality Inservice: A _K_ey t_o_ Establishing m

Maintaining a Computer Education Program. Troy: Troy Public
Schools Publications. 1983.

Sinclair, Clive. "Predictions on Our Computerized Future." Creative
Computing. 11, November, (1984), pp. 254-258.

Snyder, Tom, and Jane Palmer. 1h Search o_f the Most Amazing Thing;
Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 1986.

 

Teachers' Instructionalgsedf Micr om ut rs. Santa Monica: The
Rand Corporation. April, 1985.

Steinbrunner, John D. lh_e Cybernetic Theory ot Decision: New
Dimensions o_f Political Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University
Press. 1974.

Stone, Antonia. "Action For Equity." The Computing Teacher. 14,
November, (1986), pp. 54-55.

Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock. New York: Bantam Books. 1971.

Taylor, Robert, Ed. The Computer ih the School: Tool. Tutor; Tutee.
New York: Teachers College Press. 1980.

Walker, Derek. "Curriculum and Technology." In 1985 Association f_o_r

Supervision ahd Curriculum Development Yearbook. Alexandria:
ASCD Publications. 1985.

182

White, Mary Alice. "Synthesis of Research on Electronic Learning."
Educational Leadership. 40, May, (1983), pp. 13—14.

. "Imagery As The New Language Of The Information
Age." Keynote address presented at the N ECC Conference.
Philadelphia. June, 1987.

Williams, Frederick, and Victoria Williams. Microcomputers i_n_
Elementary Education. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing
Company. 1984.

Wilson, Kara Gae. "Administrative Guidelines for Introducing
Computers into the Curriculum." NASSP Bulletin. Vol. 66, No.
455. September (1982), pp. 6-11.

Winkler, John D., Cathleen Stasz, and Richard Shavelson.
"Administrative Policies for Increasing the Use of Microcomputers
in Instruction." Prepared for the National Institute of Education.
Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation. July, 1986.

Winkler, Robert H. "The Integrating of Computers into the
Curriculum." In 1985 Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development Yearbook. Alexandria: ASCD Publications. 1985.

183

IAELEZQ: Hardrxarefiroenseskerfimoent

Total Expenses Percent of Percent of
per Student the Total the Total
for Computer Schools: Schools:
Hardware 1986 1987

 

 

Due to Rounding

IABLEZQQ: Sottmrefixpenseslferfitudent

 

 

 

 

Total Expenses Percent of Percent of
per Student the Total the Total
for Computer Schools: Schools:
Software 1986 1987

 

Due to Rounding

184

Total Expenses Percent of Percent of
per Student for the Total the Total
Computer-related Schools: Schools:
Staff Development 1986 1987

 

 

Due to Rounding

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE XXIII. Eomoment Maintenance BenStudent Costs

Total Expenses Percent of Percent of
per Student for the Total the Total
Computer-related Schools: Schools:
Equipment Maintenance 1986 1987
j N 0 Money ($0) 59% 5112
Less than $1 25% 22;?!»
Between $1 and S2 fi2% 2i

. Creater than S2 4% 8%
, Missing Data 10% 18%
Total 100% 1 0 1 % "

 

 

 

 

 

Due to Rounding

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS

185

 

25*

28

 

 

_l

(i E: C D E
# OF STUDENTS PER SCHOOL

A. Less than 300 Students

B. Between 300 and 500 Students
C. Between 500 and 700 Students
D. Between 700 and 900 Students
E. More than 900 Students

‘msn or sums

Eigerel: IheNrunherofStudentleerSehool
25-

 

29

  

 

h B C E
# OF COMPUTERS PER SCHOOL

A. Less than 15 Computers

B. Between 15 and 25 Computers
C. Between 25 and 35 Computers
D. Between 35 and 45 Computers
B. More than 45 Computers

EisnrelhIheNnmherofComoutersEerSehool

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS

*NUMBER or SCHOOLS

186

 

25*

28

15

18

     

e a B c D E
COMPUTERS PER STUDENT RATIO

A. Less than 8 Students per Computer

B. Between 8 and 16 Students per Computer
C. Between 16 and 24 Students per Computer
D. Between 24 and 32 Students per Computer
E. More than 32 Students per Computer

Eigrrrelll: IheRatioomedmtsEerComouter

25

 

28

15

18

 

 

       

          

Fl

8
STUDENTS PER TEACHER RATIO

C D

A. Less than 20 Students per Teacher

B. Between 20 and 24 Students per Teacher
C. Between 24 and 28 Students per Teacher
D. Between 28 and 32 Students per Teacher
B. More than 32 Students per Teacher

Eignrem IheRatioofShrdenmEerIeaeher

 

187

501

mm

MEAN COSTS FOR 1986 81 1987

‘E 39.33

 

 

 

O 1 l ' 1 T l

0 20 40 60

AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENDITURES

EinrekfiudgetanrflorrelatiomAnnuallReeent

188
98
88
78
68

58
48
38

‘9
I
28 ’ 5g
‘5
.. tat
8H s T
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
I 3 vanes not: New:

C] IN 3 YEfiRS

33

\'\.\\N

\\\\V

2 OF SCHOOLS NITH FHCTOR
\

omnunxxwuw
2\\\“\\\\\V

2|

1
U
(.0
U
0
m

if

.I .I

81 PL SN P
(9/87)

80

 

\\\\\\\

H = Adequate Hardware AD = Admin. Support

8 = Adequate Software T = Teachers Changeable
SD = Staff Development CE = A Computer Enthusiast
SI = Student Interest PL = Adequate Planning

SN = Staff Network

P = Parental Involvement

7. OF SCHOOLS NITH BflRRIERS

188

 

roe

so

so

79 *

so

so

43

30 p

28 g g 9 2 3

18 2' g 5 5| fl . r r "
a . an? 2 ale. us. 2-
- 3 YEfiRS n60 EofitRfié‘g?)

D IN 3 YEfiRS

SD = Lack of Staff Development Program

S = Inadequate Software

H = Inadequate Hardware

SC = Lack of Staff Commitment

T = Teachers Not Willing to Change

PL = Inadequate Planning

D = Difficulty of Using Computers

AD = Lack of Administrative Support

PE = Lack of Program Evaluation Component
8 = Lack of monetary Support