u...
D... a ti):
53:35:“;

. 3.

‘ l :33!
.ll aim»- Abté'. 2:
35¢."ufiugi .. mm;
33:985.!331 .5. 3.5: 5445.5 .ge?‘
flab? 4.2,. if Mung
.325 41.15.63. 5. .
3.3.2:... Eu»

”"1. 2
.
..... A. .
u ...i.r..".fitfl§...i u as»...
. 5. .51.. .
n.2,. flash“; 5 .2. m. .

‘Vlcl .512... .5!

1... 1...»: M.

an
1'...

1%;- (
n....»........:
9....

a.

”HE”?!
Elan",

’-

'1
Huflfl....flu.? I
s

.3. that.
c! A?!) @915
‘2 52...: :1“.

555::
3031!] v.3
is)...

.23....
................
3.5:.»4..3...2.£. E.
. t i. 3...:
5.5133149:
s......:29...i!lé.
..2.§..........a.....l!..§.......:.
0-. 1‘ in'v’sfil
5:. $2.11... I...
5.. b;......3...zi...».....5 .i
........l......§i is...
.5: ...!...!3.1
F... til...

: insult
17:31.. .

t.!3x...$.;~nb.
.£.c.!!.£?.(1.tE

I 9 13...,
.» {$251}.

 

 

THESIS

 

2 551/ "
MIRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

'JAN 3 0 20m

 

lefioi
APR 2 8 200

v

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 mm.“

 

THE IMPACT OF COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
ON CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

By

Susan W. Meston

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1 999

 

 

ABSTRACT
THE IMPACT OF COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
ON CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
By

Susan W. Meston

Although computer technology offers the possibility for teachers to connect
electronically for cum'culum development, specific challenges must be addressed and
overcome for this to occur. These challenges include technology training, access to and
availability of eflicient computer systems, leadership, time constraints, funding
requirements, and social context issues.

The purpose of this ethnographic study was to identify, through qualitative
analysis, the impact of computer mediated communication (CMC) on curriculum
development by geographically dispersed, practicing teachers.

This research was grounded in the review of three bodies of research and
professional literature, including traditional approaches to curriculum development, CMC,
and the intersection of CMC and curriculum development. The study focused on a group
of 43 teachers in Michigan as they developed a K-12 curriculum on the teaching of

philanthropy and civic responsibility.

The primary data sources for this research were focus group interviews of
participating teachers, individual interviews of staff, and archival data that included teacher
journals. Information gathered from the data sources were considered through the
process of constant comparative analysis. A number of themes were developed as a result
of the data analysis. Teacher and staff perceptions and ideas regarding the impact of CMC
on curriculum were noted through quotations.

This research determined that using CMC as a tool when developing curriculum
offers certain benefits to the process. CMC increases the communication options in a
curriculum development project and can add flexibility to the process. CMC also offers
the ability to communicate asynchronously and to edit lessons on-line, and the potential
for holding fewer face-to—face meetings. Further, the management features ofi‘ered
through CMC can enhance a curriculum development project by providing a record of
exchanges, easy access to lessons, and the ability to print or forward materials efliciently.

The research also identified factors associated with the use of CMC in a
curriculum development project that may impede the process. Lack of computer
experience and skill of participants can cause the project to lag and require expenditures of
time and money for computer training. Computer systems and networks must be efficient
and accessible, which may not always be the case for all members of a curriculum project.
Lack of adequate local technical support could also impede the process. Finally, having
adequate time to learn computer skills and content was an issue for the participants.

The importance of face-to-face meetings to the cum'culum development process,
even for projects employing CMC as a tool for curriculum development, was a significant

finding of this study, as was the importance of strong project leadership.

Covyfisht by
SUSAN w. MESTON
1999

All Rights Reserved

To Milton D. Meston, the love of my life.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Writing a dissertation is an arduous, occasionally interesting, more ofien grueling
adventure. Many people offered their support and assistance as I moved through the
chapters. To all of you I extend cheers and thanks!

First, to my dissertation committee, a stellar group of people, a huge thank you!
Serving on a doctoral dissertation committee requires a hefty expenditure of both time and
brainwork. Dr. Maenette Benham, my committee chair, provided specific, usefiIl direction
as this research study unfolded. A good thinker and clear writer, Dr. Benham held a high
standard for my work. A special thanks also to Dr. Lorilee Sandmann, who left Michigan
State University during this research, yet continued to serve on my committee. Her
support and wisdom helped to keep me on track. To Dr. Mark Wilson for his exuberant
encouragement and enthusiasm for this research, Cheers! I also extend my deepest thanks
to Dr. Yong Zhao for his nimble mind, his good humor, and his very good ideas regarding
instructional technology.

In my work life there have been those people along the way who have offered the
kind of encouragement that keeps a person going: my long-time friend and mentor, Dr.
James W. Perry; the brilliant educator, Dr. Ronald Rolph; and Dr. Michael Bozym, a
supporter and friend through it all. I appreciate their encouragement. I would also like to

extend my deepest appreciation to the Muskegon Area Intermediate School District Board

of Education for their continued support of this research. Bouquets of thanks to my
secretary, Rochelle Barr, a person of great assistance and generous heart. A special thank
you to Sue Cooley Miller for her invaluable knowledge of APA format and graduate
school formatting requirements. I have appreciated the kind words and genuine
enthusiasm for my research fi'om friends Barbara, Leonore, Gayle, J aneane, Mary, and
Tom.

I ofl‘er special thanks to the members of the K-12 Education in Philanthropy stafi‘
and the participating teachers for their willingness to meet with me and ofl‘er their insights
into the impact of computer medicated communication on curriculum development. The
cards, e-mail, hugs, and kind words of the project director, Kathy Agard, helped more
than she could know. Terry and Judy have been wonderful, too. I am indebted to
Dorothy Johnson and the Council of Michigan Foundations for allowing me access to
information and materials that have been useful for this research. The project stafi‘ and
teachers have developed a curriculum that has the potential to change how young people
view their personal responsibilities as members of a democracy. This incredible group of
people have earned my deepest respect.

Finally, and most important, my family has continually given me support for
completing this dissertation. My husband, Milt Meston, who has been the most
encouraging, never let me give up on this project—despite some major whining. I
appreciate the support from my sons, Fred Meston and Dwight Meston; daughters-in-law,
Kristen Meston and Stephanie Meston; sisters, Alice Starkweather and Judy Draper; and
my mother, Mom (AKA Charlotte Wiles). I have not forgotten the encouragement always

given me by my father, Tracy J. Wiles. Special thanks to Fred and Judy for their expert

vii

proofing, to Fred for his technical assistance, and to Mom, Judy, and Alice for reading
chapters and saying they were interesting. A big thank you to Kristen for her assistance

with the linguistics of electronic discourse and for recording during the focus groups.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ................................................... xii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................. xiii
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1

Purpose of the Research Study ................................ 1

Statement of the Problem .................................... 1

Significance of the Problem .................................. 3

Context of the Study ....................................... 5

Delimitations of the Study ................................... 8

Conceptual Framework ..................................... 8

Research Questions ....................................... 12

Overview ............................................... 13

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................... 14

Introduction ............................................. l4

Curriculum and Its Development ............................. 15

What Is Curriculum and How Is It Contextualized? ............. 15

Approaches to Curriculum Design .......................... 19

Curriculum Design Process Issues .......................... 24

Concluding Comments ................................... 26

Computer Mediated Communications .......................... 27

Introduction .......................................... 27

Implications of CMC for Organizations ...................... 30

Electronic Groups ...................................... 32

Issues of Gender ....................................... 35

Electronic Discourse From a Linguistic Perspective ............. 36

Summary and Implications ................................ 38

The Intersection of CMC and Curriculum Development ............ 40

Introduction .......................................... 4O

Networked Projects ..................................... 4O

ix

Factors That Affect Network Use .......................... 46

Conclusions From the Review of Related Literature ............... 49
METHODOLOGY ........................................ 52
Introduction ............................................. 52
Methodological Approach .................................. 53
Ethnographic Study ....................................... 53
The Population and Data Sources ............................. 56
Data-Collection Tools ..................................... 58
Focus Group Interviews ................................. 58 .
Face-to-Face Interviews ................................. 61
Review of Existing Archival Documents ..................... 63
Data Analysis ............................................ 64
Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations ...................... 66
Limitations of the Research ................................. 67
FINDINGS ............................................. 69
Introduction ............................................. 69
Purpose .............................................. 69
Ethnography .......................................... 69
Participants ........................................... 70
Results From Research Question 1 ............................ 72
Research Question 1a ................................... 72
Research Question 1b ................................... 77
Research Question 1c ................................... 84
Research Question 1d ................................... 90
Research Question 1e ................................... 96
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1 ................ 104
Results From Research Question 2 ........................... 106
Research Question 2a .................................. 106
Research Question 2b .................................. 117
Research Question 2c .................................. 128
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2 ................ 132
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................... 135
Research Summary ....................................... 135
Themes ................................................ 137
Technical/Mechanical .................................. 139
Organizational ........................................ 142
Context ............................................. 145
Individual Use ........................................ 152
Curriculum Development ................................ 156

The Impact of CMC on Curriculum Development: A Summary ..... 158

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research .................. 165
Implications for Practice ................................ 165
Implications for Policy .................................. 168
Implications for Further Research ......................... 171
APPENDICES ..................................................... 174
A. K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project ....................... 175
B. K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project Donors ................. 183
C. Forms Submitted to the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) ........................ 185
D. Focus Group Documents .................................. 192
E. Individual Interview Documents ............................. 198
REFERENCES ..................................................... 203
xi

2.1

2.2

3.1

3.2

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

5.1

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Factors Impeding Curriculum Implementation in a Networked Project ....... 45
Factors Afi‘ecting WAN Usage in Schools ............................ 47
Characteristics of Ethnographic Studies Aligned With Data-Collection
Methods ...................................................... 55
Grade Configuration of Focus Group Interviews ....................... 61
Data Sources .................................................. 70
Participants ................................................... 71
How CMC Difi‘ers From Other Communication ........................ 72
The Impact of CMC on Curriculum Development in a Networked
Project: Inhibiting Factors ....................................... 107
The Impact of CMC on Curriculum Development in a Networked
Project: Enhancing Factors ...................................... 112
Commitment to the Education in Philanthropy Curriculum ............... 155

xii

1.1

1.2

2.1

3.1

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

5.1

5.2

5.3

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Curriculum Development in a Networked Project: Influencing
Factors Derived From the Literature ................................. 9
The Impact of CMC on Curriculum Development ...................... 11
Success in a Networked Project .................................... 42
Data Sources for the Research ..................................... 58
Purposes for the Use of CMC ..................................... 78
Factors That Impact the Frequency of CMC ........................... 85
Training Components ............................................ 90
Support for Employing CMC as a Tool in Curriculum Development ......... 98
Factors That Assisted Teachers in the Use of CMC When Developing
Curriculum ................................................... 118
Factors That Deterred Teachers in the Use of CMC When Developing
Curriculum ................................................... 121
The Impact of CMC on Curriculum Development ..................... 138
Curriculum Development in a Project That Relies on the Use of CMC:
Implications for Practice ......................................... 166
Curriculum Development in a Project That Relies on the Use of CMC:
Implications for Policy Makers .................................... 169

xiii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Pusth h

This research study examined the impact and raised the relevant issues related to
the impact of computer-mediated communication (CMC) on the development of
curriculum units by geographically dispersed, practicing teachers. Employing an
ethnographic approach, this study followed 43 teachers as they developed and
implemented the lessons and units of a K-12 curriculum in the teaching of philanthropy.
Traditional methods of curriculum development have not included the use of electronic
communication. Therefore, this project encompassed a new approach to an important
educational process. This research makes a contribution to both theory and practice by
informing teachers, curriculum specialists, and education policy makers about those issues

important to the use of CMC when designing curriculum.

Statement of the Problem
Computer technology offers the possibility for teachers to connect electronically
for communication, research, and participation in collaborative projects, such as
curriculum development, unit writing, and professional development. However,
significant challenges must be addressed and overcome for this to occur. For example, the

important requisite for computer training encompasses expenditures of time and money.

This includes time for the training, whether during or after school, and money for
substitute teachers or for stipends, in addition to trainer costs. Reliable access to
computers as well as the need for technical support arise as potential barriers to computer
use. Also, funding must be available for up-to-date software and hardware and for the
array of essential technical support. A firrther challenge is related to the leadership
necessary to set the technical direction for a school district and a standard for technical
literacy. A final example involves the historical isolation of teachers. Expecting a teacher
to communicate electronically for the purpose of working collaboratively is asking that
teacher to step out of the comfort zone of the classroom.

These previous points have relevance to this study, which focused on a group of
geographically dispersed, practicing teachers throughout Michigan who participated in a
project to collaboratively develop a curriculum on the teaching of philanthropy in the
schools. There were a number of dilemmas associated with this project. For example, the
teachers were required to learn to use computers for communication, information
gathering, peer support, and for the development of curriculum units, while at the same
time attending to their various teaching responsibilities.

This research has implications for curriculum development and how the use of
technology and electronic communication might affect that process. Because teachers are
professionally isolated, computer technologies offer them a unique opportunity to break
this isolation and to develop more collegial approaches to their work. Whether or not
they elect to use this powerful technology tool to break the professional isolation and rely
on the efficacy of technology for curriculum development are questions of vital interest.

Would electronic communication result in fewer meetings, thus less release time and lower

costs? Does electronic communication have an impact on the curriculum development
process? Although there are bodies of literature that have addressed curriculum
development (Doll, 1974; Elmore & Fuhrman, 1994; Glatthom, 1987; Jacobs, 1989;
Tanner & Tanner, 1980) and electronic communication (Davis & Brewer, 1997; Kollack
& Smith, 1994; Reil & Levin, 1990; Sproull & Kiesler, 1992; Turkle, 1997), there is no
body of data-based research that has examined the impact of CMC in relation to
curriculum development. The research presented here provides a starting place for

considering the role that CMC can play in the development of curriculum.

Signififlg of the Problem

This study of the impact of electronic communications on curriculum development
contributes to the field of education in a number of ways, informing practice and policy as
well as research. Because policy can serve as an instrument of curriculum control
(McDonnell & Elmore, 1987), the knowledge gained fi'om this investigation is useful to
school administrators in developing policies related to curriculum, such as those that
dictate teacher release time, promote computer use and training, or define the curriculum
planning and development process. Further, the policies could influence teacher-hiring
practices by setting a standard to hire teachers who have skill and experience in the use of
computers. In addition, because of the increased focus on state-level governance of
curriculum (Elmore & Fuhrrnan, 1994), this research can inform members of the state
educational bureaucracy regarding projects that use CMC.

The primary focus of teaching involves the transference of knowledge to ensure

student learning. With this comes the necessity for the teacher to research information, as

needed, particularly with the explosion in knowledge that is part of present American
culture. Now and in the filture this information can be found in electronic form on an
expanding web of educational resources on the Internet. It is increasingly important that
teachers have adequate technological skills to firrther their own knowledge as well as to
assist their students in using computer technology for a variety of purposes, including
accessing information. Thomberg (1994) suggested, “Our challenge, quite simply, is to
use our tools to prepare people for their future, not for our past” (p. 25).

Wier (1992) found that a benefit of participation in an electronic community
includes increased collaboration throughout an educational system. This study considered
the efl‘ect of CMC on community building. Insights were gained that have significance to
teacher isolation and collaboration that could be interesting to practitioners and policy
makers alike. Through CMC, geographic limitations on professional collaboration can be
erased, providing teachers with the ability to discuss their teaching with both content
experts and teaching colleagues in distant locales.

Because there is no body of literature that has carefirlly considered the impact of
electronic communications and computer technology on curriculum development, this
study has advanced the field in this area, contributing to the firndamental knowledge of
both electronic communications and curriculum design. This research also informs others
planning projects with geographically dispersed participants who are linked through

computer technology.

Qentext ef the Study

This study was undertaken through a statewide project sponsored by the Council
of Michigan Foundations. The Council obtained firnding for the development of a K-12
curriculum on the teaching of philanthropy. For the purposes of the project, the definition
of philanthropy is private action for the public good, including the activities of the
nonprofit sector and citizen action. The intention of this project, which is called the K-12
Education in Philanthropy Project (see Appendix A), is to ensure that every child
understands the connection between voluntary civic engagement and the evolution and
sustenance of a democracy. A quotation from the project case statement points out,

The long-term goal of the project is to develop and replicate curriculum lessons,

units, and materials for perpetuating a civil society through the education of

children about the independent sector, and to achieve their comnritrnent to private

citizen action for the public good. The lessons, units, and materials that are a part

of the curriculum contain both academic content about philanthropy, and skill

development activities which involve students in giving and serving communities.

Advisors for the planning of the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project included
classroom teachers, service learning coordinators, and school administrators. This project
maintained close involvement with the Michigan Department of Education stafi‘, most
significantly the social studies consultant, and an advisory board, called the Steering
Committee, made up of experts in various fields.

The K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project has been firnded through significant
grants fiom both state and national foundations, with a phase one budget for 1977-1999 of

approximately $2.5 million. The project staff includes a director, a curriculum specialist,

and a secretary. In early 1999, a marketing specialist was added to the team. In addition,

contracted services were purchased for technology/media support, student assessment,
and program evaluation.

Thirty-six teachers who teach in different locations in Michigan were selected for
participation in the project through a competitive application process. Because the
applications fiom teachers were excellent, and due to an interest in gathering a
representative pool of educators (urban, suburban, and rural districts; public and private
schools; men and women; ethnic minority representatives), the Steering Committee
decided to expand the pool of participating teachers.

The original 36 teachers were called the Matrix teachers because they firlfilled the
requirements of a matrix that was used in the selection process. The Matrix teachers
received computers and software through project firnds. The remaining teachers were
called Afiliates. They did not initially receive a computer as a part of their participation.
After the project began, the stafi' independently sought funds through local community
foundations to ensure that all of the teachers in the project had uniform computer
equipment and software.

Representing early, middle, and high school grades, the teachers were fi'om urban,
suburban, and rural districts, and both public and private schools. Principal support was a
prerequisite for teachers’ participation in the project. Each teacher received a new
computer with Internet connectivity, a full complement of software, a laser jet printer, a
possibility of receiving $5,000 for their classrooms (if budget goals were met), paid
attendance at various inservice programs, and numerous quality materials. A number of
the teachers also received release time during the fall semester of 1997 to research and

write curriculum units.

An important component of the curriculum development process involved teacher
communication with each other and project stafi‘ via electronic transmissions. The
intention was to encourage sharing of resources, information, insights, research,
curriculum ideas, and lessons through this mode of communication. This developed
curriculum has the potential to serve as a model for adoption nationally and
internationally. At the national level there is a call for re-engaging young people in the
democratic process (Robelen, 1998). Further, with the fall of the Soviet Union, leaders
from emerging democracies are looking to the United States for guidance in teaching
about democratic and philanthropic principles to their children. The K-12 Education in
Philanthropy director has received six such requests.

At the state level, the curriculum is tied to the Michigan Curriculum Frameworks
and the Standards for the Social Studies. Of particular relevance is the social studies
strand on teaching civic engagement, which is part of the Michigan Model Core
Curriculum. The Michigan Council for the Social Studies endorsed the project, while the
National Council for the Social Studies calls civic education its number one priority for
social studies teachers.

Eventually the curriculum lessons and student assessments are to be made available
free of charge over the Internet through the project website, and through the national
system of community foundations. The use of the curriculum will also be promoted by
state and national professional social studies education organizations. These materials will
be easily exportable to classrooms not only because of their case of access, but also

because they are classroom ready.

Delimi ti n f h

The researcher did not study the effectiveness of curriculum content, whether there
were any actual curriculum changes, teacher attitudes toward change processes, how to
implement a technology curriculum, or the traditional curriculum design process. Further,
neither the impact of release time on the project nor possible differences between the
Matrix and Affiliate teachers were studied. However, this research includes the
perceptions of teachers regarding the impact of computer technology on the way they

previously designed curriculum and current practices.

n Fram w rk

The lens through which this study was viewed is grounded both in the literature
and in an analysis of the data collected. Building first on a review of three bodies of
literature, curriculum development, CMC, and the intersection of CMC and curriculum
development, the researcher developed an initial conceptual framework for the study.
This initial fiamework is shown in Figure 1.1 and depicts factors that influence curriculum
development in a networked project.

These identified factors can have an effect on curriculum development in a
networked project. A networked project is one in which participants communicate
through the use of a computer network. The researcher grouped the influencing factors
into six categories for the purpose of organization and discussion. These categories and
factors are not independent of each other; rather, they interact in ways that may have an

impact on the overall curriculum development process. For example, those factors

 

 

W

Time

Access &
Availability

Ease of Use
System Efficiency
Gender
Motivation

 

 

 

Knowled e & Skills

Computer Anxiety
Technology
Experience
Curriculum

 

 

 

A

 

\V

Curriculum
Development
in a
Networked
Project

 

 

Qrganizatiaual
Context

Freedom
Organizational Norms
Changes in Social
Context

 

 

 

en 1' 11a rtin

Asynchronous
Communication
Group Identity
Feeling of Obligation
Sense of Purpose

 

 

 

 

 

manning

Grass-roots Input
Reason to Participate
Bottom-up Selection
Phase in Implementation
Funding

Participant Selection
Process

 

 

 

 

Marsh—am
Smart

Planning

Technical support
Purpose

Leadership
Administrative Support

 

 

 

Figure 1.1: Curriculum development in a networked project: Influencing factors derived
from the literature.

affecting the fi'equency of computer use are related to a project participant’s knowledge
and skills with computers.

The construct identified in Figure 1.1 is briefly reviewed here, beginning with
Planning and moving counter-clockwise around the figure. Flaming encompasses those
factors that are evident in the initial design of and preparation for the project.
Organizational Context includes the conditions that make up the environment of the
project participants. Those factors that have an impact on how often a project member
engages in the use of CMC for curriculum development are reported under Frequency of
Use. Factors relevant to the knowledge and skills of the participants are listed under the
Knowledge and Skills category. Sense of Collaboration includes those factors that may
influence the level of collaboration of the project members and project leaders. Finally,
Organizational Support identifies support factors within the organizational structure that
support the networked project.

Assuming an inductive stance in an effort to derive meaning from the data and
relevant literature, the emerging theory proposes a new pattern. Figure 1.2 presents this
new pattern as themes associated with the impact of CMC on curriculum development.

As with the factors identified in Figure 1.1, the themes in Figure 1.2 do not stand
alone; they interact with the other themes and factors presented. These themes identify
those factors, both positive and negative, associated with the impact that the use of CMC
has when developing curriculum in a networked project. The theme that includes
T echnical/ Mechanical factors encompasses the mechanics and technical issues involved

in keeping a networked system running. Next, the theme identified under the

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Organizational
Technlcal/Mechanrcal
_ . _ Project Leadership
System Relrabrlrty Flaming and Management
Access Support and Sharing
Technical Support Information overload
Themes
Associated with
The Impact of CMC
On Curriculum Development
m M
Organizational Norms Time
Prior Opportunity F amrly Support
Organizational Support Purpose
G ender ? Commitment
Grade Level Emotions

 

 

 

 

 

Curriculum Development

Asynchronous Communication
Flexibility

Time and Distance

On-Line Editing

Lesson management

 

 

 

I~‘i
gl-lre 1.2: The impact of CMC on curriculum development.

I ll

   

 

 

Organizational heading includes those factors related to the organization, planning, and

management of the project. The Context of educational settings also has an influence on

the use of CMC for curriculum development.

Two additional themes are associated with the impact of CMC on curriculum

development. The process of Curriculum Development can be influenced by the features

that CMC brings to the process. Finally, those factors associated with Individual Use can

have an impact on the fi'equency and level of communication within a networked project.

Figure 1.2 is described with firller depth in Chapter V of this research.

Research megione

Given the focus of this study on the impact of electronic communication on

curriculum development and the conceptual framework as well as the emerging theory, a

number of questions surfaced as important to this research. The primary question

examined was: What is the impact of computer mediated communication (CMC) on the

development of curriculum units by geographically dispersed, practicing classroom

teachers? To address this question, it was important to consider several subquestions.

hie)! include:
1. What is the impact of CMC on individual practice?

a. How is the use of CMC different fi'om other modes of
communication, and how has it affected the use of these other
modes of communication?

b. For what purposes do participants use CMC?

c. What impacts the fiequency of communicating electronically?

d. What components of computer training and support impacted

participant use of CMC?

l2

e. How has the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project encouraged
participants to employ CMC in their efforts to produce a curriculum
on the teaching of philanthropy and civic responsibility?

2. What is the impact of CMC on the process of curriculum development and
the individual?

a. How does CMC inhibit and enhance curriculum development?

b. What factors assisted and what factors deterred teachers fi'om using
CMC when developing curriculum?

6. What role does CMC play in building a sense of community?
3. What are the implications of this study?

a. What are the implications of this study for practice?

b. What are the implications of this study for policy?

c. What are the implications of this study for further research?

erview
The chapters that follow provide insight into the stated research questions.
Chapter II ofl‘ers a review of three bodies of literature relevant to the topic under study,
i11<=luding traditional methods of curriculum development, CMC, and the intersection of
CMC and curriculum development. Chapter III details the methodology employed in this
l"astarch. Research Questions 1 and 2 are addressed in Chapter IV, whereas Research
Q‘Jestion 3 is reviewed in Chapter V. Themes associated with the impact of CMC on

c‘--‘3"riculum development are also considered in Chapter V.

13

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

mm

This research examined the impact of CMC on the development of a specific
curriculum by geographically dispersed, practicing teachers. The study considered under
what circumstances and conditions CMC assists and/or inhibits practicing classroom
teachers in the development of lesson plans and curriculum units.

Three bodies of research and professional literature were reviewed as a means to
better understand this research problem: (a) traditional approaches to curriculum and its
development, (b) CMC, and (c) the intersection of curriculum development and CMC.
This broad research base provided a framework for undertaking the study.

Against the backdrop of traditional curriculum development approaches, the
researcher considered the dimension that electronic communication brings to the process.
The review assisted the researcher to understand the depth of the issues related to CMC.
The investigator sought to understand what the research suggests regarding how people
communicate electronically through the use of computers. A sparser body of research that

was reviewed revealed how geographically separated people have used computer

technology to develop curriculum collaboratively. The literature review connects this

14

study to a larger body of work, offers insights extracted fi'om relevant studies, and

provides a benchmark for considering the results of this study in relation to other findings.

rricul m 1 men
W
An understanding of what the curriculum actually entails can be problematic
because many definitions of curriculum exist. Ponder (1995) indicated that, “like history,
the definition of curriculum is rewritten regularly” (p. 23 5). In the 19705, Doll (1974)
reflected that the commonly accepted definition of the curriculum had changed fiom
course content and lists of subjects and courses to the myriad of experiences offered to
learners through the auspices and direction of school (p. 22). Schlecty (1990) went so far
as to refer to curriculum as the “lore of the tribe” (p. 89). Short (1995) suggested that
curriculum practice involves those practical activities that are involved in conceiving,
justifying, and enacting education (p. 1.7), whereas Glatthom (1987) ofi‘ered this
definition: “The curriculum is the plans made for guiding learning in schools, usually
represented in retrievable documents of several levels of generality and the implication of
those plans in the classroom” (p. 10). He added that learning takes place in an
environment that influences what is learned. Others have viewed curriculum as a blueprint
for instruction and the curriculum planner as an architect (Jacobs, 1989; Pratt, 1994).
As depicted in the examples above, curriculum is a word of many meanings. It can
be used to describe an organized body of goals, objectives, and units all wrapped into a
scope and sequence. Sometimes the word curriculum refers exclusively to content; other

times it is considered both the content and the instructional strategies employed in

15

teaching. Currently the definition of curriculum embodies three integrated subsets: (a)
content (what is taught), (b) instruction (how it is taught), and (c) assessment (how
student learning is measured) (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
1995). In past definitions of curriculum, assessment was not given much emphasis.

The work of designing and implementing a curriculum occurs within a context that
influences the content and curriculum emphasis, as well as the strategies for
implementation and assessment. Historically, what was taught and to whom it was taught
was “in the deepest sense a subject for determining who was allowed to participate in the
political process in society” (Elmore & Fuhnnan, 1994, p. 6). Disallowing slaves and
women fi'om participation in the educational process is a glaring example of this
circumstance. The early focus on education related to Bible study is another example of
the relationship of context to content.

Tanner and Tanner (1980) suggested that curriculum designs are the outcome of
decisions made at the national, state, school system, building, and classroom levels, and by
individuals and groups. More recently, national curriculum themes have developed, to a
large extent as a result of professional networks and organizations. For example, the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989) published a ground-
breaking book, Science for All Americans, that has set a standard for science education.
These curriculum themes are finding their way into state and national policy. Evidence of
this can be seen in the keen interest in the 19905 by the state governors, who are now

taking a role in educational policy making by collectively supporting educational reform.
The curriculum is subject to strong national influences through textbook adOptions and

national education policy that can dictate practices associated with funding (Elmore &

16

Fuhnnan, 1994). Policy can also serve as an instrument of curriculum control through
state and district requirements concerning the curriculum itself, instructional materials
selected and/or provided, and student assessment practices (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987).
But not all policies have equal impact. In a study of math and science instructors in 18
high schools across 12 districts in 6 states, Porter, Smithson, and Ostofl‘ (1994)
determined that the most influential policy initiatives afl‘ecting curriculum are the ones
backed with authority and power, that clearly describe the goal, and that specify how the
policy is to be attained.

Elmore and Fuhnnan (1994) summarized that there are four main trends in
curriculum policy and governance that are now emerging:

1. The increased focus on state-level governance of curriculum and teaching.

2. Grth of national forces in determining curriculum policy, such as
professional subject matter organizations and groups formed around national goals.

3. A more direct connection between curriculum and student performance
assessment.

4. A focus on providing rigorous academic instruction to a broad base of
students.

During the 1990s, substantial political and social pressures have squeezed school
systems to dramatically improve student achievement as measured by standardized and
state-developed assessments. As a result, many school systems have adopted a “quick-

fix” attitude to address the issue of student achievement because those applying the

pressure are seeking quick results. These pressures can ultimately affect the curriculum,

1?

the curriculum development process, and instruction. The stakes are high: A district’s
reputation, people’s jobs, and income for the district are all involved.

Along with political and social pressures is the demand for new knowledge and
skills that encourage schools to add new curricula. Yet, old curricula are not abandoned.
The importance of establishing a curriculum focus and orientation that serves as a
reference point for curriculum design as noted by Pratt (1994) becomes clear. This
orientation serves as the umbrella for establishing curriculum and instruction priorities, and
makes the underpinnings of the curriculum philosophical rather than technical. Pratt
suggested that curriculum planners build their curriculunrs from a philosophical base. He
ofl‘ered, by way of example, four orientations to curriculum work:

1. Cultural transmission, which emphasizes the traditional academic disciplines.

2. Social transformation, emphasizing political and social change.

3. Individual fulfillment, emphasizing personal growth, relationships, and self-
actualization.

4. Feminist pedagogy, emphasizing a more equitable balance among gender-
related characteristics and interests (p. 22).

Curriculum design in the future will need to include the philosophies in which
many stakeholders are involved—educators, business leaders, civic groups, parents, and
government. Such efforts will be driven by “changes in society, technological advances,
and the interweaving of our national goals with international growth and development”

(Sheeran & Sheeran, 1996, p. 47).

18

WWW

Approaches to the design of curriculum go through cycles that reflect current
thought. The national curriculum organization, the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development (ASCD), provides a view of curriculum development fiom a
variety of perspectives, informing practitioners through books and journals that document
research, best practice, and theories.

The need for coherence in a curriculum developed from a sense that the curriculum
in many schools is disconnected and fragmented and even detached from the goals and
standards of the community (Beane, 1995; Kniep & Martin-Kniep, 1995). In a more
specific sense, the quest for coherence is also apparent in content areas such as the
language arts (Tchudi, 1995), and as it relates to student performance assessment
(Wiggins, 1995). Beane suggested that a coherent curriculum is one that makes sense as a
whole and includes parts that are connected, identifies meaningful contexts, and helps the
learner to fillly understand and integrate learning experiences. Coherence emerges as a
firndamental characteristic of a worthwhile curriculum (p. 3).

Various authors have focused on curriculum integration as an advantageous
strategy for curriculum development and delivery (Jacobs, 1989a; Jacobs & Borland,
1986; Palmer, 1995; Pate, McGinnis, & Homestead, 1995). Jacobs and Borland proposed
the Interdisciplinary Concept Model to bring together the different discipline perspectives
and focus them on the investigation of a target theme, issue, or problem. The curriculum
development process includes (a) selecting an organizing theme or focus, (b) exploring the
theme from different perspectives, (c) establishing guiding questions that serve as a scope

and sequence, and (d) writing activities around the theme for exploration. Although an

19

integrated curriculum may result in a more coherent approach, Ladson-Billings (1995)
argued for disentangling the two concepts because an integrated curriculum could lack
coherence.

Glatthom (1994) proposed a quality approach to curriculum development. He
maintained that, because improved student achievement is the most critical outcome of the
curriculum development process, teachers should play a significant role in the
development of curriculum, its integration and delivery. His approach emphasizes quality
processes and quality products while borrowing from the principles of Total Quality
Management as advanced by W. Edwards Deming. The guidelines for this approach to
curriculum development include a focus on student learning, an emphasis on quality, and a
constancy of purpose and continuous improvement (Glatthorrr, 1994, pp. 5-6).
Glatthom’s ideas support careful planning at all phases of the curriculum development
process and are offered in a practical, step.by-step format, a format supported by others
such as Renzulli (1997), Pratt (1994), and Carr and Harris (1993).

In an earlier book, Glatthom (1987) followed a similar practical approach to
curriculum development, writing the book as an “operator’s manual” and a self-described
“how to do it book” (p. ix). Glatthom’s intention was to take the mystery out of creating
and implementing curriculum. He offered detailed ideas for curriculum renewal, including
how to (a) ensure that a school district’s goals are reflected in its curriculum, (b) improve
instruction in specific content areas, (c) develop a new course of instruction, and (d) adapt
the curriculum so that it is responsive to individual differences.

In discussing curriculum trends, Glatthom (1997) pointed out that experts offer a

recommended curriculum, which he suggested is one of six curriculums at work in

20

schools. The written curriculum, represented in curriculum documents, is intended to
guide what is taught. However, the taught curriculum is what is actually delivered in the
classroom. What stands tall in influence is the tested curriculum because school systems
and teachers are often measured by the results of assessments. The supported curriculum,
that which is embedded in texts and materials, also has great influence on what is taught.
Finally, the learned curriculum is what students actually learn and understand fi'om teacher
instruction.

Glatthom (1997) went on to propose guidelines for curriculum development,
recommending flexibility because of the complex nature of curriculum development. He
further noted that curriculum leaders use the recommended curriculum as part of the
knowledge base because it represents a set of benchmarks for evaluating locally produced
guides, and serves as the basis for staff development. Next, he suggested that special
attention be paid to emerging content and curriculum standards in a given field, and to
state frameworks. Glatthom indicated that, because depth of knowledge supersedes
coverage in importance, one should ensure that curriculum reflects a constructivist
perspective, and he suggested a reasoned approach to curriculum integration. Last, he
recommended that curriculum developers beware of the hyper-verbalization of the
curriculum, which he described as an emphasis on verbal learning to the exclusion of other
ways of knowing.

In the late 19805, the Thinking Curriculum was proposed as a way to integrate two
major issues in the domain of curriculum and instruction, knowledge and thinking. Rather
than treating thinking as a separate part of the curriculum, this approach involves

considering content in ways that encourage thinking, and sets the stage for addressing

21

curriculum and instruction based on conceptions of thinking validated by cognitive
research (Resnick & Klopfer, 1989). Several authors have addressed teaching for
understanding in the content areas of science, mathematics, and writing. Minstrel] (1989),
Schoenfeld (1989), and Hull (1989) all used this curriculum development method.

Differences in the approaches referred to above are more related to the emphasis
of the approach than with an underlying philosophical disagreement. The standard against
which the authors generally have compared their ideas is current practice, which the
authors often have considered wanting. The approaches are much more similar than
dissimilar, and a reflection of the nation’s largest curriculum organization, ASCD, the
publisher of the bulk of the work. Each approach includes a systematic method for
addressing curriculum planning, views curriculum as both the content of the curriculum
and instruction, plays attention to the importance of student performance assessment, and
is framed in relation to what is perceived as current practice.

Renzulli (1997) proposed the Multiple Menu Model as a means to integrate
content and process. This model, which includes planning guides that teachers can use to
design in-depth curriculum units for classroom use, differs fiom traditional approaches in
that it places greater emphasis on balancing content and process and considers the
interconnectedness of knowledge. The major point of departure with traditional
approaches is the very deep involvement of students with the teacher in the curriculum
development process. Underlying this discipline-based model are two basic assumptions:
It is impossible to teach everything important in a discipline, and inquiry is necessary.
Renzulli supported the importance of both thinking and knowledge to learning, a

perspective shared by Resnick and Klopfer (1989), as well as the interconnectedness of

22

curriculum disciplines that has been recognized by other authors (Jacobs, 1989b; Jacobs &
Borland, 1986; Palmer, 1995).

Curriculum development can also be viewed as a means of providing professional
development to teachers (Parke & Coble, 1997; Zellermayer, 1997). The goal of this
approach is to link theory to practice. Parke and Coble (1997) found through interviews
with teachers that the process of developing curriculum had value as a professional
development experience for them. Consequently, they proposed a model for
transformational science teaching that enlists the process of curriculum design to challenge
the teacher as learner to connect theory and practice in ways that improve teaching
(p. 776).

Other authors have paid more attention to the way in which teachers and systems
actually shape the curriculum experience (Holt, 1996; Schwab, 1978). Holt suggested
that although the traditional approach to curriculum development that focuses on
outcomes and resources is appealing, it can be superficial because, in practice, curriculum
is generally not developed in a deterministic way (p. 248). He recommended a more
natural, deliberative approach that arises naturally in the process of curriculum design and
draws from Deming’s (1993) principles of management. In comparing curriculum design
to the making of the movie Casablanca, he offered that the essence of a deliberative
approach is its focus on the practical and the creative and eclectic use of theory, which will
guide action rather than derive objectives.

Little empirical research exists that has tested the assumption that curriculum
models do influence the curriculum developed. One such study conducted by Frey, Frei,

and Langeheine (1989) concluded that the type of curriculum development process

23

adopted carries no implications for the ensuing curriculum. In this study, which was
conducted at a school of electrical engineering in Zug, Switzerland, the researchers
compared three distinct models for curriculum design. The details of this study are not
developed here. It is alluded to as a reference to the lack of research in this area and to

show that what does exist is of a highly specialized nature.

Wises

Although curriculum design is a complicated process to be approached with
flexibility in mind, models of curriculum design are generally visualized as a flow chart
presenting each element in an ordered progression. Those who develop curriculum are
aware that the actual work of instructional design, rather than being linear, is convoluted
and recursive. Metaphorically, the road to a body of work called the curriculum is more
than bumpy; some days it is muddy, and other days detours are encountered or the road is
blocked. Occasionally, all the lights are green and bits and pieces fall smoothly into place.

A significant real-world dilemma when developing curriculum is the issue of
timebtime to create, time to meet, and teacher release time fiom classroom responsibilities.
Adding to this problem is the shortage of substitute teachers and the quality of instruction
that occurs when the classroom teacher is absent. Another layer of interference could very
well be a teacher contract, which can strictly define the who, the when, and the amount
paid for curriculum work. The knowledge, skills, and abilities that teachers hold for
developing curriculum also impact the process. Further, curriculum development requires

collaboration in a team structure. These noted issues receive scant mention in the

24

literature on curriculum development, but are apparent during the curriculum development
process.

Tensions have evolved as a result of the difi’erent kinds of questions researchers
and curriculum designers, alike, have asked. What is sufficiently significant to be taught,
how it will be taught, and to whom it will be taught are but some of the tensions related to
curriculum deve10pment. People hold deep beliefs about these issues. The who of the
process is significant-who develops the curriculum, who controls it, and how that is
decided are compelling questions. Territoriality pops up as another area of tension, and it
can have an effect on curriculum integration efforts as well as sequencing of course work.
In light of recent calls for restructuring, another question arises: Given the current
educational systems, are schools capable of delivering a comprehensive education to both
those destined for higher education and those entering the workforce directly from high
school?

When considering the curriculum as a product to be taught, Anderson (1995)
observed in a review of curriculum reform efforts that teacher attitude plays an important
role. Although depth over breadth is advocated, teachers sometimes believe that if they
omit a topic that students might need at a higher grade level, the omission might prove
detrimental to their students. Citing Stake and Easley (1978), Anderson referred to this as
the preparation ethic, which they suggested is deeply ingrained in the culture of schools.
Yet teaching for understanding means that some subject matter will have to be left out. In
addition, although teachers may wish to provide a constructivist conception of learning in

their classrooms, they may not have the skill required to teach in ways that enable the

25

learner to create his or her own knowledge. Also, teachers and principals may not have
any local support available to help them learn this new way of teaching.

Curriculum development can be a rather haphazard process surrounded by
impulsive decisions and influenced by what is currently in vogue at the time, rather than by
systematically following theoretical principles (Tanner & Tanner, 1980). This observation
certainly has merit, but it fails to address one of the main causes for the predicament-

outside social and political pressures.

n 1 din mm n

Traditional models of curriculum design present more similarities than differences.
These models generally include a plan for identifying learner needs, articulating curriculum
intentions and instructional strategies, assessing student learning, and identifying
resources. Mthin that context the models place an emphasis on different dimensions in
the process. Curriculum design approaches as described in books and professional
journals take on a linear look, even when the authors frequently provide a disclaimer that
curriculum work is anything but linear. In practice, educators, including teachers,
principals, and curriculum specialists, generally work together to develop specific
curriculum in content-specific disciplines. This takes place in face-to-face meetings. The
work requires time, knowledge, skills, a sense of collaboration, leadership, planning, and
administrative support. For informing practice the models are useful as planning tools but
do not always provide a realistic picture of the curriculum development process. In
addition, researchers and authors generally do not even speak to some of the very knotty

issues-the “grit” of curriculum development work.

26

The whole specter of time is not adequately addressed, including both release time
for teachers and the incredible amount of time it takes to develop curriculum units.
Further, curriculum leadership as an important element in the planning and support
processes receives scant attention, with leadership more often approached from a global
school improvement perspective. There are layers of leadership in curriculum design,
including that provided by teachers, principals, curriculum specialists, superintendents, and
boards of education. The lack of leadership or strong leadership in any one or all of the
noted areas has an impact on the ultimate outcome of curriculum development. Internal
politics also influence the process. Other environmental issues such as school funding,
population declines and increases, staff turnover, and construction projects also have an
impact and receive little mention in the literature.

Tensions abound in curriculum development. The who, what, where, why, and
when questions are the cause of much discussion and debate. These issues are also subject
to political and social influences, all of which can have an effect on the curriculum
development process and ultimately its content and focus. Through the present study the
researcher considered the impact that electronic communications has on the curriculum
development process, the tensions that exist, and the benefits of use. The next section of

this review provides an overview of the literature on CMC.

Cemputer Mediated Communigtions

Intr u i n
Computer technology offers the possibility for educators to communicate

electronically. Although this could initially appear to be a rather straightforward

27

circumstance, the dimension of electronic communications raises complex issues for
individuals, groups, and organizations. In this section of the literature review, the focus is
placed on the impact of CMC on individuals and groups, the tensions created with its use,
and the implications for curriculum development practices.

Some of the terms that are introduced in this section are not commonly used or
may have various meanings. Therefore, it is appropriate to begin by providing a few
definitions.

Asynchronous communication: Communication in which interactivity can be
delayed. The time between the creation of text and response is flexible and could range
fi'om minutes to weeks, or longer.

Computer mediated communication (CMC): Communication between individuals
or groups through the electronic medium of a computer. This could include electronic
mail, electronic conferencing, and listserv applications. In this study, CMC generally
refers to e-mail communication.

Digital literacy: “The ability to understand and use information in multiple
formats fi'om a wide range of sources when it is presented via computers” (Gilster, 1997,
p. 1). It encompasses the cognition of what is seen on the computer screen when using
that networked medium.

Electronic discourse: A form of interactive electronic communication, “using
two-directional texts in which one person using a keyboard writes language that appears
on the sender’s monitor and is transmitted to the monitor of a recipient, who responds by
keyboar ” (Davis & Brewer, 1997, p. 1). Electronic discourse has elements of both a

spoken and written language. The focus is on the use of language.

28

The use of technology is increasing rapidly. From newsgroups and listservs on the
Internet, to conferences and bulletin boards, computers present numerous avenues for
communicating electronically. Currently, the most common form of electronic
communication occurs via electronic mail, email, which ofi’ers the ability to instantly send
a message and the luxury of responding when the opportunity presents itself. Estimates of
the size of the Internet are problematic because no central organization keeps tabs on
those numbers. Estimates of Internet users range fiom 5.8 million to a whopping 42
million users in the United States alone (Gilster, 1997). Currently, approximately 40% of
the workforce uses electronic mail (Gwynne & Dickerson, 1997). Using digital
technology, or being digital, will change the nature of mass media from a process of
pushing information at peOple to one of allowing people with computers to pull
information together (Negroponte, 1995).

Computers can do things for users as well as to users. People increasingly look to
computers for experiences and information that they hope will affect their lives, and can
cause old boundaries to be renegotiated (Turkle, 1997). Yet, cyberspace is a territory of
contradictory claims in that it represents the potential both for unifying and for
fragmenting. This points to the contemporary ambivalence toward technology (McKie,
1996).

Electronic communication allows for quick and inexpensive methods to find
constituencies and mobilize them (Center for Media Education, 1995). An example of this
can be found in a 1994 congressional race. An on-line campaign was waged to spread the
word about particular grievances with Tom Foley (D-WA) by supporters of his opponent.

In the process, they enlisted a cadre of online volunteers to assist with the opposition plan.

29

 

This provided mph with a way to become personally involved in the political process.
Beyond this example, electronic communication has many implications for individuals,
groups, and organizations.

With computer networks, the potential exists for schools and teachers to share
resources. Local and administrative databases, textual information, and school materials
can be loaded on a central server, and thus reduce or even eliminate the need for
duplication of materials. In addition, intellectual resources held by a school district can be
disseminated and shared easily with other districts. Resources available through research

centers and universities also become more easily accessible.

Impligtiene ef CMC fer mganigtiegs

Computer networks will allow organizations to create new and different
organizational structures as well as new connections between and among groups. CMC
allows mph to by-pass traditional gatekeepers in organizations and provides direct
access to information. For example, it is now possible for executives, once the members
of an exclusive inner circle, to receive electronic communications from customers and
front-line staff. Translated to the world of K-12 education, this means that the
superintendent of schools could receive e-mail fiom bus drivers, parents, custodians,
students, and staff. This presents a shift from one-sided communication that can be found
in traditional top-down organizations, to various forms of interactive communication
(Hunt, 1996). Computer-based communication also allows individuals to go to the source
of information in a timely way rather than wait for the information or have it sifted

through another person. The notion that knowledge is power is one of the major purposes

30

 

for universal public education in a democracy. Computer technologies take this principle
to a new level of meaning by making information far more accessible. Sproull and Kiesler
(1992) suggested that, in an electronic environment, “it’s not who you know, but how you
lurow that makes you a success” (p. 26).

Gwynne and Dickerson (1997) maintained that CMC has the potential to transform
an organization by leading to changes in how people interact, identify with the workplace,
and think about their work. They suggested that a significant impact of CMC may come
from changing patterns of organizational interactions. Positive aspects of these changing
patterns in organizations could include increased communication among different work
groups, the convenience of asynchronous communication, and perhaps opportunities to
save time. An example of one of the changes in the workplace brought about by CMC
was provided in the September 26, 1999, edition of the Detroit News. The headline read,
“Ford hit by e-mail protest.” Salaried workers at some Ford Motor Company plants were
organizing an e-mail campaign to voice their concerns to upper management. A
spokesperson for the automaker indicated that they had an open communications policy,
encouraging workers to express opinions to their managers or senior management.

Electronic communications can also create problems requiring computer policies
and formal guidelines for appropriate and inappropriate uses of an organization’s
computer system (Lissy, 1990). Gwynne and Dickerson (1997) provided an example of a
potential problem, noting an experience of Charles Wang, Chairman of Computer
Associates, International. In his company, managers were receiving 200 to 300 electronic
messages a day from customers and colleagues. People stopped talking to each other face

to face, even to those in the next cubicle. Instead, they sent e-mail messages.

31

Kollack and Smith (1994) found that communication via computers could create a
new social situation with powerfirl effects on social and organizational relationships. They
suggested that CMC may increase social posturing but may also ease hierarchical status in
power relationships. They further suggested that there is a decline in politeness and
concern for others when using electronic communication in comparison with other forms
of communication in an organization. Finally, they posed the possibility that CMC can
have a double edge. Many of its central qualities make it easier to cooperate, but also to

behave in a selfish manner.

El roni

In controlled studies on the behaviors of participants in either electronic or face-to-
face groups, Sproull and Kiesler (1992) found that CMC constitutes a relatively fi'anker
form of discussion. Less audience awareness is shown by those communicating, in that
the audience is not immediately present, may be unknown to the communicator, and an
electronic message can be quickly written and sent without much thought. Sproull and
Kiesler also found that if a decision requires group consensus, an electronic group may
have to work harder to reach it than comparable face-to-face groups because there is an
inclination for electronic groups to consult more people, thereby increasing the number of
alternatives considered. In addition, Sproull and Kiesler discovered that the members of
an electronic group tend to discard faulty reasoning that would have been accepted if
offered by a personable member in a face-to-face group, electronic discussions may result

in riskier choices, and members may experience more conflict in solving problems.

32

The dynamics of face-to-face groups are usually similar and somewhat predictable
across groups. According to Sproull and Kiesler (1992), electronic groups are less
predictable, can receive multiple inputs because communication is asynchronous, and
provide for participation that occurs more equally. They firrther noted that, because it is
harder to read status using electronic communication, high-status people do not
necessarily dominate discussions. These researchers studied the difference between two
forms of discussion: Anyone could talk first versus the high-status person talks first.

They found that when anyone could talk first, the influence of the high-status individual
declined. This meant that lower status individuals who perhaps possessed more
knowledge could present their suggestions initially-a useful scenario when the person with
the most status or power is not the most knowledgeable person in a work group (Sproull
& Kiesler, 1992). Another positive feature of CMC as it relates to groups is that it ofi’ers
the gift of time to ponder and to frame thoughts. Further, CMC creates a written record
that can be referred to at a later date.

Sproull and Kiesler (1992) also noted that CMC is not a substitute for face-to-face
or written forms of communication. Rather, it offers the possibility of enhancing the
traditional modes of communication. They observed that it makes sense to create an
electronic group when an existing group has little opportunity to meet face to face.

Riel and Levin (1990) reported that network groups can serve as a source for
teacher learning and project development, but they noted that when such an electronic
community is planned, it requires structure and should serve a real purpose. Further, to be
most effective, the electronic community needs to be more efficient than other forms of

group interaction, represent a shared set of beliefs or goals, and include a facilitator. The

33

role of the leader or facilitator is crucial to the endeavor. In addition, access to required
technology should be easy and efficient. When networked groups are formed for the
purpose of project development, face-to-face meetings should be held early in the process
as a means of gaining commitment to the project (Sproull & Kiesler, 1992).

In their study of the success and failure of computer networking in relation to
building electronic communities, Riel and Levin (1990) compared three networks designed
to provide professional grth for teachers. Their analysis revealed the importance of the
role of the group leader in organizing tasks and responding to group needs. They also
identified the need for organizational structure as an important component in building an
electronic community. Without structure, networked communities fail. In this regard, the
authors noted that it is unrealistic to expect that teachers will simply share their knowledge
with one another in an open discussion format without any focus, guides, or structure
(p. 157).

In their book Net. gain, Hagel and Armstrong (1997) discussed the effect of
electronic communities on businesses and on markets. They posited that the most
important result of an electronic community may be its impact on the way that individuals
manage themselves. Electronic groups will enable individuals to seek out colleagues in
search of teamwork, or customers in search of products. From a business perspective,
Hagel and Armstrong suggested that the keys to maintaining successful electronic groups
over time include the abilities to aggregate members, retain them, and encourage them to '
make transactions. In studies based on field research by Rand Corporation, Bikson and
Eveland (1990) found that computer mediated groups tended to show less hierarchical

differentiation and broader participation than traditional groups, in addition to fluctuating

34

and situational leadership structures. The ability to communicate through an
asynchronous medium diminished the problems posed by time and space that are apparent

when working in a traditional group.

W

Whether or not computers offer the possibility of a more democratic form of
communication is cause for some debate (Bikson & Eveland, 1990; Herring, 1993; Hunt,
1996; Turkle, 1997). There are characteristics of CMC that make the area fertile ground
for democratic exchanges. Individuals have a variety of ways to access computer
technology through home computers, at universities, in public libraries, and even in coffee
shops, and thus can connect and communicate with folks all over the networked world. In
addition, because identity can be obscured, one can eliminate the social context assigned
by personal identity. Although this may result in a less personal communication, the result
could be exchanges more focused on the content of a message than on the author of the
message. Further, because CMC lends itself to more openness or even outlandish
behavior, it has the potential to break down traditional hierarchical structures for
communication. Because it is harder to read status cues in electronic messages than in
other forms of communication, high-status people do not dominate the discussion in
electronic groups as much as they do in face-to-face groups (Sproull & Kiesler, 1992). In
a 1987 study, McGuire, Kiesler, and Siegel found that when a group of executives met
face to face, the men were five times more likely than the women to make the first
proposal. When the same groups met electronically, women made the first proposal as

often as the men did.

35

The preceding example suggests the possibility that electronic communication
ofl‘ers a more democratic means of communication. This conclusion was not borne out in
the results of research conducted by Herring (1993), who studied the online responses of
male and female participants in two electronic bulletin boards. .Her results revealed
significant differences between male and female participants, the most striking of which
was the discrepant level of participation between males and females. Women sent shorter,
less fiequent messages, which received fewer posted responses. In addition, a minority of
males dominated and responded in adversarial and confi'ontational ways. Herring
concluded that the result of this style of response was for women to participate to a lesser
degree, thus avoiding both conflict and the lack of response to their postings.

In a study of text-based virtual-reality environments, Cherney (1994) found that
women tended to display more affection toward others, whereas men tended to use more
violent imagery during conversation. Davis and Brewer (1997) found that, during CMC,
males entered into discussions by claiming authority first and then moving to affiliation,
whereas females began with affiliation and moved to a stance of authority based on text
and past action. Also, females tended to present elaborate explanations for their claims,

whereas males made claims as statements.

Electrenie Dieteuree Frem a Lingeistic Perspective

Electronic discourse is both a spoken and a written language. The written form is
speech, but it differs fiom conventional spoken language, while the text differs from
written language (Davis & Brewer, 1997). It has elements of both a spoken and a written

language, but the focus is on the use of language.

36

Davis and Brewer (1997) studied electronic discourse from a linguistic
perspective, suggesting that in electronic discourse the writer is a reader, a writer, and a
thinking communicator. They concluded that in this form of discourse the flow of
conversation is altered because it is asynchronous, giving the communicators the ability to
read postings on their own time schedule. However, the flow of conversation can be
maintained through repetition, shared cultural knowledge, punctuation, and emoticons
(capitals, smiley faces) signaling humor, irony, or intensity.

Davis and Brewer’s (1997) study of how student writers deal with language when
they participate in electronic conferences offered a number of interesting conclusions.
They submitted that electronic discourse firrnishes a venue for shy or intimidated
individuals to engage in discussions and to exchange ideas. It also ofi‘ers writers the
Opportunity to explain their work, unlike traditional text, in which the written word can be
misinterpreted. Yet, Davis and Brewer suggested that misinterpretation abounds within
electronic discourse, but in a different way. Because visual and auditory contextual cues
are absent, the opportunity to hear voice inflections and nuances, and visual signs such as
leaning forward or smiles or even a raised eyebrow—cues that have the ability to soften or
strengthen the language they accompany—are not observable. Much of our understanding
of linguistic meaning and social context is derived fi'om these social cues. Although verbal
face-to-face communication can result in these same rrrisunderstandings, they occur with
less fi'equency than those experienced in electronic discourse. Hughes (1985) suggested
that the effectiveness of verbal face-to-face communication is due in part to its partner,

nonverbal communication, or “social-pragmatic” language (p. 39).

37

With electronic discourse, participants compensate for the lack of social cues by
providing verbal text that describes physical cues, and emoticons as mentioned above. In
studying communication on Internet Relay Chat (IRC), Reid (1996) discovered that the
users of IRC developed measures that helped deal with lack of context and markers of
their common culture by devising systerrrs of symbols and textual significance to ensure
that they understood each other. They also developed social sanctions to punish users
who disobeyed the rules of etiquette for their system. Davis and Brewer (1997) indicated
that the elements of humor, sarcasm, denial, support, and often underlying communicative
intention are lost in electronic discourse. Although emoticons are used, they cannot ofi‘er
the same information or nuance as can be conveyed through face-to-face communication.
Thus, electronic discourse alters the linguistics of those communicating through it.

In conclusion, electronic discourse, like any other use of language employed by
people in interaction for the purpose of making and sharing meaning, is replete with its
formulas and rules, such as repetition of words or phrases and the use of emoticons.
Individuals are able to alter their own linguistic patterns to participate in electronic
discourse, still maintain their own styles, and maintain their linguistic patterns and styles
across topics. Therefore, electronic discourse as an aspect of language and a linguistic
entity is as complex and as varied as the individuals communicating through it-just as in

face-to-face communication.

Summery ang Implications

The literature reviewed for this study revealed that CMC can facilitate group

interaction in ways that are qualitatively different from that of other modes of

38

communication. It has the potential to create and maintain group interaction among
people separated in time and space. Because CMC is an asynchronous form of
communication, it allows for groups of people to respond to issues, ideas, and projects at
their convenience. It also has the potential to reduce hierarchical structures in groups that
may inhibit participation. These characteristics have significance for a project such as the
K-12 Education in Philanthropy project because participants are geographically separated,
are practicing teachers with tight schedules, and teach at various grade levels that to some
educators represent a hierarchy.

Although the research suggests that there is value in electronic discussions, it
would be injudicious to believe that electronic groups are valuable in all circumstances.
Faceto-face meetings are especially important for initial meetings and to form alliances
(Sproull & Kiesler, 1992). Also, if a quick decision is required, an electronic group may
not be the best venue for making the decision because it may take longer to reach
agreement. Further, the potential for misunderstanding increases in an electronic group
because of the lack of the contextual clues that shed light on the meaning of words. As
McKie (1996) pointed out, CMC can assist in both the unification and fragmentation of
groups.

Research on the use of CMC as a means to connect individual developing
curriculum is reviewed in the next section. This is the point where CMC meets curriculum

design.

39

Th In ion of M an urri lum Dev 1 men

I i n

The Internet provides opportunities for educators to participate in collaborative
curriculum design projects, offering an avenue for working together that would otherwise
be unavailable. Only within the past decade, however, have researchers and practitioners
begun to explore the topic of CMC as a method for enhancing the curriculum design
process. With the exception of the sciences and mathematics, a paucity of research has
been undertaken that considers the effect of this form of communication on the
development of a total curriculum or curriculum units. The research that does exist often
considers implementation of previously developed curriculum by networked teachers or

groups formed for professional development purposes.

N k Pr ° t

As part of the TERC Working Papers series, Weir (1992) researched networks
that link schools across the globe. TERC is a nonprofit research and development
organization committed to improving mathematics and science learning and teaching. A
recent theme of their work involves the role of telecommunications in triggering and
supporting educational change. Funding sources are typically the US. Department of
Education and National Science Foundation Grants. These networks were pulled together
for information sharing and professional development, and not for the purpose of
designing curriculum. However, the findings offer useful information relative to factors

that affect network involvement.

40

Weir (1992) suggested that network exchanges ofl‘er an opportunity for
collaboration and a framework for cooperative learning. A portion of this study
contrasted patterns of teacher participation in two telecommunications projects, the
Science Teachers’ Network, administered by the Harvard Graduate School of Education,
and the TERC Star Schools. Both programs ofi‘ered teacher support and development.
However, the TERC Start Schools provided an integrated program that linked technology,
a developed curriculum, and teacher support. In the TERC Star Schools, teachers
reported that their network use was restricted because computers were only available at
certain times and in certain locations. This required that teachers travel to a site to get on-
line, thus diminishing their fi'equency of use. An additional problem for Star School
teachers involved the amount of time required to participate in the activities. A number of
teachers dropped out of the project due to lack of time. In the Harvard Science Teachers’
Network, it was determined that having a computer at home significantly increased rates
of logging on, reading, and writing.

In addition, Weir (1992) found that, when offered the opportunity to participate in
an electronic community, some teachers participated actively, whereas others did not. She
suggested that benefits to participation included increased collaboration throughout the
educational system. Star School teachers reported the use of new kinds of materials and
new classroom practices as a result of their involvement in the project. Network
communication in both projects appealed the most to those teachers who were more
professionally isolated. Further, teachers tended to read more than they wrote in
networked communications. Weir also noted that benefits to students were reported to be

significant by the Star School teachers. Interview information obtained fi'om the students

41

revealed that they enjoyed having emphasis placed on their own knowledge and studying
topics relevant to the outside world.

In their review of the use of participatory design in the implementation of
networked learning, Silva and Breuleux (1994) contended that networks can be seen as
tools capable of allowing educators to communicate, share, and access valuable
knowledge. One of the benefits of the Texas Education Network noted by Stout (1992)
included the potential for greater collaboration between K—12 educators and
postsecondary educators. In their survey of networks in schools boasting high
technology, Honey and Henriquez ( 1993) reported that educators listed less isolation as
one of the benefits of using the system. The authors suggested that, through computer
networks, greater opportunities for professional support and grth are possible, and
more equitable access to and dissemination of resources for staff development can be
guaranteed.

Noting that since different networks have different goals and criteria for measuring
success, Weir (1992) identified a variety of general factors (see Figure 2.1) that are
involved in predicting the success of a networked project. Ease of access to the network
emerged as a crucial factor, along with providing one that is efficient because teachers do

not have time to figure out convoluted systems.

 

Ease of Access

General Factors That Are
Predictive of the Success of a
Networked Project

> Administrative Support

 

Efficient System

 

 

 

Level of Obligation

Figure 2.1: Success in a networked project (Weir, 1992).

42

Riel (1990b), who found through a study of four models of educational
communications that ease of access determined how regularly a teacher checked electronic
mail, supported the importance of ease of access. Weir further found that the level of
obligation the teacher felt to use the system regularly afl'ected teacher participation rates,
as did time available for the teacher to fulfill participation requirements. Support fi'om the
school administration was stressed as a significant factor for ensuring the physical
implementation of the network system because a teacher needs ready access to a
computer, a modem, and an available phone line in order to easily make use of a
networked system.

DiMauro and Jacobs (1995) studied the LabNetwork project, which supported a
network space for teachers to reflect on practice in the sciences. LabNetwork was
designed to create and support a nationwide community of practice using a
telecommunications network. An important finding fi'om this study has relevance for
those in the initial planning stages of a networked project. DiMauro and Jacobs suggested
that designers include the prospective users in the creation of the network when building
an electronic community. They filrther stressed the importance of beginning with a
particular purpose, a clearly articulated pedagogical perspective, and a common
understanding of the expectations for the participants of the network. In addition, the
researchers indicated that the involvement of a leadership group is usefirl for gathering
feedback on the networked project and establishing group needs. Riel (1990a) also
pointed to the importance of leadership when educational settings provide computer
networks. She firrther indicated that attention must be paid to dimensions of group

organization, task definitions, and group dynamics.

43

 

Another networked project, the Alice Testbed, is one of four National Science
Foundation-funded testbeds designed to demonstrate the educational potential of
telecommunications. Network Science, a feature of Alice Testbed, promotes collaborative
science inquiry in a networked environment. Through Network Science, geographically
distributed groups of students solve science problems via technology linkages. In addition
to studying collaborative inquiry, the Alice Testbed also investigates the scalability of
Network Science, determining steps necessary to provide educational telecommunications
support in math and science to teachers and students.

Feldman and Nyland (1994) studied Network Science in its initial months of
operation. They raised a variety of issues relevant to curriculum development in a
networked community. The writing of the curriculum itself presented certain difficulties.
Some of the writers, although experienced in curriculum development, were not familiar
with computer technology or the software used. For example, pieces of the writing
required the ability to create data templates for graph and map displays, which were
difficult for inexperienced computer users. Further, the design for subrrritting data was not
sufficiently flexible, which ties in with suggestions noted above that were offered by
DiMauro and Jacobs (1995) to include participants in project planning and to have access
to a leadership group for feedback.

Coulter and Feldman (1995) offered exploratory research into experiences of
teachers participating in the first year of EnergyNet, a telecommunications-based
interdisciplinary science curriculum project. Nineteen teachers fi'om 17 schools in Illinois
participated in the EnergyNet project. These secondary teachers were charged with

implementing a science curriculum that had previously been developed. The goal of the

44

research was to identify factors that impeded full implementation of the curriculum.
Through an interview process, Coulter and Feldman categorized a variety of factors of
significance afi'ecting program implementation, paying particular attention to the context
in which teachers work. These included factors generic to teaching, program factors, and

technological factors, which are depicted in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Factors impeding curriculum implementation in a networked project.

 

 

 

 

Factors Generic to Teaching Program Factors Technical Factors

Content coverage Top-down recruitment of Software problems
teachers

Competing demands on time Lack of adequate Lack of computer
technical training access

Resistance to requesting Curriculum intended for Inadequate technical

technical assistance those with computer skills support

 

 

 

 

Source: Coulter and Feldman (1995).

Factors generic to teaching that impeded curriculum implementation included the
requirement to cover the content in the regular curriculum and therefore not having
enough time for the project. Competing demands on their time for such activities as other
new programs, new governance structures, and student teachers were additional factors.
Finally, there was a hesitancy to request technical assistance exacerbated by the lack of a
technical vocabulary. Program factors included the problem that recruitment of teachers
was typically top-down from the administration, an approach that resulted in diminished
enthusiasm on the part of some teachers. The lack of adequate technical training for the
teachers was a real issue, as was the fact that the curriculum was written by nonteachers
and was intended for an audience with computer network experience. Technological

45

 

identified by Coulter and Feldman (1995) included software problems, the lack of
computer access, and inadequate technical support. In this regard they stressed that
projects need human support as well as well-designed software.

In light of the problems experienced in EnergyNet’s first year, Coulter and
Feldman (1995) made a number of practical suggestions. Involve project partners in the
early stages of planning; recruit teachers fiom the bottom up; provide adequate technical
support staff; build a reason for teachers to contact technical support stafl‘; provide
training for teachers with no previous computer experience; make the software easier for
the teachers to use, and phase in the implementation plan for the project; make sure
equipment is set up and working before the project begins; and do not rely on e-mail to

maintain communications with teachers new to technology.

Fagere Thg Affect Network Use

In a 1995 study reviewing research on the use of computer networks, Enrich-
Fulcer and Schofield identified issues that play a significant role in shaping patterns of
wide area network (WAN) use within the K-12 education arena. They criticized previous
studies on network projects for not identifying the criteria used to define a project as
successful. They suggested that the success of a networking system should be gauged not
only by the frequency of its use, but also by user satisfaction and goal attainment.
Therefore, from their review of networking studies, the authors offered insights into
circumstances affecting participant use, as well as those factors that influence user

satisfaction and goal attainment.

46

Eurich-F ulcer and Schofield (1995) explored three sets of issues that affect WAN
usage in a number of K-12 education projects (see Table 2.2). They found that Technical
and Logistical Circumstances had the potential to inhibit or strengthen user involvement.
How easy the system was to use and its reliability emerged as important factors that
influenced usage. Technical writing, as well as technical support, was found to be vital to
implementation. The authors noted a study by Castle, Livingston, and Trafton (1990)
which suggested that training on the network is the factor most associated with facilitating
network use. Whether or not people have access to computers and their availability has an
obvious effect on use. Convenience and time available are added dimensions to this
circumstance. In a study of the Principals’ Computer Network, Drayton (1993) found that
the rrrain problem inhibiting computer use was the amount of time available to principals to
gain the requisite skill necessary to navigate the network. Eurich-Fulcer and Schofield
also pointed out that networks are moving targets that evolve over time, particularly

because resources afl’ecting their use can change daily and are unpredictable.

Table 2.2: Factors affecting WAN usage in schools.

 

 

Technical and. Attitudes and Social and Organizational
Logistical Characteristics of Users Context
- Ease of use - Computer anxiety 0 Changes in social context
0 System reliability 0 Computer experience - Structural & organizational norms
- Training & support 0 Gender - Information access & freedom
0 Access & availability - Motivation - Organizational commitment &
support

- Timeissues

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Eurich-Fulcer and Schofield (1995).

47

The second set of factors likely to affect network use as noted by Eurich-Fulcer
and Schofield (1995) involves the Attitudes and Characteristics of the user. Users’
attitudes and anxieties about computers may be influenced by their previous experience
and training in computer use. Motivation to use the technology may be linked to what
Rogers (1983) referred to as a perceived advantage of use, such as the capacity to do
something faster and better than before. Along with this, gender may play a role in
computer use. Eurich-Fulcer and Schofield referenced a variety of studies suggesting that
females may be less likely than males to use computers.

Finally, Eurich-Fulcer and Schofield (1995) identified Social and Organizational
Context factors resulting from the culture of schools that can have an impact on network
use. They suggested that because CMC has the potential to break down hierarchical
barriers, it could threaten the status quo. Another issue here involves the organizational
structure of schools with classes broken down into small blocks of time. They indicated
that a related element is the traditional school culture that, for the most part, determines
curriculum content and determines time schedules. Tied to this is the notion that a defined
type of information-generally factual-is the currency of knowledge exchange in schools.
Information available through a wide-area network has the potential to expand this
knowledge beyond fact. A further factor related to the organizational context of schools
is the importance of administrative support. Eurich-F ulcer and Schofield found that to the
“extent that network use is not supported by the top level of an organization, computer
networking will fail to be used broadly and deeply” (p. 218). Incentives such as monetary
rewards, professional recognition, and opportunities for training are ways in which

administrative support could be evidenced.

48

n 1 ions From th R ' f Re! t Li r

This review of literature related to traditional curriculum methods, CMC, and the
use of electronic communication for curriculum development and collaboration yielded
various therrres that shed light on the current study. The process of developing curriculum
is an exercise that requires time, teacher knowledge and skill, and a sense of collaboration.
Leadership and administrative support are two elements important to efi‘ective planning
and follow-through. Traditionally, curriculum development efi’orts have taken place in
face-to—face meetings, and have provided an arena for working through the tensions
infused in the process. The who, what, where, why, and when questions of the curriculum
are subject to social and political influences, with territoriality posing a further tension.
This literature review revealed that the issues of time, environment, and leadership do not
receive adequate attention in current research on curriculum development.

The literature on CMC indicates that this form of communication has the potential
to create and maintain group interaction among people separated in time and space.
Important to this is the fact that electronic communication is asynchronous, allowing
individuals and groups to respond at their convenience. CMC also has the potential to
reduce hierarchical structures in groups, thus allowing for more participation fiom
members. There is some support for the concept that electronic communication offers a
more democratic environment than other forms of communication. However, results of
studies on gender have shown differences in levels of participation and styles of responses
between males and females, with males dominating and being more confrontational.
Finally, from a linguistic perspective, electronic discourse is considered both a spoken and

a written language, containing elements of each. It is also a mode of communication open

49

to misinterpretation because it occurs without the contextual clues found in face-to-face
conversation that help frame intent. Thus, although electronic communication can assist in
bringing groups together, it also increases the possibility of misunderstandings.

Even though the reviewed literature on the use of CMC in curriculum design is
sparse, a number of findings have relevance here. Technical and logistical circumstances,
such as case of computer system use and reliability, have an impact on participant use of
computers in educational networks. Technical support and training are vital to group
projects. Further, the attitudes and characteristics of users and social and organizational
context factors can have an effect on CMC. In addition, the literature offers practical
suggestions for planning projects involving electronic communication, including involving
project partners in the early stages of planning, recruiting teachers from the bottom up
rather than from the top down, phasing in the project over time, and offering technical as
well as human support. Along with this, it is considered important to begin a project with
a clearly articulated purpose and understanding, and to have the project built as a
grassroots effort by including teachers in the planning process.

There is a gradualness to any new method or innovation in education. This may be
particularly true for a technological innovation. It needs to be considered within the
various contexts that help shape its creation and development. This review of related
literature has considered various contexts and in doing so offered a point of reference on
which to flame this study, a foundation on which to build a theory, and a basis for
comparing research findings. The elements found in traditional curriculum design
provided a context for viewing the cuniculum development process used in the project

that was studied, while participants’ ideas regarding factors related to time, leadership,

50

and computer training are issues that received attention. This research fits well within the
growing body of knowledge about the effect that CMC has on individuals and groups and

provides an important contribution to the field.

51

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

n r i n

This research examined the impact of CMC on curriculum development by
geographically dispersed, practicing teachers. The participating teachers developed the
curriculum as part of a special project focused on teaching the concepts of philanthropy
and civic responsibility. The primary question of the study considered: What is the impact
of computer medicated communication (CMC) on the development of curriculum by
geographically dispersed, practicing teachers? Additional questions examined how
participants used electronic communication; how CMC inhibited and/or enhanced
curriculum design; those factors that impacted the frequency of use of CMC; the purposes
for which participating teachers used CMC; the impact of the computer training and
support on participant use of CMC; those factors that assisted or deterred participants
from using CMC for curriculum development; and the role that CMC played in building a
sense of community within a networked project. Further, implications of the study for
policy, practice, and further research were explored.

This chapter details the methodological approach employed in this study, as well as
a rationale for its use. The population studied and data sources are described, followed by

data-collection tools and information regarding existing archival documents that were

52

 

analyzed. The method utilized for data analysis is discussed next, followed by

confidentiality and ethical considerations, with limitations of the research concluding the

chapter.

M h dolo ' A r ch
W93:

This research employed an ethnographic approach, the design of which is
consistent with the qualitative research paradigm. This includes an inquiry process for
understanding a social situation or problem, building a story through the perspectives of
the studied population, and conducting the study in a natural setting (Creswell, 1994). A
qualitative design was usefill for this study because it is exploratory and descriptive, places
importance on context, and searches for meaning in the participants’ lived experiences.

Ethnographic research requires an open-mindedness fi'om the researcher and
embraces a perspective that accepts multiple points of view. The ethnographic study is
noted for its rich narrative descriptions and the technique of studying a topic or problem in
a natural setting. Ethnographic studies are generally inductive, shaping ideas and theories
as the study progresses. Few explicit assumptions are made at the onset, thus allowing for
the development of ideas during the literature review and as the data are considered.
These data are collected from an errric, or insider’s perspective, a perspective that
Fetterrnan (1998) acknowledged is at the heart of most ethnographic research. An etic
perspective is called into play for an external, social-scientific analysis of the data. This
approach is useful when developing a grounded theory because the theory emerges from

the data in relation to previous studies and ideas.

53

 

An ethnographic approach enables the researcher to detail shared beliefs, practices,
folk knowledge, and behaviors of a defined group of people (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993).
Further, the approach allows the investigator to consider multiple data sources gathered
over time and to focus on the participants’ beliefs and perspectives. Key to ethnographic
study is face-to-face interviewing with the participants of the study. This is especially
useful for eliciting participants’ perspectives regarding events and behaviors.

Ethnographic interviews also help pinpoint the nuances of a culture (Marshall & Rossman,
1995). Concern for the cultural context is what sets ethnographic studies apart fi'om other
types of qualitative research (Merriam, 1998, p. 14).

This study began with a big-picture view of the curriculum project and the use of
CMC, which became refined over time. The work of the researcher included sifting
through, organizing, and categorizing a wealth of data garnered from observation, archival
sources, and interviewing. This approach enabled the researcher to sort, compare, and
search for patterns, in addition to describing scenes and events in detail that convey the
meaning of the occurrence. Through descriptive narrative, the beliefs of the participants
and staff unfolded. The goal of this approach, as noted by Fettennan (1998), is to develop
a description that is representative of reality.

This researcher selected an ethnographic approach because it allowed for in-depth
analysis of the topic studied, as defined through the words and behaviors of the
participants. Embedded in this ethnographic research are deep narrative descriptions,
which contribute to an understanding of the culture, beliefs, and ideas of the participants.
Narrative descriptions served as an important data source for this research. In addition,

the study was undertaken in a setting that is natural to the participants.

54

Arr ethnographic approach also allowed for the analysis of data through a variety
of methods, including focus group and individual interviews, as well as for the
consideration of archival information. The complexity of the project under study, along
with its fast-paced evolution and its unique characteristics, support the use of an
ethnographic approach as a suitable research methodology. Further, there is agreement
between the data-collection tools employed for this study and the characteristics of

ethnographic research. This alignment is depicted in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Characteristics of ethnographic studies aligned with data-collection

methods.

 

Characteristics of Ethnographic
Studies

Data-Collection Methods Used
for This Study

 

Includes rich narrative description defined
through the voices of the participants

Taped conversations made with key
informants through focus group and
individual interviews

 

Takes place in the context of a natural
setting

Data collected at regularly scheduled
meetings for project teachers

 

Acknowledges multiple points of view

Views collected from program
participants, staff, outside evaluators, and
archives

 

Allows for shared beliefs, cultural context,
group behavior patterns, and nuances of
the culture

Interviews and meetings held with project
teachers and stafi‘; archival data reviewed

 

Is an inductive process; ideas form over
time

Interviews held and historical data
reviewed over time

 

 

Includes identifying patterns through
comparing and contrasting

 

Multiple data sources studied

 

The researcher employed a grounded theory approach (Creswell, 1994; Merriam

9

1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1994), assuming an inductive stance in an effort to derive

 

meaning fiom the data and a relevant existing body of knowledge. The emerging theory is
substantive because it was drawn from everyday experiences and has a usefulness to
practice. A grounded theory and ethnography are happy partners in that a grounded
theory approach includes a constant-comparative method for comparing one segment of
data with another (Merriam, 1998, p. 18). Further, a major strategy for supporting the
discovery of grounded theory is through a general method of comparative analysis of the
data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). A grounded theory approach also allowed for the
development of a well-codified set of propositions using conceptual categories and
properties. Ultimately, the researcher developed research categories and themes as a
result of employing the constant comparison method, through which patterns were
identified. These patterns were then arranged in relationship to each other in the building
of a grounded theory. As noted by Glaser and Strauss,

Joint collection, coding, and analysis of data is the underlying operation. The

generation of theory, coupled with the notion of theory as process, requires that all

three operations be done together as much as possible. They should blur and
intertwine continually, from the beginning of the investigation to its end. (p. 43)

The Pepulation ant! Data Seurgs

The K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project is a statewide project in Michigan
sponsored by the Council of Michigan Foundations. A variety of donors fi'om both state
and national foundations have firnded the project (see Appendix B). The purpose of the
project was to develop a curriculum for grades K-12 on the teaching of philanthropy as
part of our democratic tradition, and to distribute the curriculum to schools across the
country and other parts of the world. The population studied for this research included

the 43 practicing classroom teachers who were selected for participation in the project. A

56

deeper description of the participating teachers is provided in Chapter IV and detailed in
Table 4.2.

The project staff members and consultants were also interviewed for this study to
obtain their perspectives on the use of CMC as a tool when developing curriculum. The
staff included a project director, a curriculum support person, and a secretary. In addition,
an assessment consultant was under contract with the project, and technical training and
support services were purchased through Michigan State University’s Computer Center.
A marketing specialist, who joined the project in early 1999, was not interviewed for this
research.

All 43 teachers served as the sample population and as the major data source for
the research. The three categories of data sources for the project are noted in Figure 3.1.
Twenty—one of the teachers participated in the focus group interviews, a key data source.
A second source of data included information provided by project stafi‘ and contracted
support persons, who participated in face-to-face, individual interviews. These stafi’
interviews helped the researcher filrther develop an understanding of the context in which
the project took place. Existing archival information regarding participation in the project
comprised a third source of data. These data sources included samples of e-mail
exchanges, journal entries, application information, and a year-one evaluation made up of
stakeholder interviews, round one of the teacher journals, and a survey of the teachers.
The data were eventually triangulated to identify patterns, categories, and themes, and to

discover inconsistencies in the information.

57

Focus Group Interviews

/\

4—

Individual Interviews Archival Data

Figure 3.1: Data sources for the research.

Data-Qellegien Teele

As depicted in Figure 3.1, data for this study included information gathered
through a variety of sources: (a) focus group interviews with participating teachers, (b)
face-to-face interviews with project staff, and (c) document review of existing data
associated with the project. Before data collection began, the researcher obtained
approval fi'om the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects

(UCRIHS) (see Appendix C).

Fecee Qroep Intervie 5

Focus group interviews offered an interesting dimension to data collection because
of their emphasis on dynamic group interaction. The underlying tenets for focus group
interviews are compatible with a qualitative research design in that multiple views of
reality are accepted, they allow for interaction between the researcher and participants,
and they hold that the nature of tnrth is influenced by perspective (Vaughn, Schumm, &

Sinagub, 1996).

58

The focus group interviews provided an organized method for obtaining
information on how and why people behave as they do, as noted by Folch-Lyon and Trost
(1981). In addition, the focus group interviews allowed the researcher to understand a
tapic fi'om the everyday knowledge of the user. Thus, the interviews served as an
important tool for this ethnographic research. In this study the focus group interviews
enabled the researcher, who had initial knowledge of the topic, to gain a far deeper level
of understanding of the nuances and issues involved in the use of CMC in curriculum
development. The interviews helped the researcher ascertain the why behind events and
decisions. Further, the focus group interviews provided a great deal of information in a
relatively short period of time.

Data gained through the focus group interviews added clarity and context to the
questions of the study. The group setting allowed for probing with various degrees of
give and take among the participants, leading to a more precise understanding of the
project from the participant perspective. The focus group interviews served as an
important tool for garnering the perceptions of the participants in the project. These
perceptions were then tied back to the questions of the study. The perceptions of the
project teachers also provided a basis for recommendations for organizing future projects
of this kind.

Before the focus group interviews, the researcher developed a number of tools and
documents (see Appendix D), including the following:

1. Focus Group Interview Protocol Script.

2. Focus Group Interview Questions.

3. Letter to Participants of Focus Group Interview.

59

4. Focus Group Interview Consent Form.

Probes for information relevant to the impact of CMC on curriculum development
were contained in the focus group interview protocol developed by the researcher. Data
collected through the focus group interviews served as the basis through which other data
sources were considered. Because of the dynamic nature of focus groups, participants had
the opportunity to think about and discuss issues and concerns along with other project
teachers. The group setting itself may have encouraged reflective responses. These focus
group interviews afforded the researcher an interesting look at group dynamics, bringing
the investigator closer to the topic.

The focus group interviews were planned to elicit information important to
answering the research questions. Particular importance was placed on:

1. How and why participants used electronic communication in curriculum
design.

2. The challenges they faced in using CMC as a tool when developing curriculum.

3. What was helpfirl to them in using a computer-based communications system.

4. What inhibited the use of CMC for designing curriculum.

5. Their ideas and suggestions regarding the use of CMC when developing
curriculum for future projects, for practice, and for educational policy.

Data from three focus group interviews were collected and analyzed for this study.
Forty-three practicing teachers who participated in the K-12 Education in Philanthropy
Project made up the pool of possible participants for the focus group interviews. The
grade breakdown and number of participating teachers in each of the focus groups are

shown in Table 3.2.

60

Table 3.2: Grade configuration of focus group interviews.

 

 

 

 

Focus Group Grade Level No. of Participants
Focus Group One Grades 9-12 Six project teachers
Focus Group Two Grades 7-12 Seven project teachers
Focus Group Three Grades 2-5 Eight project teachers

 

 

 

 

 

The researcher met with the project director, secretary, and curriculum specialist
to discuss the make-up of the focus groups. The intention was to make sure that the
groups included teachers with a range (low to high) of expertise and level of involvement,
and were representative of the larger group. As part of the K-12 Philanthropy Project, the
participating teachers met face to face on a regularly scheduled basis. The focus group
interviews occurred during one of the scheduled meetings. The 23 teachers who attended
the May 1999 project meeting made up the sample for the focus groups. This group was
carefully reviewed by the project staff to ensure that they were representative of the larger
participant pool. Each teacher was assigned to one of three groups based on the grade
level taught. Two groups were composed of secondary teachers: one of grades 7 through
12, the other of grades 9 through 12. The third focus group included elementary teachers
of grades 2 through 5. Teachers in grade levels kindergarten, 1, 6, and 8 were not
represented in the focus groups. Although not all grade levels were present in the focus

groups, the participants included nearly half of the project teachers.

Fete-to-Feg Interviewe
The face-to-face interview is one of four basic data-collection tools in qualitative

research (Creswell, 1994). The interview is much like a conversation, but one with a

61

specific purpose and embodying a well-planned format. And, although there is planning
involved, the purpose of the interview is to determine the participant’s perspective, rather
than being led by the researcher (Marshall & Rossman, 1995).

The researcher conducted in-depth face-to-face interviews with project stafi'
members and consultants including the project director, the curriculum specialist, the
project secretary, two members of the Michigan State University Computer Center stafl‘,
and the assessment consultant. Project stafi‘ members and consultants were selected for
interviews because their responsibilities allowed them to view various elements of the
project from clearly different perspectives. In addition, they were able to provide a broad
view of the project. Because these project staff members and consultants had been a part
of the project since its inception, they were able to offer historical information relevant to
the study questions.

The researcher developed the following documents to be used for the individual
interviews (see Appendix E):

1. Individual Interview Script.

2. Individual Interview Questions.

3. Letter to Participants of the Individual Interviews.

4. Individual Interview Consent Form.

The interviews focused on the following:

1. How and why project teachers used CMC.

2. What enhanced or inhibited the use of CMC.

3. Implications they drew regarding the impact of computer technology on

curriculum design for practice, policy, and future projects.

62

4. How/whether the use of computers changed over the life of the project.

These interviews provided checks on what the researcher believed to be relevant
and important to the structure of the project. The interview questions were linked to the
major and subquestions of the study. The data collected were analyzed against the data

from other sources to determine consistency, differences of opinion, and alignment in

perceptions.

WW

Using archival documents as a data source is not much different fiom using
interviews or observations in qualitative research, according to Merriam (1998, p. 120).
Locating relevant materials was the first step. To this point, the K-12 Education in
Philanthropy Project possessed a number of documents and materials that were usefill for
review and analysis. The archival documents that were reviewed included:

1. Participant applications to the project.

2. Samples of e-mail exchanges.

3. Michigan State University K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project Year One
Evaluation: Baseline Survey, Stakeholder Interviews, Journal Round One.

4. K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project Journal Round Two.

5. K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project Journal Round Three.

6. Indiana University Evaluation of K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project.

The data found in the archival documents were considered for clarification of
ideas, for obtaining descriptive information, to verify emerging ideas, and for comparative

analysis. The teacher journals provided an especially rich source of information regarding

63

the teachers’ feelings and ideas as they progressed through the project. Again, the focus
of the archival data review was to determine answers to the questions of this study. Of
particular interest was information related to the use of CMC for curriculum development,
and participants’ perceptions of computer technology as a tool in curriculum design.

Implications for policy and practice emerged as an important outcome of the data

gathered.

D t An i

A qualitative research design is an emerging design. In that context, the collection
and analysis of data is a simultaneous process that is recursive and dynarrric (Merriam,
1998, p. 155). To a great extent, how the data in this study were used and analyzed was
defined by the information collected during the focus group interviews with the teachers
and the face-to-face individual interviews with the staff, as well as the review of archival
materials. “With that in mind, the components of the data analysis are considered below:

1. The data analysis was conducted simultaneously with data collection and
interpretation, as well as the narrative report writing.

2. The process of analysis included data interpretation that identified patterns,
categories, and themes.

3. A coding procedure such as the one suggested by Tesch (cited in Creswell,
1994, p. 155) was developed to assist in determining themes from the data.

4. The information garnered fiom the data analysis is represented in display form
as seen in Chapter IV, Figures 4.1 through 4.5 and Tables 4.4 through 4.6, as well as in

Chapter V, Figure 5.1 and Tables 5.1 through 5.3.

5. The analysis and the results of the study are organized around the research
questions identified in Chapter 1.

Using the constant comparative method of data analysis, the researcher generated
many categories and ideas from the data. The analysis included consideration of
conditions, context, processes, consequences of particular actions, and interpersonal
dimensions. No attempt was made to prove a universal concept or to present proof that
one action caused another event. The researcher borrowed fi'om the method suggested by
Glaser and Strauss (1967), using four stages in the process:

1. Comparing incidents applicable to each category: This was accomplished by
writing code words in the margins of the text of the data source.

2. Integrating categories and their properties: The code words were then
assigned to categories on index cards.

3. Delimiting features: The categories were aligned and realigned, sitting out
data segments that were tangential or unsubstantiated by another data source.

4. Defining a framework: The categories were further considered and placed in a
fiamework (see Figure 1.2).

In testing one source of information against another through triangulation, the
various data sources were used to corroborate information and illuminate the research
questions. In addition, by triangulating the data, the researcher identified inconsistencies
and sought to eliminate alternative explanations. Further, this method of analysis served
to improve both the quality and the accuracy of the data analysis. As part of this process
the data were continually compared and contrasted to ferret out consistencies and

inconsistencies in the process of identifying patterns and themes.

65

In addition to triangulation, other strategies were employed to increase internal
validity of this study. An expert panel, this researcher’s dissertation committee, reviewed
the material for comments and feedback. Tentative interpretations were shared with
project participants and staff for a reality check on the interpretations. Finally, the
researcher’s views and biases were clarified at the onset of the study.

When employing a qualitative research design, the traditional idea of reliability can
be elusive. Therefore, reliability in this case was thought of as suggested by Merriam
(1998), in terms of “whether the results are consistent with the data collected” (p. 206).
In this regard, to ensure that results were dependable, this researcher chose to triangulate
the data, identify the researcher’s relationship to the group and project studied, identify the
basis for selecting participants in the focus groups and stafl‘ interviews, and present

information and the process to an expert group.

Cenfieentiejig gee Ethiegt Censidetetiene

All data gathered through the focus group interviews and the face-to-face
interviews were taped and considered confidential. Members of the focus groups were
given pseudonyms to protect their identities. This level of confidentiality was discussed in
the letters to the participants and their agreement-to-participate forms (Appendix D). A
graduate-level speech and language pathologist, skilled in taking language samples, was
present during the focus group interviews to assist with note taking. That assistant did not
know the participants, and provided all written materials to the interviewer upon
conclusion of the focus groups. In the case of project staff, anonymity could not be

granted because only one person held each position. Therefore, attempts were made to

66

include individual thoughts and perspectives in a broader context, where appropriate.
However, their reflections are generally offered noting their position. The project staff
and consultants were made aware in writing before the interview that anonymity could not
be granted, but that confidentiality would be respected (Appendix E). The interview tapes
for both the face-to-face interviews and focus group interviews were transcribed by the
researcher and remain in the sole possession of the researcher. All interviews were
voluntary, with no negative repercussions resulting fiom nonparticipation and no special

rewards being provided to those who participated.

W

This study was undertaken through a unique project, backed by considerable
funding, and sponsored by people with a strong belief in their mission. The project was
limited to the state of Michigan and to one particular endeavor, which might hinder the
generalizability of the study. Another limitation concerns data collection and sources.
Although the focus groups included 21 of the 43 participating teachers, the results may
not be representative of the entire group. Further, there were no teachers in the focus
groups fi'om grades kindergarten, 1, 6, and 8. In addition, the researcher used existing
data that were collected within the constraints of the project and not necessarily as
rigorous research.

Although the researcher approached the study with an open mind, numerous years
of experience as a principal and an assistant superintendent for instruction make up her
cultural perspective. Further, the researcher has served on the steering committee of the

project since its inception, and the project rents space at the Muskegon Area Intermediate

67

School District, where the researcher is the associate superintendent. These stated

conditions could influence the study in a way that would weaken the results.

68

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS

In r i n

Earnest

This research was undertaken to examine the impact of CMC on the development
of curriculum units by geographically dispersed, practicing teachers. The researcher
investigated the circumstances and conditions by which CMC assisted and/or inhibited
practicing classroom teachers working with colleagues throughout Michigan in the
development of lesson plans and curriculum materials. Specifically, the lesson plans and
units were and continue to be developed by teachers involved in the K-12 Education in
Philanthropy Project, an initiative designed to create a K-12 curriculum in the teaching of

philanthropy and civic responsibility.

Ethnegtephy

As an ethnographic study, themes and insights are reported from the point of view
of the participants. In this case, quotations from the participants and staff, as well as
references to the identified factors that influence curriculum development in a networked
project, are the supporting data provided in Chapter IV for the conclusions drawn in
Chapter V. As noted in Chapter III and in Table 4.1, a variety of data sources were

analyzed in relation to the research questions. The researcher triangulated the data

69

sources to substantiate comments and as a means to sift out data that had no other
supporting documentation. In the process of analyzing the focus group and individual
interview transcripts, journals, and survey data, the researcher assigned code words to
significant phrases, sentences, or paragraphs. These code words were then grouped into
categories, thereby developing themes. These themes are discussed in Chapter V along

with Research Question 3. Research Questions 1 and 2 are discussed in this chapter.

Table 4.1: Data sources.

 

 

 

Type of Data Source
Periodic written jounrals from the teachers over Michigan State University K-12 Education in
two years Philanthropy Project formative evaluation data
A written baseline survey Michigan State University K-12 Education in

Philanthropy Project formative evaluation data

 

Written application documents from the teachers Philanthropy project archival data

 

Interviews with the project managers and staff Individual face-to-face interviews

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interviews with teachers Indiana University evaluation of K-12 Education
in Philantlu'opy Project
Focus groups with teachers selected to represent Focus group interviews
the participants
E-mail exchanges Sample of e-mail exchanges
Beatlemania

Forty-three teachers representing both public and private schools participated in
this project (see Table 4.2). Nearly half, 21 of the 43, teach in elementary grades
kindergarten through 5. Six teach in grades 6 to 8, with the remaining 16 teachers

working with students in grades 9 through 12. All of the teachers in the K-12

70

Philanthropy in Education Project have firll-time teaching responsibilities in addition to

their involvement in the project.

Table 4.2: Participants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade Level K—2 3-5 6—8 9-12
School Type Public/Private Public/Private Public/Private Public/Private
Rural 1 2 0 3
Suburban 3 2 3 10
Urban 2 1 l 3 3

Total 6 15 6 l6

 

This is a skilled professional cadre of teachers. The teachers range in experience

from 5 to 25 years, with most teachers falling into the 20-year range. A baseline survey,

taken as part of the first-year project evaluation, conducted in the spring of 1998 (Silver,

1998) indicated that 67% of the teachers hold an advanced degree. The remaining

teachers hold bachelor’s degrees, with additional credits being earned toward an advanced

degree. Twenty-two percent are using project involvement to earn graduate credit.

Silver’s survey firrther revealed that the majority of project teachers have had previous

experience in developing new curricula, with 83% indicating two previous experiences and

33% indicating four or more experiences developing new curricula.

In the following discussion, Research Questions 1 and 2 are presented in turn,

allowing the voices of representative group members to enrich the narrative.

71

 

Result Fr m Re

h estion 1

What is the impact of CMC on individual practice?

Reeeeteh Qpeetion Is

How is the use of CMC different from other modes of communication, and
how has it affected the use of these other modes of communication?

This section reviews the initial part of the first research question regarding how the

use of CMC is different fi'om other modes of communication. A component of this

discussion is the efi’ect CMC has had on other forms of communication. Ways in which

CMC differs from other forms of communication are noted in Table 4.3. These were

derived fi'om the variety of data sources described in Table 4.1. Statements from the

surveys, interviews, and focus groups are used to demonstrate the differences reported.

Table 4.3: How CMC differs from other communication.

 

Computer Mediated Communication

Other Forms of Communication

 

Less personal than face to face

More personal because face to face

 

Asynchronous nature overcomes time and
distance issues

Real-time, same location

 

Forwarding exact messages possible;
messages are clearly in writing

Messages often are changed as a result of
the human factor in communication

 

Lacks visual cues, so rrrisinterpretations
are possible

Provides visual and auditory cues that
enhance nuanced understanding

 

Reduces the need for paper copies

Continues to need paper copies

 

Reduces the need for telephone
conversation

Continues the need for telephone
conversation

 

Information easily shared

Voice-mail (an alternative option) does
not allow time for such messages

 

Reduces the number of meetings needed

 

 

 

Continues the number of meetings

 

72

Project teachers found CMC to be less personal than face-to-face communication.
As one teacher stated, “It’s a machine!” Yet, most teachers appreciated the asynchronous
nature of CMC because time and distance are not factors in communicating electronically.
One teacher explained, “I can use email any time, and I have access to everyone!”
Another noted, “I can respond at a time when 1 want.” One fellow offered this analogy:
“To me it’s like this huge mailbox in the sky!” A number of teachers commented on the
convenience of being able to receive and send messages at home after school. One high
school teacher appreciated the informality of e-mail as well as that it saved time. Gwynne
and Dickerson (1997) pointed to the convenience of asynchronous communications for
work groups as well as the possibility of saving time. It was revealed in the stafi‘
interviews that new email users often followed up their messages with a phone call to
check if the message got through. As teachers became more comfortable with CMC, they
did not make the follow-up calls. Not every teacher saw the asynchronous nature of CMC
as a benefit. “Whoa! You don’t have a voice . . . never know if messages go through.
Are they getting it, or is it lost in cyberspace?” exclaimed one teacher in a focus group.

Innovation theory would suggest that this reaction, even the “whoa” statement
itself, is indicative of an individual assuming a “resister” stance. Havelock (1973) wrote,
“Many social systems also contain some members who assume the active role of resisters
or critics of innovation” (p. 120). A simple orientation to the “notification of delivery”
firnction in e-mail would solve the presenting problem voiced by this teacher. It would not
solve any underlying resistance to the use of technology for communication.

CMC also differs from other modes of communication by ofi‘ering the option of
forwarding messages to others rather than duplicating the information through print or by

phone. This provides a first-hand account versus a second-hand opinion. Teachers noted

73

that CMC is “just like writing or reading a letter” and thought that because there was a
record, misunderstandings were reduced, as indicated by one of the middle school
teachers: “It’s more exact. You have it in writing in front of you versus having to
interpret what they said on the phone.” Sproull and Kiesler (1992) noted that with CMC
there is a written record that can be referred to at a later date.

Although CMC does provide a written record, several project stafi‘ members noted
that misunderstandings occurred through CMC because it lacks the social cues that are
apparent in face-to-face communication. The curriculum specialist reflected in an
individual interview, “Humor can be misinterpreted, especially something like tongue-in-
cheek comments.” When considering the nature of communication and the strengths and
weaknesses of the written word, versus the face-to-face verbal communication, a number
of issues arise. Body language in gesture, positioning, eye contact, energy level, and
animation is lost in the written word. Verbal cues such as an underlying chuckle, raising
or lowering volume, raising or lowering pitch, and vibrancy are also lost in the written
word. Conversely, the speed of verbal communication, mental “lag time” in processing
the spoken word, and communication misunderstandings fiom mixed verbal and visual
cues often impede the clarity of communicating through the spoken word. These
difi'erences have been noted in the literature on CMC (Davis & Brewer, 1997; Reid, 1996;
Sproull & Kiesler, 1992).

A significant effect of CMC pointed out by the project curriculum specialist was
that it reduced the need for providing all materials in hard copy. Initially, all materials
were provided in hard copy. After participants became more skilled on the computer,

many communications and materials were shared electronically. The project secretary and

74

director also rerrrarked that CMC had reduced the need for providing everything in hard
copy.

CMC eliminated the need for fi'equent phone conversations. Because it is difficult
to contact teachers by phone during the workday, both teachers and support staff saw this
as a positive deve10pment. The project director said that early on in the project she was
calling teachers at home at night. Now they email back and forth. An elementary teacher
pointed out, “E-mail can be better than voice mail because of the option to give very
detailed and specific information. It also gives you the chance to clarify comments.”
Davis and Brewer (1997) submitted that CMC ofi‘ers the opportunity for writers to explain
their work, unlike traditional text in which the written word can be misinterpreted.

Through CMC, information can be shared and contacts can be made that clarify
the purpose of a meeting, set plans for lunch, and assign tasks, for example. During the
focus groups, teachers indicated that they appreciated receiving materials in advance of
meetings that they would otherwise have received at the face-to-face meeting. The
project secretary, who is in regular contact with participants, stated, “Because teachers
share electronically, they feel that they know each other. This has enhanced their
relationships.”

During an individual interview, the curriculum specialist remarked that the use of
CMC had cut down on the total number of meetings required: “Without electronic
communication, it would be arduous. It would take a lot of the joy out of it. . . . We
would have had to meet more often.” Another perspective offered by the project director
held that because the teachers were so fi'ustrated with the technology when the project

first started, the staff added more face-to-face meetings. She agreed with the curriculum

75

specialist, however, regarding the effect CMC has had on the total number of face-to-face
meetings. She elaborated, “All the lessons have been sent and stored electronically.
Without the computer system we would have had to meet, we would have had to use snail
mail . . . it would have been impossible if we would have had to do it with paper.”

A final point of interest that was raised in one of the teacher focus groups involved
the conference calls. Conference calls were offered as another option for communicating.
Although the calls were used by some of the teachers, conference calling waned because
of limited involvement. Addressing the lack of interest in the conference calls, one of the
elementary teachers stated that CMC had “killed the telephone conferences.” Another
teacher wrote in her journal, “I have not found the conference calls particularly helpfirl. It
seems to me that for the most part the information provided could have been emailed
more efficiently.” However, a number of the teachers indicated that they were
uncomfortable with the telephone conference format. “I didn’t know when to chime in,”
one of the teachers stated. That could have added to the demise of the telephone
conferences. This is a factor that was not determined through the present research.

The reeipregl reletionship of CMC and faee-te-fege meetings. Both participants
and project staff indicated that CMC enhanced the experience of face-to-face meetings,
but the face-to-face meetings also enhanced CMC. Journal entries indicated that the face-
to-face meetings “help to maintain the momentum of the program.” Journalers described
the group meetings, using words such as “essential,” “crucial,” and “valuable.” This
reciprocity underscores the use of CMC as a tool to enhance a process, not as a total
replacement for direct and face-to-face interaction. In this light, CMC may also be seen as

a tool that can build a sense of community during the curriculum development process. In

76

a study on facilitating collegial exchanges in computer-based conferencing, Katz,
McSwiney, and Stroud (1987) found that the network communications provided a channel
for communications that served to increase the teachers’ professional contact beyond what
could be gained from face-to-face communications. The researchers firrther remarked that
it is important to provide opportunities for face-to-face interactions as a meaningful
ingredient to communicating on-line.

53mm In summary, data culled through carefirl analysis of the journals,
written surveys, archival records, interviews, and focus groups suggest that there is a
relationship between CMC and other forms of communication. CMC has not replaced the
other fornrs of communication, but participating teachers and stakeholders identified
strengths as well as weaknesses when CMC was compared to other avenues of

communication.

WI:

For what purposes do participants use CMC?

This section explores the responses, as documented fi'om the analyzed data
sources, regarding how the participating teachers used CMC. E-mail was the primary
communication vehicle and was used for editing, emotional support, requesting
information, sharing lessons, and research. These uses are depicted graphically in Figure
4.1. Two other forms of CMC, the list serv and the bulletin board, were not used as

fi'equently by the teachers.

77

Editing of original lesson plans

 

Purposes for Requesting information

which teachers

use CMC Sharing lessons
Emotional Support
Research

Figure 4.1: Purposes for the use of CMC.

M The teachers used CMC, in particular e-mail, for a variety of purposes,
including editing original lesson plans, requesting information, sharing lessons, offering
support to other members of the project, and conducting research.

Editing: The teachers and the curriculum specialist exchanged lesson plans for the
purpose of review and editing. The curriculum specialist taught the teachers how to edit
on-line and then send the lessons by e-mail. During the focus group interviews with the
teachers and during the individual interviews with the curriculum specialist, project
director, and assessment consultant, the use of e-mail for editing was discussed. One
teacher stated, “We send our lessons to Terry. He is the one that taught me how to attach
the lessons to my e-mail and how to edit the lessons.” The curriculum specialist reflected,
“At first they had problems; now they can format, exchange ideas, and edit their lessons,
and send them back to me.” The assessment consultant stated in an individual interview,
“After a face-to-face meeting, the teachers reviewed the material and sent it to me by
e-mail.”

Requesting information: Information gathered through the focus group

interviews, individual interviews, joumals, and e-mail samples showed that e-mail was

78

employed by the teachers to request information fi'om the stafl‘ and from each other. The
information requested ranged from inquiries about meeting dates and times to information
about a particular lesson. A secondary teacher ofi’ered, “I use it [email] to communicate
with others in the project. I send messages to staff to ask about things we need to do in
the project.” A journal entry stated, “We receive e-mail regularly and it is up to us to use
the e-mail to ask questions, make comments, etc. Whenever I have sent information or
asked a question by e-mail, I have received a prompt response.” Katz et al. (1987)
reported similar findings in a study of science teachers, noting that the most fiequent
network exchanges involved seeking/ofi‘ering information and responding. In her study of
the AT&T Learning Network, Riel (1990a) found that teacher participants showed a
greater willingness to request information electronically than teachers not on the network.
Riel’s work may have implications for curriculum development where it is important to
seek out and request information in the updating and development of new curricular
materials.

Sharing: Data gathered from the focus group interviews, samples of e-mail, as
well as the individual interviews with the curriculum specialist, project director, and
project secretary show that the teachers shared their lessons with others via e-mail.
Indeed, the curriculum specialist required that lessons be shared electronically rather than
by hard copy. Although both elementary and secondary teachers were most likely to share
their lessons with the curriculum specialist, during one of the focus groups, the elementary
teachers stated a willingness to share with each other also. In a different focus group,
Joanne stated, “I send my lessons to Terry, not really to the other teachers in the project.”

Others in the focus group nodded at her remark. This supports the finding of Riel

79

(1990b), who suggested that the majority of interaction in a network project occurs
between the moderator or leader and an individual teacher.

Emotional support: In journals, the e-mail samples, and the focus group
interviews, the teachers stressed the importance of the support offered by the project staff.
This support was regularly given over email. The teachers also provided each other with
such support, as was evident when the mother of one of the teachers was gravely ill. The
emotional support was bounced back and forth over email in an effort to shore up the
teacher as she dealt with her difficult situation. In a study of electronic communities of
learners, Weir (1992) noted the emotional support that teachers offered each other in the
TERC Stafi‘ Schools project. Honey and Henriquez (1993) listed greater opportunities for
professional support and grth as a benefit of using networks for communication.

Research: The teachers used CMC for research, as did the project curriculum
specialist and director. E-mail was employed for contacting sources outside the project
for information that could be usefirl in lesson development. Silva and Breuleux (1994)
suggested that one of the important reasons for supporting collaborative networking
projects is that intellectual resources found in research centers and universities become
more easily accessible. Negroponte (1995) pointed out the effect that digital technology
has on helping people pull information together. In addition to e-mail, the project web site
provided a hefty list of reference sources for research purposes. One teacher commented,
“I use it [CMC] primarily for finding information, research.” Others in the focus group
agreed that they also used CMC to help with their research as it is important to lesson

development.

80

Summary of reported purposes for using e-mail: During the focus group
interviews, the teachers suggested that there had been a change in how they used CMC
since the project started, identifying skill with computers and overcoming technical
problems as the reason. The following statements demonstrate the recurring themes in the
surveys and interviews supporting each use of e-mail. Each use is noted in parentheses
that follow the quotation.

Initially, few teachers used e-mail. One who did stated, “I was one of the first
people to start using email. My main goal was to find out where the project was going.

. . . I e-mailed other teachers and got no response, so I stopped” (requesting information).
Another participant indicated that at first he used the Internet for searches in the
development of lessons (research). “Then, as we deveIOped, I found it very usefirl to send
ideas, lessons, the entire unit by e-mail to Teny and to Kathy and other administrators of
the project” (sharing lessons, editing, requesting information). One of the university staff
members providing computer support noted, “A number of them [the teachers] did not
have email before this project . . . so they started from not communicating by electronic
means to actually using it. People are beconring more comfortable with e-mail. At first it
was a lot of phone calls, but now it has been emails, when they want information and
help” (emotional support, requesting information).

An assessment subcommittee within the larger group had worked together
developing assessment tools. As part of this work, the group members were required to
communicate electronically to share ideas and offer feedback. The assessment consultant
imposed this structure, which served to increase electronic communication. Gerard, a high

school teacher, noted, “Tom showed us how to critique each other’s work on e-mail and

81

how to change it and see comments” (editing, sharing lessons, emotional support). In
addition, the project curriculum specialist required that lessons be sent to him
electronically. Participants and other staff concluded that because of this requirement, the
project teachers had to learn how to use e-mail and attach documents.

Electronic communication with the project staff provided an effective means of
information exchange in real time. Twenty of the 21 focus group participants indicated
that they had communicated electronically with each other and with the project staff
(requesting information, sharing lessons). The member who had not used e-mail at all was
one of four project teachers on the staff at a high school. She relied on the other three for
her information and indicated that she had not needed to use the computer for
communication purposes. She also stated that. she did not have the time to learn to use the
computer and felt no compelling need to do so because others in her group communicated

for her.

Li rv ulle in board. Two options for electronic communication that were

 

not used to any extent by the participants include the list serv and the electronic bulletin
board. These options were provided rather early in the project when most of the
participants were getting their computers installed and just learning about their
responsibilities to the project and about their computers. A number of the participants had
never used a computer before, so they did not understand how or why to use a list serv or
bulletin board. Sproull and Kiesler (1992) suggested that there is less audience awareness
when communicating electronically because the audience is not immediately present or may
be unknown to the communicator. However, in this project the participants were quite

aware of the audience. A member of the university computer staff indicated,

82

The electronic bulletin board was not particularly successfirl, and that equates well
to my experience with other projects. Ifyou have a nrix of users, some
experienced and people with less experience like in this project, some people are
really timid to use a new technology, and when you use a bulletin board system
that is right out there in front of everyone else, what you are writing is right there.

Ifyou make a dumb mistake, everyone can see it.

ML The project staff used electronic communication to support the teachers
in various ways. A web-site was created to provide a place to visit for resources. This
web-site included an annotated bibliography of philanthropy resources, speeches by
philanthropic leaders, a list of approximately 300 related web-sites, information on the
project, a student service curriculum developed in New York State, and the bulletin board.
Eventually, the developed lessons will reside on the web site.

Mm Themes emerging fiom the data-journals written over a two-year
period, a written baseline survey, archival documents that self-report information about
the participating teachers, interviews with staff and consultants, a sample of e-mail
exchanges, and focus groups with teachers-indicate that teachers used CMC for five
purposes: editing, emotional support, requesting information, sharing lessons, and
research. The primary vehicle used was e-mail.

Two other options, list serv and the bulletin board, were not as enthusiastically
endorsed. Literature on change and innovation (Havelock, 1973) would suggest that
virtually all of the teachers navigated through the six steps of the adoption process:
awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, adoption, and integration relative to the e-mail

function. The help desk consultants suggested that the list serv and bulletin board

filnctions were less successful in their integration.

83

The experience of the consultants was that the public nature of the “trial” stage for
the list serv and bulletin board impeded the adoption process. “In the trial stage the
individual uses the innovation to a small scale in order to find out how it will work in his
own situation” (Havelock, 1973, p. 114). The large-scale, public nature of these two
filnctions, compared to e-mail which can be either public (as with messages to multiple
recipients) or private, may be the reason these two CMC vehicles have not yet been widely

adopted by the teachers.

Wining

What impacts the frequency of communicating electronically?

The third component of the first research question seeks to identify what impacts
the frequency of communicating electronically. Archival data, written surveys, teacher
journals, personal interviews, and focus groups provided insights into this question. Six
factors emerged. They are depicted in Figure 4.2. Time, skill, access, feedback, and
mechanical/technical issues, as well as whether there was a purpose for communicating,
are the factors that had the greatest impact on how fi'equently teachers communicated
electronically.

IE2. Time-related factors included competing demands such as family, teaching
responsibilities, and amount of reading required by the project. It is not surprising that
time was mentioned repeatedly as the factor most affecting fi'equency of use, as Martin
stated in a focus group: “Time with a capital T!” The project teachers, all of whom
worked full time, had to acquire knowledge in a new content area and learn new computer

skills. The effect of time was also stressed in journal entries. One teacher noted in her

84

journal, “I have learned a great deal about managing e-mail. I realize I still have much to
learn; however, time [fie] is the question.” One of the teachers who was given release
time commented that the element of time had been crucial because it allowed for the
luxury of being able to use e-mail and to be able to experiment with new information.
Time was cited by Weir (1992) as an important factor for participation in the Star School
Project, indicating that some teachers had dropped out of the project due to lack of time.
In addition, Coulter and Feldman (1995) identified that the competing demands for a
teacher’s time impeded curriculum implementation in a networked project. Eurich-Fulcer
and Schofield (1995) also pointed to time as a factor that affects network usage in

schools.

Time Skill Access
Frequency
Purpose Feedback Mechanical/Technical
Factors

Figure 4.2: Factors that impact the frequency of CMC.

The project plan called for teachers to receive release time during the first semester

to write lessons. Because of organizational difficulties, most significantly the lack of

85

substitute teachers, this release time was not available to all the teachers. In addition, the
release time available was not consistent across the project. Although this feature of the
project was not a focus of the present study, a couple of observations can be made based
on teachers’ remarks during the focus groups. The teachers who received the release time
appreciated it but thought it would have been more useful during the second semester
because they lacked adequate computer skills in the initial months of the project. Those
teachers who did not have release time considered the lack of release time to be a definite
disadvantage because they were so pressed for time to work on the curriculum.

Skill. Teachers also noted that their levels of competence with computers affected
the frequency of using CMC. The lack of computer know-how not only had an impact on
the frequency of computer use, it also caused great fiustration among the new users.
Frustration with technology boiled over in round one of the journals, with one of the
teachers writing,

Frustration and actual tears accompanied this entire torturous nightmare. It was

not until about November that we [writer and teammate] actually became

somewhat proficient in the use of them [computers]. Now, however, I wonder
how I ever would get along without my computer, the Internet, and email! My
improved computer skills have great side benefits for my regular teaching and
personal life!
Within the focus groups, the teachers discussed how their lack of skill in the beginning of
the project impeded their progress and reduced their use of CMC. In one of the focus
groups, a high school teacher stated that he did not use e-mail at first because he “didn’t

want to look stupid.” Castle et a1. (1990) found that computer skill and training are

factors most associated with network use.

86

Ame, Technical and access issues took their toll. Even though all project
teachers eventually received a computer, during the first months of the project not all
teachers had their computers. The project required that teachers who selected desktop
computers keep those computers in their classrooms the first semester. This limited
evening and weekend access. In the 1998 Baseline Survey, Silver noted, “Some teachers
had not made extensive use of e-mail to keep in contact with their teammates or the
project leaders. A major reason for this may be that the computers themselves were not
available fi'om the very beginning of the project” (p. 17). Eurich-Fulcer and Schofield
(1995) noted that access and availability of computers have an obvious impact on
use-those with access use the computer more than those without access. Coulter and
Feldman (1995) also indicated that lack of computer access can impede implementation of
a project.

The project support staff members were surprised at how little access teachers had
to computers We their involvement in the project. Most of the teachers had limited
access to computers before the project began. This situation affected the fiequency with
which the teachers used CMC during the first six to eight months of the project. During
an individual interview, one of the computer support staff members commented that she
considered this an “opportunity cost” because the lack of opportunity to use computers
before the project had a negative impact on initial computer use.

Teachers eventually had regular access to computers. In the focus groups, when
asked what helped them use electronic communication for curriculum development, they
responded that access to a computer had a positive efi‘ect. Eventually, the teachers began

to depend on CMC for important project information. During a focus group, an

87

elementary teacher commented, “If I couldn’t access the computer for information, I felt
out of the loop!”

m Teachers noted that they used CMC consistently if there was a
compelling purpose for doing so. For example, when the assessment consultant expected
that the assessment team members exchange drafts of assessment tools, they did. The
importance of building in reasons for project participants to communicate electronically as
a means of increasing CMC was noted by Coulter and Feldnran (1995).

Early in the project, the cuniculum specialist required that lessons be sent as
attachments to e-mail. Because of this requirement, the teachers began sending lessons
electronically. Jennifer recounted, “That’s howl learned e-mail. We had to send him
attachments and e-mail.” During the focus groups, the teachers mentioned that they
contacted project staff and each other for other purposes, such as requests for time
schedules, lesson information, and even recipes. The project director stated in an
individual interview that requiring the teachers to furnish information electronically
provided an important incentive to learn to use electronic communication and a purpose
for using it.

Feedback. Another factor that influenced the frequency of electronic
communication involved feedback to a person’s messages. During a focus group, Gloria
stated, “At first I sent many e-mail messages, but then I stopped because no one was
responding to them.” Gloria entered the project as a competent computer user with skills
beyond those of other project participants. During the focus groups the teachers
commented on the importance of feedback from project staff, particularly the curriculum

specialist. They awaited his response to their lessons and felt encouraged when he

88

responded. When one of the elementary teachers commented in a focus group, “His
[curriculum specialist] enthusiasm assisted my lack of knowledge,” the other group
members nodded their heads, making affimring comments. In the baseline survey, Silver
(1998) remarked on the importance of feedback, suggesting that timely feedback is
important to reinforcing the teachers’ motivation level. ‘

MW Mechanical/technical factors exerted an impact on
the fiequency with which teachers used CMC. Difficulties arose within some of the
schools due to lack of sufficient technical support. In one of the school systems, the
equipment had to be bolted down to ensure it would not be stolen. A significant and
unexpected access issue involved local district fire walls installed to protect students from
disturbing material available on the Internet. The fire walls, installed as a student safety
procedure, interfered with connections to the project and the Internet in general. The
problem of the fire walls was noted in several of the individual interviews, as well as
during the focus groups and in the journals. Problems caused by technical and mechanical
issues reduced the frequency with which teachers used CMC because these problems
reduced computer access.

The initial tasks of installation and set-up and getting on line varied in relation to
technical support available. Information offered during the focus groups and individual
interviews, as well as the first journal round, points to the fiustrations of those without
adequate technical support. Wilson (1998), in his report Journals, Round I, commented
that “those [teachers] with technical support from schools, colleagues, or family made
quick progress. Others who did not have access to this support found the process very

fi'ustrating” (p. 3). The literature on networked curriculum projects underscores the

89

dificulties encountered because of the lack of adequate technical support, and the impact
that this circumstance has on both CMC and the project itself (Coulter & Feldman, 1995;
Eurich-Fulcer & Schofield, 1995; Riel, I990b; Weir, 1992).

Sum In determining what impacts the frequency of CMC, six factors
emerged fiom the analysis of the written surveys, journals, interviews, archival
information, and focus groups. These six factors—time, skill, access, purpose, feedback,
and mechanical/ technical issues-all played a role in affecting the frequency of the use of

CMC.

R h i n 1
What components of computer training impacted participant use of CMC?
The fourth component of the first research question explores the extent to which
computer training had an impact on the use of CMC. As depicted in Figure 4.3, both

formal and informal training opportunities existed for the project teachers.

Local Tech Support

\. j \

Initial Training On-line Courses Help Line Family Help Desk

Figure 4.3: Training components.

90

W During the fall of 1997, two months into the beginning of
the project, the teachers were offered eight hours of computer training in a lab setting.
When the project computers were given to the teachers, the software and hardware
needed for the project had already been installed. Common hardware and software
allowed for common training and also sharing of information between the teachers,
teachers and staff, and teachers and the help desk. In addition, the teachers had a
dedicated helpodesk person familiar with the project whom they could call, e-mail, or fax
at any time during business hours.

On-line computer courses were made available to the teachers fiee of charge
through the university. These included introductory classes through the highest level
training in Microsoft Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Access, and web-page development. The
courses were self-paced, could be taken whenever the teacher was available, and were
self-scoring. In addition, each teacher was provided a mini-grant of $500 in year one,
$250 in year two, and $250 in year three to use toward the project. Staff suggested to the
teachers that these mini-grants were appropriate for supporting computer training through
a local vendor, an intermediate school district, or a community college program.

Hands-on training: There is no uniform opinion regarding the effectiveness of
the initial training. Factors outside the control of the trainers had an impact: Not all of
the teachers had computers at the time of the training; the training was offered at the
beginning of the school year, a busy time for teachers; and the skill levels of the teachers
ranged from competent to no previous experience with computers.

Many of the teachers expressed feelings of frustration regarding learning to use the

computers. Anderson stated, “[We had] a barrage of information without practice time

91

. . . [but] it did give me some courage to try some things.” Rene concluded, “I thought it
[computer training] was inadequate. . . . There were different levels of ability, with some
people playing solitaire.”

On-line training: As of the summer of 1999, 10 teachers had signed up for the
on-line computer courses. Three teachers signed up for two classes each. Lack of time
once again emerged as the primary reason that more of the teachers did not take
advantage of these fiee classes. Teachers did say that they planned to take an on-line class
during the summer when they had more time, but only five did this. Two other reasons
offered for not registering for a class involved lack of confidence and not wanting to show
incompetence. One teacher revealed that she did not believe she would be able to figure
out how to take a class on—line.

Family and friends: In every focus group, teachers indicated that the assistance
of their spouse or children was what really helped them: “I never would have survived the
training-my husband and children bailed me out!” Friends at home and at school also
provided valuable assistance. As related by one teacher in a focus group, “I would ask a
friend who knows a lot about computers to help me when I was in trouble.” Others
mentioned the importance of the help offered by fiiends. In Journal Round 3, a teacher
wrote, “The support I have used most is from my peers.” The technical support of fiiends
and family was seen as such a benefit to leaming to use the computer that one of the urban
teachers indicated during a focus group that she felt at a disadvantage because she was a
single person with no family to assist her.

Help desk and help line: Technical support was provided to the teachers in

addition to the computer training through a help desk at Michigan State University, and

92

with a 1-800 number available 24 hours a day. Further assistance was available through
the Dell Computer help line. In Journal Round 3, a teacher noted that the sources of
computer support that she used included “support from fiiends, co-workers, and De
Another teacher noted that Dell provided “wonderful support.” Not all the teachers took
advantage of the assistance available through the help desk. During a focus group, when
asked why, teacher responses varied from “I didn’t know about it” to “I did not know
what questions to ask.” One journal entry noted, “I underutilized MSU support. I know
now but did not reach out for it.” For those who had the confidence to use the help desk,
it was seen as an extremely valuable resource. As described in a teacher journal, “Sue
Goodrich [of the help desk] was helpfirl in finally solving my problems.” Another teacher
explained, “Sue Goodrich and her staff were wonderfirl! I couldn’t say enough nice things
about how willing she was to help.” However, other teachers did not find it so useful, as
noted in this journal entry: “The first couple of months were extremely fiustrating as I
attempted to become computer literate. I did not find MSU particularly helpful.”

Staff coaching: Besides the computer training, technical assistance was provided
by project staff. At monthly teacher meetings, the curriculum specialist spent time with
teachers who were having trouble with the computers. The secretary visited three of the
teachers on-site to work with them on issues such as saving Word documents and
removing the shipping cardboard from the printer. During the focus groups, the teachers
mentioned that the project secretary was very helpfirl and even made site visits to assist
some of the teachers in need. This was especially appreciated because she sat down at the
computer with the teacher being helped. Project staff played an important role in the

informal computer training. The curriculum specialist, in particular, walked teachers

93

through computer operations. During the focus groups, the teachers remarked that his
help was specific to their need and offered them encouragement. A notation in one of the
teacher’s journals revealed, “Judy had helped me. Terry explained how to do attachments
and required we do our lessons on Word and in a prescribed nranner and sent via e—mail.”
Local tech support: Although the level of tech support within the schools of the
project teachers varied, those with an accessible technology support stafi‘ member
remarked that this support was valuable. One teacher wrote in her journal, “School has a
computer support person in each bldg. Since the bulk of my day is spent at school, they
are my resources.” The large city school and the smaller rural districts had limited or no
access to a computer support person on staff. During the focus group interviews and
through the individual staff interviews, both the teachers and project staff stated that
district support staff provided helpfill assistance to the teachers. However, at the time that
the teachers were first learning to use the computers and new programs, it was the
beginning of the school year, an exceptionally busy time for tech staff. Therefore, the tech
support was not always available even to those with technology technicians on staff.
Ftpetretiens with the training end with technolegy. Frustration with technology
jumped out as a dominant theme of the first round of journal entries written during the
spring of 1998. Learning to use computers effectively presented a significant challenge to
a majority of the teachers. The journal entries identified problems getting on line,
inadequate set-up of some computers, and a general feeling of frustration and inadequacy.
The overall problems associated with getting all members up to speed may have
contributed to the teachers’ perceptions regarding the computer training. During a focus

group, Elaine attested that the computer training completely revolutionized her teaching:

94

“I hit the wall! I now know how it feels to be dense or slow!” Mary Jane added, “It
[computer training] had zero impact.” When asked what could have made the training
more useful, the typical response was to have a person come to their location and sit with
them while providing individual training.

From another perspective, the project curriculum specialist maintained, “For many
teachers the technical training has had a tremendous impact.” He provided evidence of
this by stating that he was receiving far fewer calls for assistance than at the beginning of
the project, as was the computer support team from Michigan State University. In
addition, he indicated that the teachers now displayed more confidence using computers
-for example, talking about zip files and various web sites they visited. The project
secretary contended that the training “helped tremendously-for those with some
experience. However, for those without prior computer experience, the training was
premature.” She firrther stated, “Mthout the training the process would have been
slowed and lessons would have been handwritten. . . . The training got everyone at least
used to using the computers.” The project director thought that, without the technical
training and assistance, some of the project teachers would not have been able to use the
technology available to them.

me; In considering lessons learned from the training experience, the
project director indicated that next time she would offer a whole schedule of training
options for small groups. Also, she would identify a person within each teacher’s school
system with technical expertise whom the teacher could ask for assistance. The project

director offered this insight: “The problem is . . . you can go to a training course and it’s

95

like eating Chinese food. You’re full when you walk out and by the time you get to your
desk you are hungry again.”

Sum The computer training for the project was realized through both formal
and informal channels. The formal training included eight hours of hands-on instruction in
a lab setting. The teachers were also offered on-line computer classes through the
university, although only about one quarter of the teachers had signed up. Informal
avenues for training included assistance fiom family, fiiends, staff, the help desk and help

line, and local tech support.

WM

How has the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project encouraged
participants to employ CMC in their efforts to produce a curriculum on the
teaching of philanthropy and civic responsibility?

The final component of the first research question considers how the K—12
Education in Philanthropy Project encouraged participants to use CMC as they developed
the curriculum. Archival data, written surveys, teacher journals, personal interviews, and
focus group interviews served as data sources that assisted in answering the question.
Sources of support provided by the project were realized through project leadership,
curriculum support, and incentives. A brief discussion is offered first to firrther provide a
context regarding the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project.

Cgrtegt The K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project proposal was developed
over a two-year planning period. Advisors for the planning included classroom teachers,

service learning coordinators, school and intermediate school district administrators, and

representatives from the Michigan Department of Education’s (MDE) curriculum division.

96

The advisors based their discussions on their experiences in education, and on a year-long
national study on the status of philanthropy education in the United States.

The advisory committee of seasoned educators worked in cooperation with a
larger steering committee of foundation, nonprofit, and related representatives to design
the program supports. These representatives included, for example, the National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards, the Michigan Community Service Commission, the
Michigan Nonprofit Association, the Council of Michigan Foundations, the Urban
Education Alliance, and graduate schools at Grand Valley State University, Wayne State
University, and Michigan State University. Altogether, 38 individuals representing major
educational and nonprofit systems were involved in multiple reviews of the project design.

In obtaining the initial project support fi'om the W. K. Kellogg Foundation of $1 .5
million, the project leaders submitted detailed answers to questions regarding the use of
technology and technical support. The original plan, designed by classroom educators,
utilized computer technologies to overcome the twin issues of geographic distance and
isolation that it was anticipated the teachers would feel. In addition, the plans called for
teachers to begin using computer technology (web research and self-study) in the teaching
of the lessons themselves.

Upon firnding by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, project leaders approached
Michigan State University’s Office of Computers, Libraries and Technology to seek their
assistance in establishing the network for the project teachers. Through contractual
agreements, MSU obtained the hardware, installed the software, and delivered the
computer equipment to each teacher. A help desk was established specifically for the

teachers. Individual Intemet-access accounts were established through the university that

97

provided for the typical Internet services, and in addition provided access to the full library
resources of the university and specialized computer services such as a project list serv
and a bulletin board for discussion on the web site.

W Project leadership has played an important role in supporting
the use of CMC by participants. The leadership has supported the use of CMC in five

ways. These are depicted in Figure 4.4.

Provided computers and
software

Provided technical training
and support

Role of Project

Leadership Modeled the use of Technology

Set forth a vision that included
technology use

 

Provided intelligent, inspirational
leadership

Figure 4.4: Support for employing CMC as a tool in curriculum development.

First, all participants were provided with a computer, either through funds from
the project budget or through their local community foundation. Along with this, the
computer equipment was uniform, with identical software programs loaded before arrival
in schools. During a focus group, one participant commented that the commitment to
technology use was clear to her because each teacher was given a computer. The teachers
were provided “pilot accounts” through Michigan State University for Internet use. These

accounts allowed the teachers to have access to university resources that are available to

98

faculty. The teachers were also connected to the Indiana University Center for
Philanthropy. Further, the staff maintained regular contact with the teachers through
e-mail for curriculum development assistance and to offer emotional support. A
secondary teacher stressed, “The project forced us to use it [CMC] to share lesson plans.”

Second, project leadership made a significant commitment to technical training and
support. And although the training was not necessarily valued by all project teachers, the
fact that it was offered showed a commitment to the use of technology for
communication.

Third, the project leadership modeled the use of technology and expected the
teachers to use it. Without that expectation, it is likely that a number of the participants
would not have communicated electronically. Further, support for CMC was provided
through the project web site.

Fourth, the project steering committee and Council of Michigan Foundations
provided a clear vision that included and supported the use of technology for
communication. Indeed, the original grant proposal stressed the importance CMC would
play in a state project involving geographically dispersed teachers.

Fifth, the project director is a bright and inspirational leader who encouraged
teachers to use technology for communication. Riel and Levin (1990) underscored the
crucial role that a project leader or facilitator serves in a networked project.

Cprriculpm suppert. Curriculum support is also a leadership issue. A curriculum
specialist was hired to oversee the development of the K-12 lessons and units. As
indicated earlier in this chapter, he played a key role in encouraging and requiring the

teachers to use technology. Had he not required that the lessons and units be attached to

99

e-mail sent to him, teachers would have continued to send and expect hard copy. Those
supporting the curriculum the most-the curriculum specialist, project director, assessment
consultant, and project secretary-all modeled the use of technology and expected the
teachers to communicate through CMC. Teachers commented on how important the
encouragement of staff was to their confidence in using the computer. Donna shared that
the curriculum specialist once said to her, “‘Just touch it. See how it feels.’ Then he
coached me through it.” Karen stated matter-of-factly, “Teachers were encouraged [by
the staff] to use the computers for developing lessons.”

An important source of curriculum support was provided through the assessment
consultant because assessment is an integral part of curriculum development (Glatthom,
1987; Jacobs, 1989; Resnick & Klopfer, 1989). During the focus groups, the teachers
identified the work in the assessment subgroups as important to their development of the
lessons. The assessment specialist required that teachers work together in the design of
student assessment materials and reinforced that those assessments had to be tied to the
curriculum. During a focus group, one of the elementary teachers stated, “The assessment
group is what really helped me learn how to work together [using CMC] on the lessons.”

The social studies consultant for the Michigan Department of Education also
provided curriculum support to the project director, curriculum specialist, and teachers.
Her role included helping the project teachers tie the lessons to the state standards and
benchmarks, a content issue. Although her curriculum support was important for content
purposes, no teacher or staff member directly mentioned that her support had an impact

on the use of CMC for curriculum development. She did inform project members of

100

various web sites that provided information useful to lesson development, and her
materials and ideas were incorporated into the lessons that were developed.

Mixes, Certainly the incentive of a state-of-the-art computer contributed to
the use of CMC by the project participants. Because the large majority of teachers in the
project did not have access to a computer before the project, it is unlikely that they would
have engaged in CMC without having a computer provided. Access to a computer, or
lack of access, has been shown to be one of the important factors that can facilitate or
impede CMC in a networked project (Coulter & Feldman, 1995; Eurich-Fulcer &
Schofield, 1995).

During a focus group, one of the elementary teachers stated, “This [getting a
computer] is the reason I signed up for the project.” However, other teachers who
reacted to questions about the incentive value of a computer had become very committed
to the ideals of the project, stating that being a part of such an important project was now
their biggest incentive. As Silver (1998) stated in the Baseline Survey,

For most of the teachers, then, the most common motivation for involvement

appears to have been the Project’s own normative goal—developing a curriculum in

philanthropy. The teachers on the whole have made an enormous intellectual and
time. commitment beyond any immediate compensation they might expect to
receive.
Indeed, Silver’s survey revealed that all but two of the teachers considered the objective
(of making education in philanthropy a standard part of the school curriculum) to be either
“very important” or “vitally important.” Further evidence of the commitment to the
project can be found in the teacher journals. As Wilson (1998) noted in the Report on

Journals, Round 1, “Without exception, the teachers expressed enthusiasm for their work

and the mission of the project.” This does not directly relate to how incentives affect

101

CMC, but rather it goes more to the point of participation as a result of strong
commitment to a belief system. The computer may have been a hook to bring a few
teachers into the project, but once involved, personal commitment became the powerful
incentive. With involvement came CMC. So, even though receiving a computer may not
have been the incentive that drew a majority of teachers to the project, having immediate
access to one certainly had a positive impact on CMC. In the 1999 evaluation of the K-12
Education in Philanthropy Project, Lesco and Flinders stated, “Teachers unanimously
proclaimed the computers to be a boon to their philanthropy curriculum work and to their
sense of professionalism” (p. 101 ).

The feelings of satisfaction and accomplishment that embrace a person when a
difficult challenge is met may have served as an incentive for using CMC. Although no
teacher specifically stated this, the pride they held in their accomplishments was apparent
during the focus groups in the manner in which they discussed what they were now able to
do with a computer, compared to how unskilled they had been at the onset of the project.
Their enthusiasm was evidenced through animated facial features, increased volume and
speed of speech, and word selection. In each focus group a teacher mentioned feeling
proud of being associated with a project that is important to our society and the lives of
children. When such a statement was offered, some nodded their heads and others
affirmed the statement. The cuniculum specialist attested, “The real incentive [for
participation] is that they feel a sense of accomplishment. They are on the cutting edge of
doing something new, challenging [pause] something they believe in. A chance for them
to contribute to their profession, to be part of a project that holds promise " (emphasis

added to impart the depth of feeling he displayed when making the statement). In

102

Journal Round 3, one of the teachers wrote, “I brag about teachers all over the world
being able to download our lessons when they’re done. Free of charge, no hidden agenda,
promoting only the giving, sharing and volunteering individuals can do to make a
difi’erence in their community. There is no other organization which offers a curriculum in
this way.” Anderson’s (1995) work points to the important role that such positive teacher
attitudes can play in curriculum reform efforts.

mm The K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project has had an impact on the
use of CMC by the project participants in a number of ways. Importantly, the teachers
were provided a computer for their lesson development and for CMC, as well as computer
training and support. Without this incentive, most of the teachers would have had either
no access to computers or limited access. The project staff set forth the expectation that
the teachers would use the computers for lesson development and for communication, and
provided encouragement along the way. Further, the project director provided the
mission for the work and a road map for the journey. In addition, the curriculum specialist
and assessment consultant offered support for the development of lessons and
assessments, and required that lessons be shared electronically. Finally, the project
leadership was able to build in a commitment to developing a curriculum in the teaching of
philanthropy. The organizational support factors of project leadership, curriculum
support, and incentives had a positive impact on the use of CMC for the development of

the K-12 Philanthropy Curriculum.

103

in r i l

CMC has had an impact on individual practice when developing curriculum in a
networked project in a number of ways. In the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project,
CMC has offered a method of communication that differs fi'om traditional modes of
communication. The asynchronous nature of CMC has overcome issues associated with
distance and time. Although CMC ofi‘ers the capability of forwarding exact messages and
clarification of writing, it is also open to misinterpretation because visual and auditory
cues are lacking. In this regard, CMC can present itselfas a double-edged sword.

CMC made it possible for staff and teachers to share information, reducing the
need for paper copy. The staff indicated that, even though they added meetings to provide
more face-to-face interaction, the total number of meetings needed for developing the
curriculum was reduced because of the opportunity to communicate electronically.
Telephone conversations decreased as the teachers became familiar with the use of e-mail.
An interesting feature of the use of CMC is the reciprocal relationship it has with face-to-
face communication in that one enhances the other.

The teachers used CMC for a variety of purposes, including editing their original
lesson plans, requesting information from each other and fiom staff, sharing their lessons,
providing emotional support, and doing the research required to develop accurate and
interesting lessons. The teachers were most likely to communicate by e-mail with the
curriculum specialist. They also used CMC to communicate with the rest of the staff more
readily than with each other. The list serv and bulletin board Options were not used to any
extent by the teachers. These options were offered quite early in the project, and the

teachers showed little interest in using them for communication.

104

This research shows that a number of factors had an impact on the fiequency of
using CMC. The participants repeatedly expressed the inhibiting efi'ect that lack of time
had on various aspects of this curriculum development project, including the fi'equency of
using CMC. In addition, participant skill, access to computers, and mechanical/technical
issues had an impact. As the participants became more skilled, they were able to use
CMC for a variety of purposes. With access to a computer, CMC occurred. Limited or
no access due to a variety of reasons reduced electronic communications. Further factors
that influenced the frequency of CMC involved whether or not the sender received
feedback and whether there existed a purpose for communicating.

Training in the use of computers exerted an impact on the individual use of
computers for communication. Teachers learned to use their computers from formal
training and through informal means. F ormal training consisted of eight hours of initial
training in a lab setting and the opportunity to enroll in a variety of on-line courses.
Although fi'ustrating to the teachers, the computer training assisted them in learning to use
their computers for the purposes of the project. The informal training consisted of help
from family, friends, peers, staff, local technology support, and a help desk. The teachers
found the informal training very helpful, citing the opportunity to receive individual
assistance as the reason.

The project itself offered a structure that had an impact on the individual use of
CMC in three ways. First, the project leadership played an important role in supporting
participants’ use of CMC for curriculum development. The project leadership contributed
computer equipment, training, support, encouragement, and a vision for the project. A

second feature of the project structure that supported the use of CMC came in the form of

105

curriculum support. A curriculum specialist hired for the project provided curriculum
oversight and assistance. Both the curriculum specialist and the assessment consultant
required that lessons and assessments be shared electronically. The final feature of the
project structure that supported the use of CMC included the incentives associated with
project participation. These incentives involved not only being provided a state-of-the-art
computer, but also feelings of commitment to a project of importance. These feelings of

commitment may have served as an incentive for using CMC.

Results Fr m Re h i n 2

What is the impact of CMC on the process of curriculum development and
the individual?

CMC brings an interesting dimension to curriculum development, ofi‘ering the
potential of facilitating the process. Because traditional curriculum development occurs in
face-to-face meetings, the addition of CMC exposes people to another way of doing
business. This section explores the impact that CMC had on curriculum development in
this networked project. Data analyzed were derived from focus group interviews, archival

data, samples of e-mail, and individual interviews.

R rch sti n 2
How does CMC inhibit and enhance curriculum development?
The first component of Research Question 2 considers how the use of CMC

inhibits and enhances curriculum development.

106

W This research suggests that CMC can have an
inhibiting effect on curriculum development. These inhibiting factors are detailed in Table
4.4 and are discussed here.

Lack of experience and competence with computer technology: Participants
who lacked experience and competence with computer technology were initially unable to
perform the tasks required to communicate or to prepare lesson plans electronically.
During individual interviews, both the project director and the curriculum specialist
explained that, as a whole, the participating teachers on entering the project had far less
technical ability and experience than the project leadership had expected and planned for.
Because of this, the number of scheduled face-to-face meetings had to be increased for the
purpose of sharing information, encouraging the teachers, answering questions about
technology, and as one person ofi‘ered, “hand-holding.” The project director noted that
this lack of computer know-how resulted in a delay in lesson development. One of the
teachers revealed in a focus group, “I did not realize the entire project was to be through
electronic communication. We were not all knowledgeable and this hampered us at first,
so we used the telephone and fax.”

Table 4.4: The impact of CMC on cuniculum development in a networked project:
Inhibiting factors.

 

Inhibiting Factors

 

Lack of experience and competence with Time issues
computer technology

 

Unreliability of computer support systems Inability to brainstorm

 

Inadequate technical support and technical General characteristics of electronic
difficulties communication

 

 

 

107

 

During an individual interview, the assessment consultant offered another problem
associated with the lack of computer savvy: “Because most of the teachers were not
skilled computer users, they fiequently rrrisserrt messages by e-mail or included large
amounts of information by repeatedly forwarding messages. The recipient then had to
wade through the entire string of messages to locate the actual intended message.” The
literature on curriculum development in a networked project indicates that lack of
adequate technical training can have a negative efi’ect on such projects (Coulter &
Feldman, 1995; Eurich-Fulcer & Schofield, 1995). In the case of the K—12 Education in
Philanthropy Project, the majority of teachers entered the project without previous
experience with computers.

Unreliability of computer support systems: Another inhibiting feature that the
reliance on CMC had on curriculum development was the occasional unreliability of
computers and support systems. For example, if a server went down for a period of time,
CMC could not occur. This was important when deadlines had to be met or information
had to be shared before a teacher meeting. A teacher fi'om one of the rural districts
indicated in a focus group that it was difficult to get on-line with her Internet provider.
Weir (1992) stressed the importance of an efficient computer system to a networked
project, in terms of both reliability and availability.

Inadequate technical support and technical difficulties: Other technological
difficulties such as availability of phone lines, fire walls, and inadequate technical support
on site inhibited the progress of curriculum development. Coulter and Feldman (1995)

identified inadequate technical support as a factor that impedes curriculum implementation

108

in a networked project. At one point in the project, participants contracted the Melissa
virus, which affected progress and comfort levels.

One of the teachers fi'om a large urban district noted technical difficulties in her
journal:

Though the computers could finally be plugged in they were to all extent

nonfirnctioning. We could not reach the Detroit School’s home page. We could

not get on the net, we could not reach MSU. . . . A man was sent out and worked

many hours. He finally identified the problem, a fire wall. . . . The fire wall

prevented us from connecting with MSU, fi'om the net, from the other teachers.
In another journal entry, the same teacher indicated that she had to wait a number of
weeks for a technician to come out to assist. She noted that her equipment was “far
superior to any that our school’s technician had seen.” Another teacher wrote that she
“felt so isolated and there was no one to assist me at my location.” Even in the face of
technical and application difficulties, the project director indicated that the teachers were
hesitant to ask computer-savvy students for assistance. She speculated that it was hard for
some teachers to give up the notion that they nwded to know more than their students.
This perspective was not echoed by the teachers.

Time issues: From the teacher perspective, an inhibiting feature of CMC on
curriculum development was the amount of time it took to learn to use the computers with
enough competence to firlfill the requirements of the project. Issues regarding time
abound in the literature on the use of CMC in a networked project (Coulter & Feldman,
1995; Drayton, 1993; Eurich-Fulcer & Schofield, 1995; Weir, 1992). Round One Journal
entries detailed the extreme fi'ustration that the teachers felt regarding learning to use the

computers and the technical difficulties presented, as well as the amount of time required.

The learning curve was steep and ate up time that could have been spent writing lessons.

109

Other problems stemming fiom lack of time were discussed earlier in this chapter in regard
to those factors that impact fi'equency of using CMC.

Inability to brainstorm in a group: During the focus groups, the teachers also
mentioned what was lacking when communicating electronically for curriculum
development. Brainstorming, a technique teachers fi'equently use as a means to generate
ideas, could not occur. One teacher stated, “Brainstorming is important for curriculum
work. You can’t do it when you communicate electronically.” That chance to bounce
ideas off each other that is an option in group work was also mentioned as an inhibiting
factor of CMC because it was difficult to achieve when communicating electronically.

Communicating without affect: A final characteristic of CMC that could have
an inhibiting effect on curriculum development involves communication without affect.
The teachers stressed that they missed the personal feedback available through voice, body
language, and humor that is a part of face-to-face meetings. One of the teachers stated,
“There is no personal feedback [with CMC], no body language, no voice. I could not
create curriculum without face-to-face communication.” In fact, the importance of the
face-to-face meetings was a strong sentiment held by teachers and staff. Both groups
stressed that face-to-face meetings are essential to a project of this nature. As stated by a
member of the computer support staff during an individual interview, “Electronic
communication does not allow you to turn a program loose-you still need face-to-face
communication.” Sproull and Kiesler (1992) also contended that CMC is not a substitute
for face-to-face communication.

Misunderstandings that can occur through CMC have the potential to inhibit the

curriculum development process. The teachers did not stress this, yet the project director,

110

curriculum specialist, computer support staff, and assessment specialist all mentioned that
misunderstandings had occurred through CMC. The curriculum specialist pointed out
how carefirl he was with his words when providing feedback on a teacher’s lesson so that
there was no misunderstanding. He stated, “It is easy to be short [when using CMC]
which can sound terse.” A misunderstanding occurred, for example, when the curriculum
specialist asked a teacher about a lesson. The teacher thought that he was accusing her of
copying someone’s work when, in fact, he was just asking for clarification because he had
received two identical lessons under different names. The project director suggested that
misunderstandings can occur when project leadership and participants come out of
different systems, as was the case for her and the teachers. She indicated that she was
very sensitive to that issue when communicating electronically (and otherwise) with
project teachers.

One of the teachers wrote in her journal of a difficulty she had encountered when
first using e-mail. She had sent a sarcastic message to “everyone in power” in her district.
She wrote, “I was new to the wonders of e-mail. . . . My e-mail message was not the
problem, the tone of it was. I should have just stated the facts. I didn’t realize so many
people would be reading it.” The literature on CMC underscores the potential for
misunderstandings when using CMC because the social cues available through face-to-face
communication are not present (Davis & Brewer, 1997; Sproull & Kiesler, 1992; Turkle,
1997).

Summary: This study revealed that the use of CMC had an inhibiting effect on
curriculum development in a variety of ways. Unreliability of computer systems,

inadequate technical support, and lack of computer skill all slowed the curriculum

111

development process. Social and personal communication factors such as inability to
brainstorm through CMC and misunderstandings placed constraints on teachers as they
developed lessons. In addition, the time required to become suficiently adept with the
computer to use it in developing lessons and for communication inhibited the use of CMC
for developing the philanthropy curriculum.

Enh_a_r_rcing gpge of CMC. Table 4.5 displays those factors of using CMC that
enhanced the development of curriculum in this project. Teachers and project stafi’ agreed
that CMC offers certain advantages when developing curriculum, as compared to
traditional curriculum deve10pment methods. However, the project staff held far stronger
positive opinions in this regard, perhaps due to the roles they had played within the project
and because they were experienced computer users before the project began. When
discussing how CMC enhanced curriculum development, the teachers repeatedly returned

to the fi'ustrations that they felt learning to use computers.

Table 4.5: The impact of CMC on curriculum development in a networked project:

 

 

Enhancing factors.
Enhancing Factors
Reduces problems associated with Offers ability to correct on-line
geographic distance

 

Provides for asynchronous communication Provides access to on-line resources

 

Allows for communication in real time Contributes to information management

 

 

 

 

The teachers and staff members did agree that the important aspects of this form of
communication that serve to enhance curriculum development include the capability of

overcoming problems associated with geographic distance, its asynchronous nature, the

112

 

 

ability to communicate in real time, the option to make corrections to lessons on-line, and
the access it provides to on-line resources. The organizational features available through
electronic communication, such as managing information and maintaining a record of
exchanges, were also cited as strengthening the curriculum development process.

Reduces problems associated with geographic distance: CMC made it possible
for project teachers and staff, separated by geographic distance, to work together in the
development of curriculum lessons and units. During an individual interview, the project
director affirmed that this project could not have been undertaken without CMC. At the
time of the study, the project director and the curriculum specialist, two key players in the
project, worked in offices on opposite sides of Michigan; the assessment specialist resided
in Ohio; and the computer support staff members were located at Michigan State
University. Their primary avenue for communication was through e-mail. Also, as
mentioned earlier, the 43 teachers were spread throughout Michigan, including the Upper
Peninsula. During an individual interview, the assessment consultant maintained that he
“couldn’t have been a part of the project without it [CMC].” He went on to state, “I live
in Cleveland, Terry works in Detroit, Kathy and Judy work in Muskegon. We swap
documents regularly-especially when we get ready for a meeting.” CMC certainly
allowed the teachers to engage in frequent communication with the staff regarding the
project. During a focus group interview, one of the teachers stated, “Electronic
communication is indispensable to this project. I can just email Terry in Detroit if I have
a question.”

Provides for asynchronous communication: Teachers appreciated the ability to

send and retrieve information at their convenience because they had few opportunities

113

during the school day to make contacts with other project participants. Materials could be
sent to a teacher who was in class, and that teacher could open the document after class or
in the evening. During a focus group, one of the teachers remarked, “I can send e-mail to
Terry and open up his response when I get home at night.” Another teacher noted, “With
e-mailIcanattachalessonandsenditoutlateatnightandgetaresponseinthe
morning.” The project director offered, “It [CMC] gets us beyond the fact that the
teachers are in class. We can send information to them at any time. We don’t have to try
to catch them when they are out of class.”

Allows for communication in real time: The immediacy of communication that
is characteristic of CMC was also recognized as important to project teachers and staff.
Michael commented, “I asked for information about a rubric and someone sent it
immediately. . . . It’s good to get out of my box and share electronically.” In Journal
Round 2, a teacher reflected, “[1 feel] very positive [about computers and email] now that
I can see somewhat what the speed of the tool can enable me to do.”

Project stafi‘ members talked about the difference between sending lessons through
US. mail versus through e-mail, and the advantage of using email. “It [CMC] makes
things faster. You can shoot drafts back and forth and comment in the document.” The
project secretary affirmed that the speed of transmitting information enhanced the work of
the project. She stated, “There is no delay when sending things electronically. It [CMC]
has increased efficiencies. If we had to send information through snail mail, it would just
take too long.” The curriculum specialist agreed: “We can send things back and forth so

quickly [with CMC]. If we had to do it without e-mail, it would take weeks!”

114

Offers ability to correct on-Iine: A further way in which CMC enhances
curriculum development is that it offers the ability to correct on—line. Not surprisingly, the
curriculum specialist cited this as a distinct advantage. During an individual interview he
stated, “We showed them how to correct on-line, and it has really saved time. I can send
back suggestions in the document, and they can just make the adjustments.” During a
focus group, an elementary teacher extolled the advantages of being able to correct on-
line: “He [curriculum specialist] showed us how to correct on-line. Now it is so easy to
help each other with our lessons.”

An advantage noted by a member of the computer support staff is that CMC
allows those involved to comment within the context of the document itself. CMC has
also allowed for a quick clarification of ideas. This has been particularly important with
the lesson exchanges. Finished lessons will eventually be placed on the K-12 Education in
Philanthropy web site for teachers to download for use in their classrooms.

Provides access to on-line resources: CMC made it possible for the project
teachers and staff to access a wealth of on-line resources. The curriculum specialist
remarked, “I have been able to tap into curriculum resources through CMC that would
have been unavailable otherwise.” He stated that he had visited web sites and obtained
e-mail addresses of people previously out of his research or unknown to him. He shared,
“I made contacts with people I never would have known about. I was able to tap
resources and get an immediate response. Without CMC it would have taken weeks.”
The project director agreed: “Being linked to the Internet enables us to have access to all
kinds of information. We have the ability to do extensive research through the Internet.”

In Journal Round 3, responding to the question “How do you feel about the K-12 project

115

using the W to deliver nonprofit content?” one respondent wrote, “The web is better
thanattendirrgalecturetome. . . .Icangorighttotheinterestarea. . . . Icanmoveatmy
pace instead of others’.” A high school teacher noted during a focus group, “I use info
available on the Internet for lesson development. . . . I find it very usefirl.” The teachers
also mentioned that they e—mailed information about good web sites to colleagues or
project partners-

Contributes to information management: CMC provided an important
organizational medium for the project in a number of ways. E-mail provided a record of
communication. Beth, an elementary teacher, commented, “In face-to-face conversations
I can’t reconstruct what has been said. With e-mail, I can read it six times if I need to.”
Another elementary teacher, Sarah, added, “The information is all in my computer. . . . I
just cany it wherever I go. It’s a management issue.”

CMC served as an even greater management tool for the project director and
curriculum specialist, who noted the practical applications. Records of communications
existed from the inception of the project; orders, conference information, and materials
were sent and maintained in files; and lessons sent and received were available with a key
click. A significant feature mentioned by staff and teachers was the importance of the
lesson template that was developed by the curriculum specialist. All lessons had to be
written within the framework of the template to ensure uniformity of lessons. During a
focus group, one of the teachers explained, “We had to put our lessons in this template.
At first it seemed restrictive, but now I see the importance of having a common template.”

Semmm. An analysis of the data suggests that CMC has the capacity to both

inhibit and enhance the development of curriculum in a networked project. Those factors

116

found to have an inhibiting effect include lack of experience and competence of those
involved in the project, the unreliability of computer support systems, inadequate technical
support for project participants, misunderstandings resulting from the use of CMC,
inadequate time available for use, and the lack of ability to brainstorm using CMC.

CMC also enhanced the curriculum development process. It reduced the problems
associated with geographic distance. Notably, both teachers and staff stated that the
project would not have been possible without the opportunity to use CMC. Further, it
allowed for asynchronous communication and increased the speed of information
exchanges because it provides for communication in real time. CMC also offered the
ability to correct on-line as well as to have access to innumerable resources through the
Internet. Finally, CMC served as a tool for project management by providing a record of

lessons, e-mail exchanges, and uniform lesson plans.

Reeeereh megien 2b

What factors assisted and what deterred teachers from using CMC when
developing curriculum?

The second component of Research Question 2 looks at those factors that assisted
and those factors that deterred teachers from using CMC when developing curriculum.
The data sources examined to identify these factors include three focus group interviews
with the project teachers, individual interviews with staff, and archival data, including
teacher journals. Subquestion 2a looked at the impact of CMC on the general process of
curriculum development. This section puts more focus on the impact of CMC on the

individual user within the curriculum development process.

117

W The data revealed a number of factors that assisted teachers
in using CMC when developing curriculum. These factors are depicted in Figure 4.5 and
are discussed in this section.

Access to a computer: As noted in the previous section regarding factors that
influenced frequency of use of CMC, having access to a computer was important. The
teachers affirmed that having access to a computer throughout the project provided
obvious and very important assistance for using CMC when developing curriculum
because few would have had access to a computer without the project. In addition, Lois,
an elementary teacher, noted that the assertion by project staff “that we would use the
computer for curriculum development was very important.” The literature supports the
notion that having access to a computer is important when developing curriculum in a

networked project (Riel, 19903; Weir, 1992).

Access to a Computer Required Exchanges

 

Trainingd——~ Factors That Assisted Teachers ——§';echnictal
uppor

 

 

 

Experience with Computers Emotional Support

Figure 4.5: Factors that assisted teachers in the use of CMC when developing curriculum.

118

Required exchanges: Having a required format for the lessons and requiring that
the lessons be attached to e-mail or put on disc—no hard copy—were also mentioned as
factors that nudged the teachers into using CMC. Michael stated during a focus group,
“Having that format was important. It gave all of us the knowledge of the importance of
continuity because we knew that other people would be reading it. We knew the audience
and its importance. I teach English and we are always editing and revising. It has made us
want to share materials.”

The project stafi‘ made it clear that teachers and staff would use CMC in
developing the curriculunr, which was accepted by the teachers, although for some with
difficulty. Giving the teachers specific reasons to communicate electronically also served
to increase their use of CMC. For example, to participate on the assessment
subcommittee, teachers had to exchange ideas electronically. The assessment consultant
required this, so the teachers did what was asked of them. He provided a purpose (a
requirement) for communicating electronically in the development of curriculum
assessment tools.

Training: Computer training was provided to the project teachers. Both the
formal and informal aspects of this training were discussed earlier in this chapter. The
project secretary commented during an individual interview that the computer training
assisted teachers with electronic communication, although this was not widely voiced by
the teachers. It is possible that the teachers’ level of frustration with the technology in the
initial stages of the project was so great that it spilled over to their perceptions of the
training. It is worth noting that a few of the teachers in the project valued the initial

training, as seen in this statement fiom one of the teachers in a focus group: “The

119

computer training was very helpfirl [to me] as we began the project.” More found the
informal training helpful, indicating during the focus groups that having staff, fiiends, and
peers sit with them to walk them through different procedures was what really helped.
Most teachers entered the project with little previous computer experience, and by the end
of 18 months they were able to navigate the computer well enough to firlfill the
requirements of the project. The project director suggested that the formal and informal
training opportunities assisted the teachers in the use of CMC for developing curriculum.

Emotional support: In general, the teachers considered the support of the project
staff to be a significant help in using CMC. The staff offered encouragement, gave one-
on-one assistance, and set up an organizational structure that supported CMC use in
curriculum development. Information about usefirl web sites was sent to the teachers.
Also, since lessons were sent to the cuniculum specialist, if a teacher had a computer
glitch, the curriculum specialist was able to retrieve lessons previously sent to him and
then email them back to the teachers.

The ability to edit lessons back and forth with the curriculum specialist and with a
partner was also seen as an assistance. One teacher mentioned in a focus group, “I liked
the support from Terry. He made me feel like I could do it [use the computer].” Teachers
noted a sense of accomplishment as important for persevering. Rene afiirmed, “I have to
say that I am really proud of what I have learned to do. It makes life so much easier to
know how to use the computer. Terry didn’t give up on me.” CMC also helped to
maintain a connection among the project staff and the teachers. A couple of teachers
mentioned that without CMC they would feel “out of the loop” as far as project

communication was concerned.

120

The curriculum specialist pointed out that the key to encouraging the teachers to
use their computers is for them to see colleagues and peers using CMC, to hear about the
experiences of others, and thereby learn of the efiiciencies ofi'ered through CMC as a tool
for curriculum development. Project staff commented on the importance of emotional

support and encouragement to the teachers. The project secretary suggested that the

teachers’ comfort level with computers affected their use of CMC. Those with a higher
comfort level were higher users. The computer support staff suggested that the face-to-
face meetings offered encouragement to the teachers in their use of technology because
the meetings provided the opportunity to ask questions and seek help face to face.
W Five factors are identified here that deterred teachers in

their work to develop the philanthropy curriculum. These factors are depicted in Figure

 

4.6.
Fear or Discomfort Frustration with Technology
Perceived ‘— Factors that Deterred .._, T00 Mild! ‘0
Lack of Teachers Learn at Once
Structure

 

 

 

Lack of Knowledge Regarding

Computer Capacity

Figure 4.6: Factors that deterred teachers in the use of CMC when developing
curriculum.

121

Fear of disclosure and discomfort: A factor brought up by project stafi’ that
deterred teachers from using CMC in developing cuniculum centered on the fear of
disclosure-that one’s ideas may be criticized or that a mistake could be made. “No one
wants to look like an idiot!” is a telling declaration made by one of the technology support
staff. This sentiment was echoed in a variety of ways by staff and teachers alike. To share
one’s writing on-line can be a disturbing experience for even a seasoned computer user.
The assessment specialist noted, “Some teachers didn’t want to share until it [their work]
was perfect. They didn’t want to share until they were proud.”

During an individual interview, the curriculum specialist remarked, “By putting
lessons out there the teacher could be exposed to instant criticism.” An example of the
concern felt by the teachers can be seen in this comment made by a secondary teacher
during one of the focus groups: “We were constantly asking ourselves if we were the only
ones who did not have a clue.” Fear of the unknown-or of looking foolish-deterred the
teachers who were inexperienced computer users from using CMC, particularly in the first
year of the project. Henry, a high school teacher, offered, “At first we had so much
reading to do and I hadn’t read the assigned work. . . . I didn’t dare use email because I
thought someone would ask me a question about the reading and I wouldn’t know the
answer . . . so I laid low.” Henry thought e-mail would expose him in float of the larger
group. His comment was made in relation to the considerable amount of reading assigned
at the beginning of the project. He had not read all of the articles and other materials
provided. His concerns may have come from the culture of teachers, where assignments
are given with an expectation that they will be completed, and teachers are used to being

the experts with the answers.

122

Related to fear of disclosure is the discomfort felt by some teachers for sharing
their work. Neither “fear of disclosure” nor “discomfort for sharing work” was referred to
in the literature reviewed for this study. Yet, in this research these issues were raised by
staff as well as by participating teachers. Both the project director and the curriculum
specialist noted that teachers were hesitant to share their work, particularly in the
beginning of lesson development. During a focus group of secondary project teachers, the
researcher asked the group what kept them from sending lessons to other teachers. Elaine
said, “There is a common element-in high school especially-we tend to work in our own
isolated areas. . . . [It was hard] coming into the project, sharing my work with total
strangers.” Cherise then pointed out, “There is also that sense of ownership when you
author anything, and not wanting someone else to take your idea . . . and you guard it, you
guard it.” This perspective was not shared by the entire group, as is made clear by
Stephanie’s comment: “I disagree because I’m really a sharer—maybe I’m an old hippie
from the sixties . . . I think if you’ve got an idea, share it because if it works for your
students, it will work for other students.” Group members indicated that they shared the
drafts of their work at face-to-face meetings and considered it helpful. When a group of
secondary teachers were asked why they did not share drafts electronically with the other
project teachers, the response was, “Nobody told us to.” Responders in the elementary
focus group stated that they felt comfortable sharing their work with other teachers.

Frustration with technology: The teachers fi'eely voiced their initial fi'ustration
with computer technology. An example of this fiustration is apparent from these remarks

made by one of the project teachers during a focus group: “At first I knew absolutely

123

nothing [about my laptop]. I understood nothing. I was so discouraged and felt very
fiustrated. I didn’t know what to do, and I didn’t want to touch it.”

One stafi‘ member noted that a couple of teachers did not want to touch their
computers at first. As teachers became more knowledgeable about and more comfortable
with computer technology, the fear lessened or even disappeared. In Journal Round 1,
one of the teachers wrote, “I think the most fi'ustration I have felt during this entire
experience is with my computer.” Another teacher’s entry proclaimed, “COMPUTERS!
A major fi'ustration!” Still another journal entry recounted, “The computers have been a
challenge. I had very limited computer skills at the start of the project. The first couple of
months were extremely fi'ustrating as I attempted to become computer literate.” By
Journal Round 2, the teachers provided repeated assurances that their comfort levels had
gone up once they had become familiar with their computers. When asked, “How do you
now feel about computers and e-mail?” teachers recorded in their journals such responses
as “I love my computer,” “I am feeling much more confident using the computers,” and “I
feel a lot better about using my computer.”

The lack of experience with computers was noted earlier in this chapter under
Subquestion 2a. Certainly a factor that had a negative impact on the use of CMC for
curriculum development involved the lack of computer skill and experience of many of the
project teachers. This circumstance not only slowed the pace of the project, it caused the
teachers great fiustrations. In addition, when individual teachers experienced mechanical!
technical problems such as modern problems, computer crashes, and difficulty getting on-
line because of issues related to their particular Internet providers, as well as problems

posed by district fire walls, the occurrences caused the teachers considerable anxiety.

124

During an individual interview, one of the computer support stafl‘ concluded, “Not
knowing how to fix the problem, not knowing how to ‘make it happen’ was at the center
of this anxiety and frustration.” Conversely a Round 2 journal entry revealed, “1 am
feeling much more confident using the computers. I have become a pretty good trouble

shooter.”

Perceived lack of structure: During the first few months of the project, the
teachers struggled to understand the expectations for their work. Even though the
teachers had all participated in curriculum development efforts in their districts before
their involvement with the K- 12 Education in Philanthropy Project, none had been a part
of a project that employed CMC as part of the process, nor had they been involved in a
statewide efi‘ort. They described a strong desire to have very clear and specific directions.
During a focus group, one of the teachers stated, “We needed clear, specific directions, a
layout, time line, and expectations.” In a different group, another teacher recalled, “There
was initial stumbling with the project. . . . There was a concept, but no one knew where
we were going. We weren’t real sure what we were supposed to do.” DiMauro and
Jacobs (1995) discussed the importance of beginning a networked project with a conunon
understanding of the expectations for the participants of the network. It has been the
experience of the researcher that in the initial phases of curriculum development, teachers
require very specific direction regarding the process and their role in the process. Even
when this is provided, some teachers think that it is not enough. Not all project teachers
thought there was an initial lack of direction for the project, and this was mentioned

during the focus groups. In this project the leadership provided a mission, overview, and

125

direction for the curriculum work fiom the beginning. Some of the teachers seemed to
need more clarity and direction in the beginning of the project than others.

Too much to learn at once: The teachers stressed that they were overwhelmed
by the competing demands of the project in the beginning while they were learning to use
computers. They were given a substantial amount of material to read about a new area.
Learning new content and computers at the same time was dificult and interfered with the
use of CMC for curriculum development. During the focus group this was brought up by
a number of the teachers. One stated, “We had an overwhelming amount of reading. I
couldn’t learn it all at the same time.” Another added, “They tried to teach us too much.

. . . We were just given so much information, it was hard to know where to start-the
computer, the readings, where?” Henry’s comment noted earlier under Fear of Disclosure
is another example of the effect of having so much to learn at once. In Henry’s case, he
was hesitant to use e-mail because he had not read all the material provided. “fithin the
focus groups, the teachers also remarked that they felt that they now had a better handle
on the content of philanthropy and were more skilled using computers.

Lack of knowledge regarding the capacity of computers: People who lack
knowledge and experience with computers may not understand the computer’s capacity.
A noteworthy perspective on the effect of lack of experience with computers was offered
by the curriculum specialist: “Teachers who haven’t used or seen the value of computers
do not see a reason to use them. They do not see the potential. They are unable to
visualize what a powerful tool a computer is.” During a focus group, one of the few
teachers who entered the project as a skilled computer user reflected, “Before you use a

computer you have no way of knowing what it can do. You just can’t understand its

126

capacity, so you don’t use it. Once you have experienced it, then you understand and it
becomes part of how you do things.” The first journal entries detailed the teachers’ many
fi'ustrations with computers and the project. In the later two journals, they made reference
to how usefirl the computers had been to their work in the project and in their classrooms.
Once they had the skill to use the computer, the teachers were then able to grasp the
capacity of the technology for curriculum development as well as for other uses. The
literature on curriculum development in a networked project pays scant attention to the
effect of computer experience or inexperience on perception of computer capacity.
However, Rogers (1983) noted that the motivation to use a new technology may be
related to perceived advantage of use, such as a capacity to do something faster or better
than before.

Semmm. An analysis of the focus group interviews, staff interviews, samples of
e-mail exchanges, and journal entries identified factors that assisted the individual teachers
when using CMC for curriculum development as well as factors that deterred CMC use.
Having access to a computer, technical as well as emotional support, and computer
training were factors that assisted the teachers when using CMC as a tool when
deveIOping curriculum. Experience with computers and being required to communicate
electronically also served to assist them.

Those factors that deterred teachers from using CMC when developing curriculum
included their fears of disclosure, which in some cases was evidenced in a hesitancy to
share lessons. Further, fi'ustration with computer technology, being responsible for
learning both content and computer skills during the same time period, and a perceived

lack of direction at the beginning of the project all had the effect of deterring some of the

127

participants fi'om using CMC for cuniculum development. Finally, teachers’ inability to
understand the capacity of the computer, brought about by their lack of computer

experience, also hindered their use of CMC for curriculum development.

R h i n 2

What role, if any, does CMC play in building a sense of community?

The final section of Research Question 2 explores the role that CMC played in
building a sense of community among the teachers and staff of the project. These
considerations are grounded in the data collected for this study.

Mechanism for keeping in touch. CMC played a role in building a sense of
community in this project by offering a mechanism for sharing information, keeping up
communication established during face-to-face meetings, reaching out through humor or
anecdotes, providing affirmation and feedback, and building agreement through the
exchange of lessons and ideas. During a focus group one teacher noted, “I feel like this is
my extended family,” suggesting that CMC helped form that bond. Another mentioned, “I
have discussed personal and professional issues with some of the other people in the
project. E-mail makes this easier to do sometimes.” The role that CMC can play in
building a sense of community has been noted in the literature on CMC. Sproull and
Kiesler (1991) wrote, “It may seem paradoxical that computers, stereotyped as cold and
impersonal, can be used to increase personal connections and affiliations” (p. 101). Weir
(1992) suggested that network exchanges provide an opportunity for collaboration and
cooperative learning. Others have supported the potential for computers to build

community and affiliation (Eurich-Fulcer & Schofield, 1995; Turkle, 1995).

128

mm The elementary teachers differed from the secondary
teachers in their perceptions regarding the role of CMC in building a sense of
collaboration. Initially, however, it was difficult for both the elementary and secondary
groups to let go of the notion that an either-or situation existed: Either it happened face
to face, or it happened through CMC. Not only did the elementary teachers report
communicating more electronically than did the secondary teachers, they were able to
easily cite examples of how CMC enhanced their relationships as a group. During a focus
group comprised of elementary teachers, they offered the following examples. Through
CMC they shared personal information, asked questions, requested and offered emotional
support, and exchanged recipes as well as information relevant to the project. The
elementary teachers thought that they communicated frequently using electronic
communication and that this helped build a sense of community, a sentiment not shared by
the secondary teachers.

In general, the secondary teachers did not see CMC as having played as large a
role in building a sense of community. One high school teacher even suggested that it
played no role at all. Another noted that she “didn’t think to communicate much
electronically. Now I will.” It is noteworthy to mention here that while discussing
electronic communication earlier in this focus group, one of the teachers mentioned that
she did not communicate with other project teachers because “nobody told us to.” Most
secondary teachers, upon consideration, could point out the role CMC played. One
middle school teacher commented, “Our identity has evolved and we now can
communicate [electronically] on a personal level.” In a different focus group, a high

school teacher remarked, “It [CMC] keeps the communication going between meeting

129

times.” Both elementary and secondary teachers stressed that they did not believe
electronic communication could replace face-to-face communication.

W During all three focus groups, the teachers indicated that they felt a
real sense of collaboration with the project director, secretary, and curriculum specialist.
These are the people with whom they communicated electronically most fi’equently. One
teacher mentioned, “I feel a certain comfort zone when communicating with them because
of the fi'equent electronic contacts.” Another pointed out that the project secretary sent
them an e-mail about how everyone could jazz up communications with emoticons such as
smiles. This statement caused others in the focus group to nod and smile. In addition, the
secretary and project director regularly sent e-mail with inspirational messages attached,
another factor that the teachers indicated brought people together.

The project staff offered varying opinions on the role that CMC played in building
a sense of community. The curriculum specialist and project secretary maintained that
CMC played an important role in collaboration and building a sense of community. They
mentioned that CMC allowed participants and staff to keep in touch. It also gave stafi‘ the
opportunity, as the curriculum specialist noted, “to let them know we are thinking about
them and to say ‘Thanks.”’ He further stated that through CMC the teachers affirmed
each other. The secretary stressed, “It [CMC] had a tremendous impact. The teachers
have shared ideas and allowed others to edit their work.” However, the assessment
consultant did not believe that CMC had built a sense of community or helped with
consensus building. During an individual interview he surmised, “CMC has not been
effective for consensus building. Consensus building occurred during the face-to-face

meetings.” He further stated that dialogue can be a problem using e—mail: “There needs

130

to be some structure to it that puts an order on it [the dialogue].” Although the project
director stated that she had expected more electronic communication and, therefore, more
coming together as an electronic community, she did believe that CMC had played a role
in building a sense of community. She stated, “With electronic communication the stafi‘
and teachers can stay in touch without the formality of a letter or the inconvenience of
reaching someone by phone. It has helped develop continuity in the project.”

gum When discussing the role, if any, that CMC played in building a sense
of community within the project, the teachers had difficulty letting go of the idea that an
either-or situation existed relative to communicating electronically or face to face. Once
they focused on the role of CMC, they were able to speak to the role it played in building
a sense of community. The elementary teachers, curriculum specialist, and project
secretary voiced the sentiment that CMC had played a positive role in building a sense of
community within the project. The project director agreed, but suggested that the amount
of CMC fell short of her expectation for engagement as she had originally envisioned the
project. These were all project participants who related that they used CMC as a regular
part of communicating with each other. The secondary teachers and the assessment
consultant did not view CMC as playing a large role in building a sense of community.
However, the secondary teachers were able to provide examples of how CMC helped
build a sense of community.

Two factors may influence this difference in perception between elementary and
secondary teachers regarding the role of CMC in building a sense of community. First, the
elementary teachers reported communicating more often and with more people than did

the secondary teachers. This higher level of participation could account for their

131

perceptions. A second factor may lie in the culture of the elementary school versus the
secondary school. Elementary teachers are very used to working together because they
generally teach all subjects. Secondary teachers work together in difi‘erent ways, and
mostly through a subject or department structure. The difi‘erence in the levels of
participation between elementary and secondary teachers has not been addressed in the

literature on curriculum development in a networked project.

m fFindin ser rch e in

CMC has had an impact on the process of curriculum development and on the
individuals involved in that process. Although this impact on the curriculum development
process and on individuals has been discussed as if the factors involved fall into discrete
categories, this is not the case. The use of CMC for curriculum development influences
both the process and the individual. The process and the individual also influence each
other. However, for purposes of discussion, the findings were assigned separate
categories.

A number of factors inhibited the use of CMC when developing curriculum. Lack
of experience and competence with computer technology have implications both for the
general process of curriculum development and for the individual developing the
curriculum. Because the teachers lacked skill in using computers, they required training
and support. Their lack of experience also caused fi'ustrations and an inability to envision
the capacity of using CMC when developing curriculum. Other factors inhibiting the use
of CMC included the unreliability of computer support systems, inadequate technical

support, and lack of time. Further, issues related to the medium itself had an inhibiting

132

influence. The inability to brainstorm in a face-to-face group was seen as a definite
drawback of CMC. In addition, misunderstandings and communicating without affect,
which are characteristic of CMC, inhibited the process.

Six factors related to the use of CMC when developing curriculum enhanced the
process. The use of CMC reduced problems associated with geographic distance, an
important feature because the teachers and stafi‘ were spread throughout the state. CMC
also provided for asynchronous communication, allowing project members to send and
receive messages at their convenience. CMC firrther allowed the participants and stafl‘ to
communicate in real time. This eliminated the need to send lessons and materials by
regular mail, a very real time savings for the project. Two other factors are the ability to
correct lessons on-line and access to on-line resources. A final way in which CMC
enhanced the cuniculum development process is that it offered a system for information
and lesson management.

An analysis of the data also revealed factors that assisted and those that deterred
teachers from using CMC when devel0ping curriculum. Of those factors that assisted,
having access to a computer had an obvious impact. Without the computers provided
through the project, and in a few cases the local community foundation, the majority of
teachers would not have had ready access to a computer for CMC. Other factors that
assisted teachers included the computer training, experience using computers, and
technical and emotional support. A final factor that assisted teachers in the use of CMC
when developing curriculum involved being required by the project staff to send messages

and attachments electronically.

133

On the other hand, the fear or discomfort associated with sharing information
electronically deterred teachers from using CMC. Frustration with technology, which was
related in some ways to their lack of experience using computers, also was a factor that
deterred engagement in CMC. As mentioned earlier, this lack of experience also limited
their understanding of the capacity of computer technology. In addition, the teachers
suggested that aspects of the project that occurred in its initial months had a deterring
influence. These included a perceived lack of structure at the beginning of the project and
being overwhelmed by having so much to learn at once.

For many members of the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project, CMC helped to
build a sense of community. This was particularly true regarding the teachers and their
relationship with project staff. The elementary teachers considered CMC useful in
building a sense of community, as did the curriculum director, the project secretary, and
the project director. The secondary teachers and the assessment consultant did not see
CMC as playing a large role in developing a sense of community within the project. Both
secondary and elementary teachers stated that the face-to-face meetings did more to build

community.

134

h-

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Reggch ngmm

Employing an ethnographic approach, this researcher examined the impact of
CMC on the development of curriculum units by geographically dispersed, practicing
teachers. The researcher investigated the ways in which CMC enhanced and/or inhibited
classroom teachers in the development of lessons and units for a K-12 cuniculum in the
teaching of philanthropy and civic responsibility. The Council of Michigan Foundations
sponsored this multimillion-dollar curriculum project to develop a comprehensive,
articulated group of lesson units for grades K-12 in the teaching of philanthropy and civic
responsibility and its importance to a democratic way of life. F orty-three teachers from
both public and private schools across Michigan participated in this initiative, called the
K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project. A full-time director, curriculum specialist, and
secretary comprised the staff for the project. In addition, services were purchased from a
nationally known assessment consultant and Michigan State University for computer
support and training. .

In the early summer of 1997, the teachers were chosen to participate in this project
through a competitive application process. That fall they received computers, computer
training, and (for some) release time fi'om their teaching responsibilities. The teachers

developed lessons during the fall and winter of that year, and began field-testing during the

135

spring and into the fall of 1998. In the months following field-testing, final edits to the
lessons were made. During the lesson development and field-testing phases, the teachers
and project stafi‘, including consultants, communicated both electronically and in face-to-
face meetings. By the spring of 1999, a group of 100 lessons had been developed. These
lessons make up the first phase of the curriculum for the project. Phase two of the project
began in June 1999, with the addition of 30 teachers.

This researcher followed the teachers through phase one of the K-12 Education in
Philanthropy Project as they learned to use their computers, developed lessons, attended
conferences, and met in small and large groups to digest and discuss their work. Insights
regarding the process and teacher perceptions were gained through both face-to-face
meetings with the teachers and staff and by studying archival data. In addition, the
researcher participated on the Michigan State University team evaluating the project and
as a member of the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project Steering Committee.

The archival data reviewed for this research included a year-one formative
evaluation report consisting of a baseline survey, a report on round one of the journals,
and a report on stakeholder interviews; two other journal rounds; e-mail samples; and an
evaluation report on teacher practices. Through three separate focus group interviews,
the researcher met with nearly half of the participating teachers. Interviews were also held
with the project director, curriculum specialist, project secretary, assessment consultant,
and two staff members from the Michigan State University Computer Center. All data
sources served to enlighten the researcher regarding the impact of CMC on the curriculum
development process, but it was the words of the teachers themselves that added the spice

to the stew. Through three journal rounds and three focus group interviews, the project

136

teachers revealed their deepest fi'ustrations and concerns, along with their joys and
accomplishments, progress marked in their own words.

During the data-analysis phase for this study, the researcher sifted through
interview transcripts, journals, and survey data, as well as samples of e-mail responses and
archival data sources. Code words were assigned to significant phrases, sentences, or
paragraphs, and these code words were then grouped into categories. The categories

were further refined into general themes.

Themes

In analyzing the data on the impact that CMC has on curriculum development, five
general themes emerged that are important when considering the primary research
question of this study. These themes, depicted in Figure 5.1, identify those factors, both
positive and negative, associated with the impact that the use of CMC has when
developing curriculum in a networked project. The themes are offered to provide a
fi'amework for considering the use of CMC when developing curriculum. In reality, they
do not exist as stark, separate entities; rather, they weave their way throughout the
project. The themes are organized under the following headings: Technical/Mechanical,
Organizational, Context, Individual Use, and Curriculum Development. In this section,
each theme and those factors related to the theme is considered in turn, discussing their
relationship to the impact of CMC on curriculum development. The discussion of the
themes is grounded in the data presented in Chapter IV. The themes referenced in Figure
5.] assist in understanding the impact that CMC has on the development of curriculum by

geographically dispersed, practicing teachers.

137

 

TechnicallMeehanical

 

 

 

 

 

912mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Leadership
System Reliability Planning and Management
Access Support and Sharing
Technical Support Information overload
Themes
Associated with
The Impact of CMC
On Curriculum Development
Context Mums:

 

 

 

 

Curriculum Development

Asynchronous Communication
Flexibility

Time and Distance

On-Line Editing

Lesson management

 

Organizational Norms Time

Prior Opportunity Family Support
Organizational Support Purpose
Gender 1’ Commitment
Grade Level Emotions

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.1: The impact of CMC on curriculum development.

138

I l . l ,1 l l . l

The impact of CMC on curriculum development in the K-12 Education in
Philanthropy Project was affected by technical/mechanical factors. These factors
encompass the mechanics and technical issues involved in keeping a networked system
running. Included within this theme are the factors of:

1. System reliability-whether a computer system consistently operated in a way
that met the demands of the project.

2. Access-availability of a computer and the opportunity to use it.

3. Technical support-technical assistance provided to set up the computers and
keep the computer system running.

The reliability of the computer system has been noted in the literature as a factor
that has an impact on curriculum development in a networked project (Coulter &
Feldman, 1995; Eurich-Fulcer & Schofield, 1995). This certainly makes intuitive sense
because a computer system would need to be consistently working for people to
communicate with each other. The K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project purchased
service for project participants through Internet providers or used those providers already
in place through the teachers’ local school districts. Occasionally, service through one of
the Internet providers was interrupted. When that happened, teachers were unable to
communicate using CMC with other teachers or the project staff, nor were they able to
access the Internet for research purposes. However, the project director and curriculum
specialist reported that the systems were generally available for the project participants.

Another element of system reliability involves computer capacity and uniformity in

software. Through the project, the teachers and staff were provided with state-of-the-art

139

computer equipment to which uniform software was added. Because the computers were
new and the software was installed before reaching the teachers, problems of reliability
and access were reduced as compared to working with nonuniform (and perhaps older)
equipment and software.

Certainly access to the computers had an effect on the use of CMC to support
curriculum development, and this is well documented in the literature on CMC (Coulter &
Feldman, 1995; Eurich-Fulcer & Schofield, 1995; Riel, 1990a; Weir, 1992). During the
focus group interviews, the teachers indicated that having access to a computer affected
their frequency of use. Initially, some teachers did not have computers or their systems
had not been set up yet. During that time those teachers, who did not already have easy
access to a computer, did not engage in CMC. Also, a requirement of the project entailed
keeping the desktop computers at school for the first semester of the project. This limited
access to the computers to school hours, or caused teachers to have to visit their buildings
in the evenings or on weekends, an option not available in all schools. In addition, a
teacher’s computer and classroom were not always in the same location. During the focus
group interviews, the teachers noted that they used their computers more once they took
them home because they had little time at school to use them.

Computer access can be seen in two ways. First, there is the access that comes
from participants’ being given their own computers for the project. The second issue of
access goes to the opportunity to use the computer. Those factors that had an impact on a
teacher’s opportunity to use the computer include system reliability, time, and computer
availability. As noted above, because the computers were not always in a place where the

teachers were, the computers were not available to them to use. Another factor affecting

140

availability included district fire walls, mechanisms installed on computer systems to screen
out material that could be considered inappropriate.

Local district fire walls presented an unanticipated barrier to communication and to
conducting research. Although the fire walls were installed to protect students fi'om
undesirable information available through the Internet, they also kept teachers from
visiting web sites that could further their research and from communicating with other
project members. During the focus groups, a few of the teachers reported that they were
unable to communicate via e-mail in the first months of the project because of the fire
walls. Local district technical support staff had to be contacted to overcome that problem.

Technical support to the teachers emerged as important to this networked project,
both for getting the computer systems set up within districts and for assistance during the
project, particularly when the teachers were first learning to use their computers. The
project director, in an individual interview, noted that in-district technical support was not
uniform across the districts in the project, and it was very problematic in one of the large
urban districts. This situation was also apparent when reviewing the teacher journals.
Even without a special project to contend with, technical support is stretched in most
districts in Michigan, as affirmed by the Director of the Michigan Association of School
Administrators. Add a special project to the workload of the technical support staff, a
very busy time of year-the fall-plus competing demands by administrators, and it is not
surprising that the in-district technical support was not always available. However,
technical support was made available to the teachers. The project provided a help desk

through the Michigan State University Computer Center, a 1-800 number that was

141

available 24 hours a day, support from the project stafl’, and eight hours of computer
training.

In summary, the technical/mechanical theme includes factors that had an impact on
the use of CMC in this project. These factors are intertwined, exerting an influence on
each other. When considering the impact that CMC had on curriculum development in
this project, the effect of mechanical/technical factors is significant. The reliability of the
system, whether it consistently functioned, determined whether or not teachers could
communicate and conduct research electronically. Access to the computer was afl‘ected
by system availability and opportunity to use the system. With access, project members
could engage in CMC; without it, they could not. Finally, the technical support available
to the teachers determined when the system was installed and how quickly technical

questions could be answered.

r ani i n

The second theme associated with the impact that CMC has on curriculum
development involves those factors falling into the organizational portion of the project
(see Figure 5.1). Organizational factors are those factors that are related to the overall
management and planning of the project. The elements of this theme include project
leadership, planning and management, support and sharing, and information overload.
These elements helped to determine whether teachers were able to engage in CMC for
curriculum development.

As detailed in Chapter IV, project leadership played a crucial role in how, why,

and whether project teachers used CMC for curriculum development. The project

142

director designed the project in such a way that CMC was crucial to on-going lesson
development. Computers were provided to the participating teachers. Further, computer
training and support were incorporated as part of the project. Project stafl‘ required that
lessons and assessment tools be sent electronically. Also, the director and curriculum
specialist provided a purpose for communicating, and offered great moral support and
organization to the project. Finally, the project director developed a commitment to the
project through dynamic and inspirational leadership. This project organization helped to
create a project that enabled the teachers to communicate electronically and required that
they did so.

The project leadership identified CMC as a crucial ingredient for a curriculum
project involving participants and staff who were spread throughout the state. This part of
the project plan was well understood by the project teachers. A number of teachers stated
during the focus groups that other aspects of the project were not as clear to them at first.
Others found the expectations to be quite clear. DiMauro and Jacobs (1995) pointed out
the importance of beginning a networked curriculum project with clear expectations for
the participants.

Another organizational factor associated with the use of CMC in a networked
project is the impact of project planning and management. Through the use of CMC,
project staff were able to maintain a record of all transmissions to each other and to
project teachers. CMC also assisted in planning the face-tocface meetings and for follow-
up after the meetings were held. Research opportunities were transmitted to the teachers

through the web site. Further, information was managed through CMC. For example, the

143

 

required lesson format was provided to the teachers as an attachment to an e-mail
message.

CMC allowed the project stafi‘ to offer emotional support to the teachers as they
worked their way through the knotty problems associated with the technology and as they
developed their lessons. The project director and secretary regularly sent inspirational
messages to the teachers, and the curriculum specialist extended continual support
through regular email contacts. To a great extent, it was through CMC that the
information of the project was shared. Everything fiom web sites to meeting notices to
recipes was sent via CMC. The effect was fewer meetings, excellent records, the ability to
share information in real time, and an organizational tool that assisted in planning efl’orts.

A related organizational factor, which is referred to in Figure 5.1 as Project
Overload, entails the significant amount of new learning required in the first months of the
project, including technical skill and new content. There is some disagreement as to
whether or not the provided readings were required. The teachers indicated that they
thought the readings were required and felt stressed and overloaded because they were
also learning to use the computers at the same time they were expected to read about a
new content area. Also, this all happened at the beginning of the school year, a very busy
time for teachers. They thought that the amount of reading required presented a barrier to
learning to use their computers and, therefore, to using their computers for CMC.

In summary, project organizational factors affected the use of CMC for curriculum
development by providing a structured and orderly system that served to make CMC
possible and to encourage its use. This supports the work of Eurich-Fulcer and Schofield

(1995), who identified organizational commitment and support as important factors

144

afl‘ecting wide-area network usage in schools. One feature of the project that surfaced in
the first months that appeared to hinder the use of CMC for curriculum development for a
number of the teachers involved the hefty amount of reading required, simultaneous with

learning to use their computers.

993%

The third theme associated with the impact of CMC on curriculum development
encompasses factors related to the context of schools. These factors include
organizational norms, prior opportunity, organizational support, gender, and grade level,
and are shown in Figure 5.1.

Fettennan (1998) wrote that the ernic perspective, or insider’s view of reality, is
important to understanding situations and behaviors. In this regard, it is important to
consider the context in which the project teachers worked and the impact that context may
have exerted on the use of CMC for curriculum development. In the schools of today,
teachers are generally isolated fiom other professionals because they spend most of their
workday in individual classrooms with students. Barth (1990) even suggested that this
isolation can extend beyond the classroom into the lunch room. Because of this isolation,
teachers have few regular opportunities to work collaboratively with other teachers. A
networked project could provide a break in this isolation, but it requires that teachers
behave in different ways than they are accustomed.

Along with a school structure that encourages teacher isolation, there is a
hesitancy on the part of some teachers to share their lessons or activities. Why this occurs

is unclear, but it may be that one of the few ways in which teachers can stand out fi'om the

145

crowd is through their own lessons and activities. The fact that this does occur and that
teachers lead rather isolated lives at school has implications for using CMC as a tool when
developing curriculum because both have the potential to influence how open teachers are
to collaborating through CMC in the development of lessons.

It has been this researcher’s experience as a principal and an assistant
superintendent for curriculum and instruction that the more competent teachers, the high
achievers, are the ones who volunteer to assist in curriculum writing. Achievers may be
more likely to self-select for participation in a curriculum-writing project. The literature
on curriculum development reviewed for this study did not include a reference to this
circumstance. People who are achievers generally hold a high standard for the quality of
their work. This was seen in the project teachers through their reluctance to share lessons
or assessment tools until everything was perfect. Teachers are also the “holders of the
knowledge” within their domains. They have information that students must learn, so they
are in a special position of power and authority. The project director thought that this
position of power and authority caused some of the teachers to be reluctant to ask for
computer assistance fiom their students. Certain teachers were simply not comfortable
asking for help from their students. This example of teachers as the purveyors of all
content knowledge introduces and reasonably supports the suggestion that attitudes of
teacher-student relations can prevent a community of learning. Barth (1990) wrote about
the importance of building a community of learners within schools where “adults and
children learn simultaneously and in the same place to think critically and analytically and
to solve problems that are important to them” (p. 43). In Barth’s community of learners,

leaming is very much a part of the school culture and is mutually visible.

I46

The project staff and consultants voiced surprise at how unskilled with computer
technology the majority of the project teachers were at the inception of the project. These
teachers had limited access to computers and/or no compelling need to learn how to use
them before their involvement in the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project. There exists
a rather wide divergence in the availability of computers to classroom teachers. In some
districts, several computers are available in every classroom. There are districts where
computers are located in a lab on another floor in the building; in others, computers are
available only to the computer classes. For whatever reason, many of the teachers entered
the project with scant previous computer experience and skill and little training.

Prior access to computer training had an impact on uses of CMC. Those without
prior experience and skill with computers did not readily engage in CMC. The journals
and the focus groups both yielded reports that the teachers’ time was spent becoming
familiar with their computers. In the Baseline Survey, Silver (1998) reported,

Whereas three out of four teachers had a fair amount or a lot of experience with

word processing before they began working on the Project, only one out of four

had a fair amount or a lot of experience with a modem or the Internet, and only
one out of five had a fair amount or a lot of experience with e-mail or downloading

files fi'om the Internet. (pp. 17-18)

He firrther pointed out that two-thirds of the teachers fell into the group with “little
previous experience” using computers. Those coming into the project with previous
computer experience and skill began using CMC right away. They soon discontinued
CMC with other teachers because of lack of response. Instead, they kept in contact with

the project staff using CMC. This lack of prior computer experience and training is what

one of the computer consultants referred to as “opportunity cost” because the opportunity

I47

to use a computer or for training had not been part of the teachers’ prior experience,
which resulted in a “cost” to the project.

In this project the teachers had varying degrees of local district organizational
support. No clear pattern could be found. In the journals, most notably Journal Round 2,
the teachers discussed organizational support from the perspective of release time for the
project. One entry stated that the writer had been granted “very little release time in spite
of encouragement given to get involved at the beginning of acceptance into the program.”
Another entry indicates that the school had agreed to release time, but that had to be
renegotiated each month. Still another commented that release time had been given, as
well as an office to use for working on the project. Each teacher application to the project
had to include the signatures of the principal and the superintendent. Eurich-Fulcer and
Schofield (1995), noting the importance of administrative support to a networked project,
suggested that without the support of the top administration, a computer network will fail
to be used to any large extent.

In the initial phase of the project, 55% of the teachers described the support they
received locally as fair or poor, noting greater support fi'om the principal than fi'om their
peers (Silver, 1998). A year later, during the focus groups, the teachers voiced that they
received varying levels of organizational support. The support ranged from what one
elementary teacher referred to as an “incredibly supportive” principal to what another
reported as “no support in my school at all.” A few teachers mentioned that their
principals were somewhat supportive, but were so busy with other aspects of running a

school that they were not able to provide much support. The fact that the project

148

 

emanated from outside the school was mentioned as a reason for the lukewarm support
provided by some of the principals.

What can be surmised from the information presented above is that for a project
organized fi'om outside the school district, organizational support cannot be guaranteed,
nor can it be dismissed. Variables such as the teacher’s relationship with the principal,
how much knowledge was shared with members of the organization before participation
and during the project, competing projects within the district, and/or changing personnel

could have had an influence on organizational support. These are issues relevant to the

 

local educational community.

The context of a school environment may also hold implications for the effect of
gender on CMC. Former studies have shown that gender can play a role in the use of
CMC (Chemey, 1994; Davis & Brewer, 1997; Herring, 1993; Hunt, 1996; Turkle, 1997).
Herring found a discrepant level of participation between the genders, with females
posting shorter and less frequent messages. In the present study, gender did not surface as
a factor. Staff members indicated that they had noticed no difference in the frequency or
amount of CMC between the men and women in the project. During the focus groups as
well, the teachers stated that there existed no difference in communication patterns
between the male and female teachers. Reasons for this circumstance may be found within
the school context, where many of the workers are women, salaries are contractually set
so there is no salary inequity within the teaching ranks, and women hold leadership
positions as department or committee chairs. Further, the domain of curriculum
development is a highly verbal one, and lesson writing is an area in which women can

excel. These are conditions within which a female teacher could feel comfortable sharing

149

ideas, and that may have overridden a reluctance to participate in CMC. The only place
that gender dominance was apparent came up when teachers talked about the importance
of family support. Of the many references made to the support received when learning to
use their computers, all comments but one referred to the assistance provided by a
husband or a son.

The focus group interviews did reveal a difi‘erence in the amount of CMC
involvement between the secondary teachers and the elementary teachers. The elementary
teachers used CMC more for collaborating and sharing than did the secondary teachers.
The elementary teachers remarked that they communicated with a partner and others in
the project. Yet, the secondary teachers responded as if it had not occurred to them to
communicate with others in the project. They stated that they would have used CMC with
other project teachers if someone had told them to do it. When asked in one of the focus
groups made 'up of only secondary teachers whether they would communicate with
elementary teachers, they laughed. Then one of them stated that they would communicate
with elementary teachers if there was a reason to do so. This was not a surprise to the
elementary teachers, who indicated that it was because secondary teachers focus on
content and elementary teachers focus on people. The belief that secondary teachers are
content focused and elementary teachers are people focused travels through curriculum
deve10pment circles and among elementary staff members. Of course, secondary teachers
also care about people, but there is a difference in the way secondary teachers and
elementary teachers approach a curriculum development task. It has been this researcher’s
experience that elementary teachers are more eager to work together and share their ideas,

whereas secondary teachers are very focused on their particular content specialty. The

150

traditional structure of the American high school encourages such a focus for secondary
teachers.

In summary, factors related to the context of teaching and schools afi‘ected the use
of CMC for curriculum development in this project. Eurich-Fulcer and Schofield (1995)
also identified social and organizational context factors related to the culture of schools as
having an impact on network use. The very structure of schools helps to define how
teachers work together. That teachers are isolated and spend a large portion of their
workday in the classroom has implications for collaboration through group work. In the
K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project, the secondary teachers did not use CMC to
collaborate on lessons with other teachers, but rather worked through the curriculum
specialist. The elementary teachers felt more flee to use CMC with their colleagues. One
finding of this study that is inconsistent with the literature on CMC is that gender did not
play a discernible role in the use of CMC. Issues related to the culture of schools may
account for this difference.

The lack of prior experience using computers and thereby developing computer
skills presented an inhibiting effect on the use of CMC for curriculum development at the
onset of the project. Feldman and Nyland (1994) discovered in studying the Network
Science Project that although the teachers were experienced in curriculum development,
they were not familiar with computer technology or software. The researchers stated that
this lack of experience with computer technology presented difficulties in writing the
curriculum. Certainly, in the current project the lack of prior experience with computers

slowed down the project during its first year.

151

Mireille:

Figure 5.1 details the general theme of Individual Use and factors that affect
individuals as they utilize CMC for curriculum development. These factors include the
impact that lack of time exerted on the process, family support when learning to use the
technology, whether there existed a purpose for using CMC, the level of commitment the
participants felt to the project, and the effect of emotions on individual use.

The factor mentioned most frequently and emphatically that had an impact on the
individual use of CMC was the lack of time to learn to use the computer and to develop
the lessons and units. Lack of time was offered up as the culprit that kept the project
teachers fi'om using their computers for communication to the extent that they would have
liked. The lack of time as a factor that has an impact on the use of CMC in a networked
project has been reported in the literature on CMC (Coulter & Feldman, 1995; Drayton,
1993; Riel, 1990a, 1990b; Weir, I992).

Competing demands from their teaching positions, family and community
involvement, and recreational activities ate into their time available for project
communications and curriculum development. The project teachers were very involved
with teaching, co-curricular activities, and family responsibilities, all of which limited the
time available to master the computer and make connections with other teachers. The
1998 Baseline Survey indicated that 69% of the teachers reported that, before the
beginning of the project, they were actively involved in extracurricular activities at school,
and 55% reported involvement in community-based activities.

As mentioned in Chapter IV, the project director had built in release time during

the fall of 1997 for the teachers so that they would have time to work on the lessons. This

152

proved to be a problem for two main reasons. First, substitute teachers were not available
in all districts, and second, the release time came very early in the project. Had release
time been available to the teachers during the winter semester of 1998, the teachers may
have been able to make better use of the time available. However, the lack of substitute
teachers would have remained an issue.

The work of curriculum development involves a significant expenditure of time. It
is an issue that has not received much discussion in texts defining the curriculum
development process. Pratt (1994) addressed the issue of time only from an
implementation perspective. Tanner and Tanner (1980) did not even address the problem
created by the amount of time required to develop a curriculum. Fullen (1982), however,
did note that the shortage of time is the single most frequently cited barrier in the
curriculum development and implementation process. Whether developing curriculum
exclusively through face-to-face meetings, as has been the traditional method, or by using
CMC to enhance the process, having enough time to do the work of curriculum
development is an important factor.

The assistance in using the computer provided by family and fiiends was seen as
beneficial to the project teachers. In the journals as well as during the focus groups, the
teachers indicated that this help was important in their learning to use the technology
provided through the project. Although the majority of the teachers relied on the help of
family or peers, not all teachers had someone in their lives with computer skills. One who
did not have someone reported that this was detrimental to her learning to use the
computer. The importance of family and peer support was mentioned primarily in relation

to the computer training offered through the project.

153

Another factor that had an impact on individuals’ use of CMC for curriculum
development is whether or not the teachers thought there was a compelling reason to
communicate in this way. This finding takes the suggestion to build in a reason for
teachers to contact technical support staff offered by Coulter and Feldman (1995) to
another level by building a reason to communicate with each other and project managers.
In the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project, the purposes for communicating were
created for the most part by the project staff and included required lesson exchanges and
assessment exchanges. An analysis of the data suggests that the teachers had other
purposes for communicating—for example, if they wanted information regarding a
conference or meeting, or needed a curriculum resource. Further, once the teachers
learned to edit on-line, they began to exchange edited lessons with the curriculum
specialist.

Another factor that may have influenced the use of CMC, mentioned directly by
staff and implied by teachers, was a commitment to an idea or a belief system. The
Baseline Survey (MSU Evaluation Team, 1998) reported that the teachers “are strongly
committed to the introduction of education in philanthropy in their school curricula”

(p. 6). Their view of the importance of this is shown in Table 5.1.

Although commitment to a belief system was not mentioned directly in the
literature reviewed for this study, Riel (1990a) suggested that the level of obligation felt by
the teacher to use a system regularly has an impact on participation rates in networked
projects. It is possible that level of commitment could be tied to level of obligation.

Eurich-Fulcer and Schofield (1995) spoke to the issue of motivation to use a computer as

154

 

a factor that influences its use. A high level of commitment to the ideals of a project may

increase a teacher’s motivation to engage in CMC as a means of developing curriculum.

Table 5.1: Commitment to the Education in Philanthropy curriculum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How important is it to make education in philanthropy Number Percent
a standard part of your school’s curriculum?

Not at all important 0 0
Not very important 0 0
Somewhat important 2 6
Very important 17 49
Vitally important 16 46

 

Source: 1998 Baseline Survey (Silver, 1998).

During the focus groups, the project teachers stated a commitment to the beliefs
that formed the foundation for the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project. They voiced a
feeling of responsibility to the project that kept them engaged and involved. The teachers
made comments about how the project had changed their teaching in a positive way, and
some stressed how important involvement in the project had been to them professionally.

A final factor that had an effect on individual use of CMC as a tool for developing
curriculum involves the fear of disclosure, such as a fear of looking foolish or a fear of
criticism by peers. The staff and consultants indicated that this was not an insignificant
issue in getting teachers to share their lessons and work together. Although the staff and
consultants clearly stated this as a factor in CMC use, the teachers were not quite as
forthcoming. They did occasionally talk about being afraid that someone would ask a

question to which they did not know the answer or that they were uncomfortable sharing

155

first and second drafts of lessons. The teachers did not want to put their lessons out for
others to see until the lessons were appropriate for publishing. This hesitancy to share or
ask questions brought on by a fear of disclosure slowed the process of lesson writing, and
deterred them at times from engaging in CMC for curriculum development. The fear of
disclosure was not mentioned in the literature reviewed for the present study.

A review of the impact that factors related to individual use have on the use of
CMC for curriculum development yielded a number of findings. The lack of time to work
on the project and to learn to use the technology impeded progress in developing lessons.
Having adequate time is an important issue for both traditional curriculum work and for
that accomplished through a networked project. Family and peer support in the use of
technology was a valued commodity to the teachers as they learned to use their
computers. The importance of family and peers as part of the informal training in
computer use was discussed in Chapter IV.

Having a purpose to communicate using CMC increased its use. A further element
that may have had a positive impact on the use of CMC was the high level of commitment
voiced by the teachers for the ideals of the project. Finally, the fear or disclosure realized

through hesitancy to share lessons and questions may have impeded the use of CMC.

Curriculum Develepment

The final theme identified in Figure 5.1, Curriculum Development, includes those
characteristics of CMC that affect the curriculum development process. These

characteristics include the asynchronous nature of CMC, the flexibility it can add to the

156

 

curriculum development process, that it has the ability to overcome time and distance, and
the options it offers for editing on-line and lesson management.

Davis and Brewer (1997), in their study of electronic discourse, noted that
asynchronous communication allows communicators the ability to read postings on their
own time schedule. The asynchronous nature of CMC proved to be of substantial benefit
for teachers and staff as the curriculum was developed. Asynchronous communication
that is available through CMC presents a significant difi‘erence to methods of
communicating that are used when developing curriculum without the use of CMC.

A further benefit that asynchronous communication ofi‘ers when developing
curriculum is that it interjects flexibility into the process by allowing project staff and
teachers to communicate at their convenience. Glatthom (1997) stated that flexibility is an
important ingredient of a curriculum development project because of the complex nature
of the work. Project members were able to work at home in the evening and on the
weekends, exchanging messages whenever it fit their schedules.

As noted earlier, CMC made it possible for teachers and project staff who were
geographically dispersed to participate in this project by providing a way to overcome
distance. The project staff and teachers maintained that without CMC they would have
had to meet more often, and the director stated that the project could not have taken place
if the participants could not have communicated electronically. CMC made it possible to
exchange lessons, provide planning information, and structure the project without regard
to location of the teachers and staff Further, CMC allowed for communication in real

time, rather than having to rely on the regular mail, planned meetings, or school mail as

157

 

the means for sharing information, which would be the means of information sharing
characteristic of traditional curriculum development methods.

On-line editing is an option that exists through CMC. “Without that option, staff
and teachers would have sent hard copy back and forth through the US. mail, adding time
to an already tight time line. On-line editing ofi‘ered the luxury of immediate feedback,
which was important to a person writing within a particular block of time, such as during a
planning time at school. CMC also assisted with lesson management by providing a
record of lessons and other communications and a required format for writing the lessons.

CMC eventually added speed, efficiency, and convenience to this curriculum
development project. By being provided the option for asynchronous communication,
teachers and staff were able to communicate at their convenience. The ability to edit on-
line and to have a record of the lessons are two other ways in which CMC had a positive

impact on the curriculum development process in this project.

Im f M n rri lum l m : A

This research considered the impact of CMC on curriculum development by
geographically dispersed, practicing teachers. Given the data analyzed in this study, a
number of conclusions can be drawn regarding the impact of CMC as a tool for
supporting curriculum development.

Using CMC as a tool when developing curriculum offers certain benefits to the
process. CMC increases the communication options in a curriculum development project.
Also, it can add flexibility to traditional curriculum development because with CMC

comes the ability to communicate asynchronously, which allows curriculum writers to read

158

and send messages or lessons and units at their convenience. The ability to send and
retrieve material electronically also allows for the possibility of holding fewer face-to-face
meetings. Teachers are able to write lessons and send the draft to a curriculum specialist
or team member for review and editing. This can be done in real time and without the
need for a face-to-face meeting, an important ingredient for a project such as the one
studied because the participants and staff were geographically dispersed. Further, CMC
offers the option of editing lessons on-line, a technique that has not been available with
traditional curriculum development methods. In fact, the literature review on curriculum
development revealed no references to the use of CMC as a tool to enhance the
curriculum development process. Finally, the management features offered through CMC
can enhance a curriculum development project by providing a record of exchanges, easy
access to lessons, and the ability to print or forward materials with a click of a computer
key. Managing materials in a curriculum project not employing CMC involves the use of
hard copy and a secretary making runs to the copy machine.

Factors associated with the use of CMC in a curriculum development project also
may impede the process. Lack of computer experience and skill of those involved in the
curriculum project can cause the work to lag. To a great extent, the level of computer
experience and skill of both the teachers and project leaders will affect the curriculum
development process in projects relying on CMC, a finding supported by Coulter and
Feldman (1995) and Eurich-Fulcer and Schofield (1995). In the K-12 Education in
Philanthropy Project, the majority of teachers were unskilled with computers coming into
the project. Offering a computer for participation in the project may have established a

self-selected group of inexperienced computer users. It is possible that those without

159

computer access were more likely to apply to the project than were teachers with ready
access to a computer. This created fi'ustrations for them and for the project leaders, as
well as for the teachers with computer expertise. It also increased the amount of time
allotted for lesson development and the number of face-to-face meetings beyond what had
been originally planned. In addition, because of this lack of skill, the teachers required
training and assistance in the use of computers. Because the reliance on CMC has not
been a dimension of traditional curriculum development, the concern about computer
training and learning curves has not been an issue. The work of curriculum development
has traditionally been tackled in face-to-face meetings, with some “homework” being
required before the next meeting.

Because computers play an ever-increasing role in our business and social lives, it
is likely that, in the firture, teachers will enter a project with more computer skill and
experience than was apparent with the K- 12 Education in Philanthropy Project. However,
it would still be prudent to require a certain level of computer competence for a teacher to
be allowed to participate in a networked curriculum project such as the one described
here.

The reliance on computer systems for cuniculum development opens an array of
possible problems not apparent when developing curriculum without depending on CMC
as a support for the process. Systems must be up to date with uniform software, as well
as being accessible, efficient, and reliable. This all requires technical support, which is not
readily available in all situations and which could require the expenditure of money.
Coulter and Feldman (1995) and Eurich-Fulcer and Schofield (1995) pointed out the

importance of adequate technical support for the computer and network systems, and

160

adequate technical training. In the current study there was evidence that this technical
support is important to both fi'equency of use for CMC and for the ability to use
computers to develop curriculum materials and for communication.

Other aspects of using CMC as a tool when developing curriculum are worthy of
mention. Face-to-face meetings, which are the backbone of traditional curriculum
development methods, remain an important ingredient even in a networked project. A
recurring conviction of both teachers and stafi‘ that surfaced during this study is the
importance of face-to-face meetings as a means to build relationships, share ideas, and
work in small groups. The work of Sproull and Kiesler (1992) supports this belief. They
indicated that electronic communication is no substitute for face-to-face communication;
rather, CMC can enhance traditional ways of communicating. Sproull and Kiesler further
recommended that face-to-face meetings be held in the early stages of a project to help
form alliances with participants. The teachers in the K-12 Education in Philanthropy
Project stressed the importance of these early meetings and indicated that the additional
meetings were important as they learned to use their computers and about the content
upon which the curriculum would be written.

Project leadership plays an important role in the planning, organization, and
sustenance of a networked project. This research supports the finding of others (Eurich-
Fulcer & Schofield, I995; Riel & Levin, 1990; Weir, 1992) who have identified the
importance of leadership to a networked project. In this study the project leaders served
as a source of information and encouragement. They provided computer equipment,
modeled computer skills, and made it clear that computer use was a requirement of the

project. Further, the project director and curriculum specialist provided inspiration for

161

participation in the project, encouraging a commitment to the central beliefs that formed
the basis for developing the curriculum. Project leadership stands out as an important
ingredient of traditional curriculum development also.

Although CMC opens up avenues for collaboration and cooperative learning
(Weir, 1992), the teachers in this project were inconsistent in their use of CMC. Most of
the electronic communication used by the teachers occurred between individual project
teachers and the curriculum specialist or the project director. Within the assessment
subgroup, teachers had begun to share assessment rubrics because the consultant
structured this expectation. With few exceptions, at the secondary level, the K-12
Education in Philanthropy Project teachers did not engage one another in electronic
communication for the purpose of curriculum development. The elementary teachers used
CMC more consistently, sharing lessons and exchanging e-mail messages. This is a
phenomenon that has not been noted in earlier research on curriculum development in
networked projects.

Sproull and Kiesler (1992) noted that those communicating electronically show
less audience awareness. This may be true in certain circumstances. However, in the
project under investigation, the teachers showed great audience awareness to the point of
being hesitant to share their lessons. This may be related to the fact that the audience was
known to the teachers, was not a general audience, and was made up of their peers.

The participants in the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project contended that lack
of time interfered with their ability to learn to use the computer systems and to work on
lessons. Finding enough time to develop curriculum is important in traditional curriculum

projects as well. Further findings of this study, supported by previous research,

162

underscore the importance of time to fi'equency of use, and the efl'ect of competing
demands on participants.

An inconclusive finding of this research concerned the impact of local district
administrative support on teachers’ use of CMC. The project teachers described varying
degrees of support fi'om their building principals, yet with one glaring exception, this did
not seem to have a direct effect on teachers’ use of CMC. The district where this was a
factor is a very large urban district with many competing demands and problems. In this
district the lack of administrative support, revealed through an unmanageable bureaucracy,
served to reduce the frequency of CMC for the teachers in the project.

A finding of this research that has relevance to projects involving teachers was also
cited by Coulter and Feldman (1995). A number of the project teachers displayed a
hesitancy to request technical assistance for their computers. This was evidenced in the
K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project in two ways. First, the project director noted that
a few of the teachers were uncomfortable asking students for help with their computers.
Second, during the focus group interviews, some of the teachers indicated that they had
not signed up for on-line computer courses (a potential help with computer use) because
they did not think they would be able to figure out how to navigate the class. However,
they did not ask for the assistance they needed, which was readily available to them. It is
also possible that those teachers did not sign up for a computer class because they did not
have time.

A final comment on the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project deserves mention.
As a multimillion-dollar endeavor, this project has been very well funded. National

foundations such as the Kellogg Foundation and the Libby Foundation have provided

163

significant financial support for this curriculum development project. Millions of dollars
are not typically available to a school system to use to develop a new curriculum or to
invigorate an established curriculum. In the case of this project, major foundations and
local community foundations have come forth to support a concept about which they hold
strong beliefs.

In conclusion, CMC can be a useful tool in developing curriculum. CMC is not,
however, a tool without baggage. It is a communication medium that is ripe for
misunderstandings because communication occurs without the usual social cues that are
present with face-to-face communication. Staff members must have access to computers
in order to use CMC for curriculum development. Further, depending on the use of CMC
for a curriculum development project may create problems if the participants are not
skilled with computers. This can result in a cost for both training and time.

Yet CMC has the potential to change the face of traditional curriculum
development by adding a bit of flexibility to the process. The opportunity to edit on-line
can lessen the need for face-to-face interactions. In addition, time spent to gather or send
lessons through either school or US. mail can be reduced. Certainly, CMC can diminish
the problems associated with distance for a statewide project. Speed, flexibility,
asynchronicity, on-line editing, and overcoming distance are the primary advantages for
using CMC while developing curriculum.

The teachers who participated in the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project
indicated during the focus groups and in their journals that they now use computer
technology in their teaching. Further benefits of program participation included

professional development, intellectual challenge, and the opportunity to participate in a

164

state-wide initiative. Finally, the lessons developed for the project incorporate on-line
resources that students can access. Ultimately, then, the students in classrooms will be the

beneficiaries of a curriculum developed through the assistance of CMC.

mli inforP i Pli Rs ch
There are interesting implications for practice, educational policy, and firrther
research fi'om this study on the impact of CMC on the curriculum development process.
These implications are provided here by addressing Research Question 3:
What are the implications of this study?
This study on the impact of CMC on curriculum development has implications for
the practice of curriculum development, for policy makers who provide leadership and

direction for those practices, and for further research.

mm

W What are the implications of this study for practice?

From the findings of this study, several observations are offered here that have
implications for school administrators, curriculum developers, teachers, and others
interested in using CMC as a means of enhancing the outcomes of a curriculum
development project. Figure 5.2 provides a list of recommendations that have implications
for practice when using CMC for curriculum development.

When planning a project that relies on the use of CMC, it is important to require a
minimum level of computer competence by project participants and leadership. This
would include both skill and experience in using computer technology. Ifcomputer

training is a component of the project, that training should be completed before the work

165

of the project begins, and computers should be available for practice. A suggestion
ofi‘ered by the project teachers and the computer support staff is to customize the training
by ability. If budgets and staffing allow, provide an opportunity for participants to meet

between training sessions individually with someone with computer expertise.

 

Implications for Practice

 

Require a minimum level of computer competence by project participants
Address mechanical and technical concerns before the project begins
Select dynamic and supportive project leadership that models the use of CMC

 

 

 

Provide opportunities for participants to meet face to face

 

Structure reasons to communicate using CMC into the project

 

Be sensitive to the culture of the participants

 

 

 

Acquire local administrative support for the project

 

Figure 5.2: Curriculum development in a project that relies on the use of CMC:
Implications for practice.
Address mechanical and technical concerns before the project begins. In this
regard the project director remarked, “Do not underestimate what it takes to get a system

"9

up and running Determine in advance the adequacy of local technical support and
whether that support will be available to participants. Identify the security requirements to
reduce problems with theft or vandalism. Find out whether a district has a fire wall
installed that would interfere with electronic communications and web access. Make sure
computer equipment is uniform, or at the least can support the same software programs.

Select dynamic and supportive project leadership that models the use of CMC.

The project leadership sets the standard for all the work of the project. They also play an

166

important role in encouraging project participants and ensuring commitment to the goals
and objectives of the project. The leadership for the K-12 Education in Philanthropy
Project provided excellent models as prolific computer users themselves, and they required
that the participants communicate with them using CMC. In addition, they possessed
strongly held beliefs about the goals of the project.

Provide opportunities for participwrts to meet face to face. Repeatedly, both staff
and teachers pointed out the importance of face-to-face meetings for building an esprit dc
corps. Also, there are certain activities that just work better in small-group meetings—for
example, brainstorming. Face-to-face meetings also serve to build relationships that can
be continued through CMC.

Structure reasons to communicate using CMC into the project. An interesting
phenomenon to the researcher was that a number of the teachers, particularly at the
secondary level, indicated that they had not shared lessons or communications
electronically with other teachers because “nobody told us to.” This points out the
importance of building in reasons to communicate and exchange information, as was
required of the assessment subgroup. Provide clear, specific directions more than once. If
a list serv or bulletin board is to be used, provide regular oversight and make it a priority
to ensure that interesting topics are posted. Also, do not expect people who are
inexperienced with computers to read and participate in on-line discussions in the initial
phases of a project.

Be sensitive to the work culture of the participants. Every organization has its
own cultural norms and activities. Because teachers generally work in isolation, take that

into account if they are expected to work and behave in different ways fiom what they are

167

used to. It may take some time for certain teachers to feel comfortable sharing their
writings, editing the work of other teachers, or working with a group. Most teachers are
achievers and, therefore, want to do assigned tasks well. In addition, in education there
are certain times of the year that would be better-or worse—to have additional demands
placed on teachers. The beginning of the school year, for example, is a busy time for
teachers, so it is not a good time to add responsibilities to their already busy schedules.
Acquire local district administrative support for the project. It is important that
building principals and local curriculum administrators understand and buy into the goals
of the planned project for them to support the project. Part of this process must include a
means of communicating that information to the appropriate administrators and giving
them adequate time to discuss the project goals and to consider the project in relation to
other district priorities. The building principal and superintendent also need to sign ofl‘ on
any grant or other agreement involving teachers. It is important to keep the administration
informed regarding the project as it progresses. This will increase their understanding of

and perhaps their support for the project.

Impligtiene fer Polig

Rgeereh Qegtien 39: What are the implications of this study for policy?

Implications can also be drawn from this study that have relevance to education
policy. Because curriculum designs are more and more the result of decisions made at the
national, state, and school system levels (Tanner & Tanner, 1980), it is important that
policy makers are attuned to the issues important to the use of CMC in a networked

project. McDonnell and Ellmore (1987) firrther suggested that policy can exert control of

168

curriculum through state and district requirements. The important implications for policy
that emanate fiorn the findings in this study are detailed in Figure 5.3 and discussed in this

section.

 

Implications for Policy Makers

 

Examine computer security policies

 

Require appropriate use agreements

 

Hire teachers who are computer literate

 

Craft policies that support effective computer usage

 

 

 

Ensure that grant makers understand CMC project success factors

 

Figure 5.3: Curriculum development in a project that relies on the use of CMC:
Implications for policy makers.

Examine computer security policies. Safety of students is the primary reason that
security policies exist. Sometimes security measures are taken with good intentions that
have unintended consequences. School districts have installed fire walls to protect
students fi'om undesirable material available on the Internet. The fire walls can also
restrict desirable information and activities. Review the reason for the fire wall to
determine whether it is fulfilling its purpose, and whether the need for a fire wall remains.
(Certainly the answer to that question may be yes.) Also, a district needs to make sure
that there is adequate space for computer equipment and that the equipment is secure from
theft, vandalism, or hacking.

Require appropriate use agreements. Every school in the district with staff using
computers should have an appropriate use agreement signed by the staff. If a special

project were set up using computers and the Internet, the agreement would cover it.

169

However, if an outside organization oversees a special project, such as with the K-12
Education in Philanthropy Project, that project should also require that an appropriate use
agreement be signed by each participant.

Hire teachers who are computer literate. This is currently not a uniform practice
in all school districts. Although there is a perception that all young people are computer
literate, this is not always the case. It becomes a serious time and money issue if districts
have to provide computer training to teachers. Teachers who are competent computer
users understand what an important educational tool computers can be—not only for
teaching, but also for maintaining and improving their professional skills and knowledge.
Certainly, if a district planned a curriculum project, having computer-literate teachers
would be a benefit.

Craft policies that support eflective computer usage. Policies can have an impact
on how and whether teacher release time is available for special projects involving
technology. Set up structures that ensure that beginning teachers have an experienced
teacher as a computer mentor. Provide computer training during the summer so that
teachers can focus on improving their skills without other distractions. Require that at
least some of the curriculum work of the district be carried out electronically.

At the state and national levels, it is important that grant makers understand those

factors that contribute to the success of projects using CMC. Certainly, grant readers
should look for evidence in the application of the following:

1. A plan for ensuring technology access.

2. Adequate technical support.

3. Involvement of local district administration.

170

 

4. Security measures and appropriate use agreements.

5. Uniform equipment and software.

6. A plan for training that is realistic.

7. Strong leadership with demonstrated knowledge of the topic and computers.
8. Identified structure to ensure that CMC occurs.

9. Opportunities for face-to-face meetings.

10. A fit between the project time line and the school calendar.

Impligtiens fer Further Re§earch

Reseegh fleestien 3e: What are the implications of this study for further
research?

This study revealed interesting areas for further research. Potential areas for
inquiry are organized under the following categories: Educational Technology,
Educational Leadership and Change, Technology and Communication, Curriculum, and
Special-Interest Groups.

Wu The teachers involved in this project all had access to
computers that were purchased at considerable cost to the project. An interesting
question could consider the impact of personal-computer ownership or access to
developing curriculum in a networked project. On-line computer classes were offered fi'ee
of charge to the project teachers. What are the differences, if any, between the teachers
who took advantage of this opportunity and those who did not? An area of research that
would be valuable to teachers could look at the kinds of web resources that are most
helpful to teachers and, when researching information, the number of mouse clicks that

can occur before a teacher loses interest in researching the topic.

171

Wireless; For this study. project leadership was

provided from a source outside of the teachers’ school districts. How would leadership
issues vary for projects led fi'om within? What impact would factors such as district
position in the leadership hierarchy, overall district support for the curriculum project, or
technology expertise of the district leadership have on the project? Other research might
consider the effect that fear of disclosure has on projects involving CMC and efi‘ective
techniques to assuage those fears.

Teehnelegy ane communieetion. What effect does the number of participants have
on CMC? As the number increases, does difficulty in communicating increase? Is there a
grade-level influence on issues such as fear of disclosure or propensity for on-line
collaboration? Another question worthy of research is whether CMC removes some of
the personal issues that can arise during face-to-face communication. For example, in a
typical group meeting there may be one person who dominates the conversation. Would
that decrease during CMC? Further research could examine the discourse of the text in
electronic communications to better understand the nature of voice and power in the
exchanges.

gerrieglum prectiees. An additional question could determine what strategies are
successful for embedding a particular curriculum into an existing district curriculum. The
K-12 Education in Philanthropy Curriculum will be shared through the World Wide Web.
How effective is this as a mechanism for sharing the information, and would a school
system adopt a curriculum that is available on-line and was developed by people outside
the district? The impact that the project teachers have had on their respective school

districts could prove interesting. Whether elementary teachers are more willing to share

172

their lessons than secondary teachers under other conditions is another topic for a
prospective study.

Wm The K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project was designed
and funded by a group of people with a special interest in developing a curriculum on the
teaching of philanthropy and civic responsibility and its importance to a democratic way of
life. This project was initiated from outside the educational arena through the Council of
Michigan Foundations. A case study on the impact a special-interest group can have on
the K-12 curriculum in public education would make a fascinating research project. In the
case of the philanthropy curriculum, it would be interesting to determine the sustainability

of the project.

173

APPENDICES

I74

APPENDIX A

K-12 EDUCATION IN PHILANTHROPY PROJECT

175

K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project

Teaching the Importance of Voluntary Action for the
Public Good in a Democratic Society

Kindergarten Through Twelfth Grade (K-12) Education in
Philanthmpy Case Statement Executive Summary

Each day leaders fiom emerging democracies come to the United States with a relatively
surprising question. They want to know how they can create a third sector in their
countries. They ask for guidance on teaching democratic and philanthropic principles to
their children, and about systems for passing on the tradition of private citizens working
for the common good. They come to the United States because they recognize that the
third sector in America is fundamental to building and sustaining a secure democracy,
supporting government, and to making our heterogeneous society firnction.

Their questions echo many of those posed by teachers and civic leaders in the United
States: How do we engage children in civic life? How do we harness youthfirl idealism
and combat growing cynicism? How do we teach caring about others, particularly those
less fortunate? What is missing from our courses in government, history, economics,
sociology, psychology, and philosophy that results in young adults without understanding
or passion for the noble ideas of their society?

It is astonishing, but true: the United States has difficulty answering questions from
emerging democratic nations because, until recently, the transmission of the philanthropic
tradition from one generation to the next was informal, and so effective as to be
transparent. There has never been a formal curriculum for teaching the facts or inculcating
the values of the independent sector.

Teaching About the Third Sector in Schools

In this country, history is taught without serious attention to the role of volunteers in
building the first black colleges or the role of private donors in firnding the Salk vaccine
for polio. Psychology and sociology, frequently focused on deviance, often do not explore
the motivations and the relationships involved in setting aside self-interest for the benefit
of the community.

When economics is taught, the curriculum frequently does not directly discuss the 13% of
the economy represented in the activities of the third sector as it does the value of
government and manufacturing. The teacher often does not address the 20 billion
volunteer hours each year, which add value to the economy and promotes our common
community interests. The role of the corporation as a integral part of the civic fabric, a
citizen, is not discussed.

I76

Education in civics often does not elaborate on the nonprofit sector as the source of new
ideas that lead to social policy changes, or the third sector as the place that develops the
skills that are needed for public discourse and democratic compromise. The relationships
between social activism, a healthy democracy, and active engagement of citizens in
government are seldom discussed.

School-to-work programs often ignore the opportunities for employment in the third
sector found by nine million Americans, nearly one in eight workers in the United States.

We have relied in the past on churches, families, fiiends and neighborhoods to teach
children the value and significance of service and giving. We have assumed that our
children know their heritage as citizens who do not need to be “empowered” by an outside
agency, but who are born empowered as their inherent right of citizenship. It is sadly
ironic that today, as emerging foreign democracies seek our assistance in establishing
philanthropic traditions of their own, the traditional forces for teaching this ethic to
children in the United States are eroding.

The very skills and community cohesion necessary to offset forces of social disintegration,
especially in an increasingly diverse culture, are skills and experiences found in the third
sector. Yet an understanding of this sector remains a mystery to many American children.

Developing Lessons and Materials about Philanthropy

The Council of Michigan Foundations and a Steering Committee of thirteen collaborating
leaders in education, volunteerism, and nonprofit leadership have begun a unique efi‘ort to
write, field test, implement and disseminate high quality K-12 curriculum lessons, units
and materials on philanthropy. The project is being nurtured and piloted in Michigan with
plans for a national and international infusion of this academic content into the core
curriculum of schools.

The long-term goal of the project is to develop and replicate curriculum lessons,
units, and materials for perpetuating a civil society through the education of
children about the independent sector, and to achieve their commitment to private
citizen action for the public good. The lessons, units, and materials that are a part
of the curriculum contain both academic content about philanthropy, and skill
development activities which involve students in giving and serving their
communities.

The basic strategy for the project is a grassroots teacher led effort to infuse academic
content about philanthropy and service learning process into the curriculum. Forty-three
teachers in twenty-two school systems serving a variety of communities in rural, suburban,
and urban settings, are developing lessons, units, and materials, piloting, field-testing, and
building authentic evaluation processes. The teachers are in kindergarten through senior
high school classrooms, in public and private schools, from downtown Detroit to the
Upper Peninsula.

177

Once field-testing is completed, the modules and materials will be disseminated in a
Website to be shared nationally and internationally without cost. During the process of
writing and testing, national and international educators will be linked into the writing
through the Internet, presentations at meetings, communications and informal networking.

This carefully designed nine-year program has started. Already it has generated an
enthusiastic response fi'om classroom teachers and school administrators. A request for
proposals for curriculum development for the Michigan program resulted in essays from
teachers that affirmed the need for such a curriculum.

“For a child to feel a sense of worth, he or she must feel that he belongs and that his
existence is meaningful. And just as family provides the fiameworlt from which that
sense of worth develops, the child ’s formal education should include an understanding of
the rights and responsibilities of individuals to the greater whole of society. ”

- Fourth-Grade Suburban School Teacher

“What greater purpose does a middle school have than to help a child in transition find
himself. . . have that powerful realization: someone needs me to help. We have a
responsibility to provide opportunities that allow students to feel needed in the larger
community so they don 't develop a sense of self in a vacuum. ”

- Middle School Teacher
“We 're living in a society where money has more power than God; where human life is
worth less than someone ’5 jacket. We must teach our children about tolerance,
unselfishness, and about giving. We need to teach them that sometimes we need to
compromise or give up something that would be good for us as an individual so that what
we ’re choosing instead is good for all. "

— High School Teacher

How The Project Is Being Developed And Implemented
The project is thoughtfirlly complex, with several strategies in each phase: development,
assessment, piloting and field testing, content development, teaching process, evaluation,
and dissemination. The major components are:

- A teacher based and grassroots effort which increases authenticity

- Quality curriculum infused into the core academic content courses

- Teaching both about philanthropy (academic content) and philanthropy (personal
commitment)

178

- Utilization of computer technology for communication on many levels
- Access to all material by all educators without copyright concerns

- Local advisors with ties to state and national networks

Colleges of education involvement

Multiple dimensions, networks, and strategies for dissemination

Multiple evaluation strategies and assessment
- Bias toward collaboration
The K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project is successfully launched and is moving rapidly

to fulfill its potential in thoughtfully and systematically transmitting the philanthropic
tradition to the next generation. Fur further information, please contact: Dr. Kathy

Agard, Project Director, Kegardg‘gremeAkl 2mm;

http://www.msu. edul~k l 2phil/casestatement. html 1/ 18/99

179

K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project
Teadu'ng the Importance of Voluntary Adionfor the
Public Good in a We Sociay

School Information
Teachers and Principals Participating in K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project

Forty-six teachers in twenty-two school systems serving a variety of communities in rural,
suburban, and urban settings, have developed curriculum modules and materials. They
were actively engaged in piloting, field-testing, and building authentic evaluation
processes. The teachers are in kindergarten through senior high school classrooms, public
and private schools, fi'om downtown Detroit to the Upper Peninsula. They have infirsed
philanthropy and the service learning process into academic content curriculum.

Building principals contributed by providing insight, suggestions, evaluation, and support.
As the educational leaders in their districts, they have assisted the project throughout its
development and implementation.

We invite you to share your experiences with other teachers in the Teacher Bulletin
Board area. You may communicate with the teachers and principals by using their e-mail
addresses. We look forward to your comments, web site additions, and your
implementation of these teaching materials. Comments may also be directed to the
Webmaster listed on the home page.

Teacher Biographies Principal Biographies
fledes K-2 Elemmeg
Cages 3-5 Mi_ddie
gages 6-8 High
Grades 9-12
http://www. mgu.edu:’~kl Zehil/schoolinfo. html 1/1 8/99

180

 

 

«82.32.

«3. 322355 .o maze-oh 95 52.8.5.6 Begum 260 u... 22 223....
82:32 5:25 2:. 3.8.02.5 .2 «2.3... 22...
3053.35 .22..— ozm 2.3
2.5 2.- 2.9.8.— .o 22523.5 .2... 5322.). .3 22m

_ mUfl—b

 

 

 

«83.32»
832:5 75:32-90 .3232 a ._c «25295
52:25.0 860 .2665» o... 22 2:29.22
~_.o_ 2255...: be 9.295 new use:

= maven—h

 

 

 

38232 .
822:5 7:232:55 03-2225 .6 92:2»:—
E2=2t=u 260 .2825 o... 22 2229::
N _ .2 3255.2..— .o 9.293... .22352...

—: NUS—h

 

 

88-82
.. 2.8.5 an 2:.
22.22.28 53:22 .3 .6550
Emu—dan— >m0~_=.—.Z<.==A— Z- ZO-.—.<U:Qm~ N72

181

 

.39... A.

 

3225......
. .2293. :o
3.323 22.82 >52

5.32...» 39.2.5. 2..
:e 8.2..- 1...ch
.2.-

..»n... .9 £2.23...—

_...2_. 52......
o... .52.- .u...» 5...:
:0... .3... 52223.

525.2 323:2...

9.2.5.2.: ....

:6...e.=iu 2.x euecux

 

222.02.... 2230......
.2- .b......:Eou .32....
2.22 Sue-29 2.28..
22225.. 60.8...
2 25...... 28.320

 

   

    
      

32:8 .9 but:
a 2 232... #23322:
2 :2...¥...m
2.x 55.950232".
3 .9... 2.22.2. .83...

   
     

   
 

.23....» .2 3.2.3:. 6....

.:a_..... 3.»... v..- ~A._...2.-.=u.2
we. ..-:2.:: .25...

~ . .x 3.2353 2.2.535

22:05.». .3. 20... o.
3.3.255 52-25.» 152.5

 

   
      

   

.323. 32.3..
.28... 2.... .e 22:92.2
.2 5.3:...» :._-5.2 3.2.6...
.26.: 29.33. :2.u<

2.2%... 9.2.6...
.62.... 2.5.... .2232

3.22.9-
.2E-u. 2.5.5.7.... ....s.
322:... 2 £23.28 .:u...cu

3.53. .52...» u...=uE
2 202 .5539..- e296:

     
     

  

52:2..3 23 u... 22
a..o....:2......m.= .o €2.52. 9...
3....2 we. 2:: >.u.-....o.....<

  
     

22:25... 22:3 9...».
v.3 .2853. 1.25.»: 5.2.23
- U2... 52.5“ 325:- 1...
2 2222:... €2.32 .3

   

2.3:. o... =...
2 3.928 2. 22.8...

.5- 3... .328 $2.520

 

 

=3... 5.2....
u... 2 .322 2:22
3228 2.2.... 5...: e:-
nu.u-.uo.:uv .2935

 

 

2.25.. n..-
.........22=: 23.6 :.2
22.2: .2... 22.. 39>.

 

5.2.223
u... .2... 2:25.. .2
2...»:2. 2.2.7..
.23 22...... a... 3.53.

3.5.3.76 £252.55.

E.....2....u 2:...
u... 2 .322. 3.5.65...
.2. a. e:- x... .e a.
5.2.2... 2:22:22: 2. ..

 

 

 

2.2.... .0 5.3.5:...
o... 2 .2... .38...
5...... 3263.38. .3.»
a a. $5.5 52.2.5.9

 

 

358:5 &u

.87....— .32...

:._ An

.25.). 2a....

n:2........=< AH.

2.2....— ._. .2225: NT!

   

 
    

$252.2.
9.2-; .23:

  
   

22.25.32 52:22...
N . . v.

.I iiil\

\. l lift ..
A32322m .::...o...:..
N. .x .\

/

 

     

252.5
~ _ . v.

.55.: .e...

182

APPENDIX B

K-12 EDUCATION IN PHILANTHROPY PROJECT DONORS

183

K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project Donors

Lilly Endowment $300,000 1997-1999
$500,000 1000-2001
W. K. Kellogg Foundation $1,500,000 1997-2000
$1,500,000 2000-2003
Anonymous donor $600,000 1999-2000
McGregor Fund $150,000 1999-2001
Ewing Marion Kauffman $75,000 1999-2000
Sudna Foundation $25,000 1997-1998
Michigan Dept. of Education $62,500 1999
(contracts) $52,500 1999-2000
Local community foundations
Kalamazoo (in kind) $8,000 1997
Muskegon $2,000 1997
Manistee $2,000 1997
Earl-Beth Foundation $5,000 1995
Mawby Fund of CMF $25,000 1997
Binda Foundation $40,000 1999-2000

In-kind donations from the following:

Kettering Foundation

Grand Valley State University

Indiana University Center on Philanthropy
Muskegon Area Intermediate School District
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

184

APPENDIX C

FORMS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE

ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS)

185

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PROJECT INVOLVING HUMAN
SUBJECTS
INITIAL REVIEW (and 5 yr. renewal)
UCRIHS
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
David E. Wright. Ph.D., Chair
246 Administration Building Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1046
PHONE (517) 355-2180 FAX (517) 353-2976
E-Mail - UCRIHS@piIot.msu.edu
WEB SITE - http://www.msu.edulunitlvprgslucrihsl

Office Hours: M-F (8:00 A.M.-Noon 8 1:00-5:00 PM.)

 

 

DIRECTIONS: Please complete the questions on this application using the
instructions and definitions found on the attached sheets. (revised 1I99)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Responsible Project Investigator Additional lnvestigator(s)
(Faculty or staff supervisor)
Name: Dr. menettp Benham Name: W
Social Security #2 SS or Stu. lD#2 38146-3365
Department: Education Adminigtration Name:
College: Education SS or Stu. ID#:
I believe the research can be safely completed
without endangering human subjects. F urther. Name:
lhavereedtheenclosedproposalandlam SS orStu. ID#2
willing to supervise any student investigators.

Name:
Signature: SS or Stu. ID#:

 

 

2. Address: If there are more than two investigators. please indicate who shwld receive
correspondence. and provide further addresses on a separate page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Responsible Project Investigator Additional lnvestigator(s)
Dr Maenette Benham Susan W. Meston

425 _E__rickson Hall 18976 Hickory Street
East Lansing, MI 48823-11807 Spring Lake. MI 49456
Phone #2 (517) 355-6613 Phone #2 (616) 767-7203
Fax #: Fax #2 (616) 773. 3498
E-mail: mppnhameilotmsuedu E-mail: r" .;.,=;_~_ 3.5.23;

3.Title of Project: The Impact of Computer Mediated Communication on
Curriculum Development

 

 

 

 

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Subcommittee Agenda

 

 

 

 

 

 

186

10.

11.

Have you ever received Preliminary Approval for this project?
No [X] Yes [ ]
Ityes. what lRB#was assignedto It?

 

Funding (if any) pp . .
MSU Contracts and Grants app. # if applicable

 

Does this project utilize an Investigations! Drug, Device or Procedure?
No [X] Yes [ ]
Ifyes. istherean IND#? No [tes [ j IND#

 

Does this project involve the use of Materials of Human Origin (e.g., human
blood or tissue)?
No [X] Yes [ ]

When would you prefer to begin data collection?
Please remember you may not begin datecollection without UCRIHS
approval.

Category (Circle A. B or C below. See instructions pp. 5, 6 8. 7)

This proposal is submitted as EXEMPT from full review.

Specify categoryor categories. 1-A, 15, 1;:
b. This proposal is submitted for EXPEDtT ED review.
Specify “1690!? or categories.
c. This proposal is submitted for FULL sub-committee review.

 

Is this a full review multi-site project? No [X] Yes [ ]
If yes, do the other sites have a Multiple Project Assurance IRB that will also
review this project?

[ ] No. Please contact the UCRIHS office for further information about meeting

the PHS/NIH/OPPR regulations.
[ ] Yes. Please supply a copy of that approval letter when obtained.

Project Description (Abstract): Please limit your response to 200 words.
The Project Description (Abstract) is attached.

187

12.

13.

Procedures: Please descfibeall projectactivitiestebe usediecollectingdata
from human subjects. This also includes procedures for collecting mtenals of
humanorigin and analysis ofexisting data ongmallycollected fromhuman
subjects.

1. The researcher will hold three focus groups of 1% hours in‘lengthwitheight
of the project teachers in each group. The researcher and atmnscnberwill

be present during thetocus group interviews. to addition, atape rendered”
be used to meant the contents ofthe interviews.

2. The researcher will hold individual interviewswith-the 5 project support staff.
The interviews will be recorded using atape recorder.

3. The researcher will review existing archival» data associated with the project
to identify themes and to use in triangulating alldata sources.

Subject Population: Describe your subject population. (e.g.. high school athletes.
women over 50 wlbreast cancer, small business owners)

44 practicing K-12 classroom teachers and 5 project support staff

a. The study papulation may include (check each category where subjects
may be included by design or incidentally):

Minors I I

Pregnant Women [X]

Women of Childbearing Age

Institutionalized Persons

Students

Low Income Persons

Minorities

Incompetent Persons (or those
with diminished capacity) [

HRH“
.—l “hull—DH

b. Number of subjects (including controls) _4_9___

c. How will the subjects be recruited? (Attach appropriate number of copies
of recruiting advertisement. if any. See p. 13 of UCRIHS instructions)

No advertisement. Subjects part of an existing project.

188

If you are associated with the subjects (e.g.. they are your students
employees, patients). please explain the nature of the asseclabon.

No direct association

If someone will receive payment for recruiting the subjects please explain
the amount of payment. who pays it and who receives it.

No payment involved

Willthe research subjectsbecompensated? [X] No “Yes.
If yes. details concerning payment. includingtbe amountand sdredule of
payments. must be explained in the informed consent

Will the subjects incur additional financial costs as a result oftheir
participation in this study? [XI No [ [Yes lfyes, pleaseioclude an
explanation in the informed consent

Willthis resaarchbeconductedwithsubjectswho resideinanother
country or live ina culhrralconteirtdiflerentfrommainstreamUSsociety?
[X]No [] Yes.

(1) If yes, will there be any corresponding complications in your ability
to minimize risks to subjects, maintain their confidentiality andlor
assure their right to voluntary informed consent as individuals? [ ]
No [ ] Yes.

(2) If your answer to h-1 is yes, what are these complications and
how will you resolve them?

How will the subjects' privacy be protected? (See Instructions p. 8.)

The researcher will adhere to a strict stand of confidentiality for all data colleaed
from the project participants. During the focus group interviews the participants will be
assigned a pseudonym. All taped recordings and scripts will be kept by the researcher
alone and stored in a secure place. lnforrnation from the staff interviews will be
presented in aggregate form wherever possible. However, the individual staff will be
informed before the interviews that because of the unique nature of their positions. it
may be possible to associate them mm a particular perspective in the final product.

189

15. Risks and Benefits for subjects: (See lnstructionsp. 9.)

Potenb'al risk to the practicingteacherswouldbe Ioasofapprovarfionrtlreother
participants orthe projectdirectorafinformedbyafncusgroup participant) lfcomrnents
are madethatreflectnegativelyon theproject Theteachersare noternployedbythe
project director and are involved inthe project voluntarily. Interviewed pnoject staff could
facethe nskofdisappmvalortherepnsalfmmdieprojectdirectorforcemmentth
reflectnegatively on the project.

Assigning pseudonyms to the focus group. particbants and informing both the
focus group and individual staff members how the-information will be used couldreduoe
risk to the participants. Also, the researcher will adhereto a strict standard of
confidentiality. The researcher will also verbally discuss risk potential - as it relatesto
staff and participants - with the project director. Tina efforts should plrrtlrapartidpants
at minimal risk. Addmonally, all interviews will be voluntary.

Through the interviews the subjects willhavethechance to discuss theirwork.
and in the focus groups, consider their work and: its ramifications with colleagues. The
interviews provide an opportunity for introspection and for recognition. Since there is no
significant body of research on using computer nadiabd communication in curriculum
development. lessons Ieamed from this research will be of significance totineory and
practice.

16. Consent Procedures (See Instructions pp. 9-13.)

Written consent for participation in the individual interviews and focus group
interviews will be obtained. This consent formwill be included with lheletterrequesting
participation in the interview.

Copies of letters and consent forms attached.

 

 

CHECKLIST: Check all that you have included each of these items. If not
applicable, state NIA:

[ ] Completed application

[ ] The correct number of copies of the application and instruments.
according to the category of review (See instructions p. 14.)

[ ] Consent form (or script for verbal consent). ifapplicable
[ ] Advertisement. if applicable

[ ] One complete copy of the methods chapter of the research
proposal

 

190

 

 

Michigan State Unmn
246 Administration Braiding

E351 Lansmg, ’
43520-1046

517/355-2180
FAX 517B53-2976

In: W Sm m
10:] .s mammal 0mm
from in km

M501: numeric-arm:
cow-WW marrow

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY
Mard115.1999

TO: Dr.Maenette BENHAM
425 Erickson Hall
MSU

RE: IRB# 99152 CATEGORY: 1-A.C.E
APPROVAL DATE:MII‘CI'I 15. 1999

TITLEzTHE IMPACT OF COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION ON
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects“ (UCRIHS) review of
this project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the
human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed
consent are appropriate. Therefore. the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the
approval date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed
with the green renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited’renewals possible.
Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for
a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human
subjects. prior to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal. please
use the green renewal form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during
the year. send your written request to the UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval
and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in your request a description of the
change and any revised instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are
applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the
work. notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) probbms (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.)
involving human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information
indicating greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protoml was
previously reviewed and approved.

If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@piIot.msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http://www.msu.edu/unit/vprgs/UCRIHSI

  
 

   

avrd E. Wright. Ph.
CRIHS Chair

DEW. ah
CC: Susan Meston

191

APPENDIX D

FOCUS GROUP DOCUMENTS

192

Focus Group Interview Protocol
Interview Script

Interviewer: Hello. My name is Susan Meston. Thank you for taking the time to
participate in this focus group interview. As you know I am researching the impact of
computer mediated communication — electronic communication using computers - on
curriculum development. This research is being conducted for my dissertation study on
that topic through Michigan State University. My assistant today is Kristen Meston, who
is a speech and language pathologist. Kristen will take notes as you make comments. In
addition, I will record the proceedings of this focus group. Your comments are
confidential, and I have given you pseudonyms to further ensure confidentiality. Ifat any
time you feel uncomfortable with the recorder, you may request to have it turned ofi‘. I
have no vested interest in the content of your remarks. This focus group is being held to
gather your true feelings, thoughts and ideas, so there are no right or wrong answers, even
if you may disagree with one another. In the next hour and a halfl will ask you questions
relevant to the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project that concern the impact of CMC
on curriculum development. Please carefully consider the questions asked and provide

thoughtful answers. Do you have any questions before we begin?

193

Focus Group Interview Questions

Icebreaker: Tell us where you teach and what you like to do when you are not teaching.

. Think back to when you first started using electronic communication. For what
purposes did you first use it? How do you use electronic communication now?

. How often do you use electronic communication for the project? What impacts the
frequency of use?

. How is computer-mediated communication different fi'om other forms of
communication? How has it effected your other modes of communication?

. What effect did computer training have on your use of the computer for
communication?

. What helped and what has deterred you from using electronic communication for
curriculum development?

. What are the advantages of using electronic communication in developing curriculum?
What are the disadvantages?

. What role did computer mediated communication play in building a sense of
collaboration with other project members?

. If you were asked for advice on how to use electronic communication in developing

curriculum, what suggestions would you offer?

At this point the moderator will summarize participant responses, then ask:

What haven’t I asked you that is important to a project using electronic communication in

curriculum design?

194

Letter to Participants of Focus Group Interview

April 12, 1999

Dear (Participant’s Name),

This letter is written to invite you to participate in a focus group interview that will
take place during the May 1999 K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project meeting at
Crystal Mountain. The purpose of the focus group interview is to consider various
aspects of the curriculum development process that you have experienced as a part of the
K-12 Project. I will be running three focus groups: Group I for grade levels K-S; Group
II for grade levels 6-8; and Group III for grade levels 9-12.

These focus group interviews will last about 1% hours and will serve as one data
source for my dissertation study through Michigan State University. The focus group
interviews will be taped and transcribed by my assistant. Your participation will be very
valuable because your perspectives as a project participant are important in understanding
the benefits and the problems associated with curriculum development by electronically
connected, geographically dispersed teachers. I will be using an ethnographic approach to
my study, which means that I will consider my research questions from the perspectives of
project participants.

I want to assure you that I will treat this research with the utmost confidentiality.
You will be assigned a pseudonym to firrther assure confidentiality. Your identity will be
known only to me, my assistant. and to a very limited group of people who work with me
as my dissertation committee. Identifying information, including names, program
affiliations, or other descriptors will be altered, masked, or altogether removed in final
research reports. Kathy Agard, K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project director, and I
have discussed that there will be no direct positive or negative consequences due to your
participation or non-participation as far as the project is concerned. However, you may
find the experience valuable because you will have the chance to consider - with a group
of your colleagues - various factors important to this project.

If you have questions or concerns regarding this research, you my contact my
dissertation committee chair, Dr. Maenette Benham, at (517) 351-9438. You may also
contact the Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS), Dr. David Wright at (517) 355-2180, if you have questions regarding rights as
human subjects of research.

Attached is a consent form that indicates your interest in participation in one of the

focus groups. Please complete it and return it to me by April 26, 1999. Thank you for
your consideration. I will e-mail you within the next two weeks to schedule a good time

195

for me to call you to discuss this project firrther, including your interest in participating in
a focus group. Ifyou would like to contact me before that time, please feel flee to call or
email; I will be happy to respond to any questions you have.

Sincerely,

Susan W. Meston

18076 Hickory Street
Spring Lake, MI 49456
smeston@remc4.k12.mi.us
Phone #2 (616) 767-7203

196

Consent Form

Focus Group Interviews

I agree to participate in the research project, “The Impact of Computer Mediated
Communication on Curriculum Design”. I have received and read the invitation letter
form Susan Meston dated, April 12, 1999, which summarizes the purposes and procedures
of this research and which includes her address and telephone number in case I have any
questions or concerns about the study that I may wish to discuss with her. I understand
that my participation in this research entails one focus group interview which will take
place during the K-12 Education in Philanthropy meeting at Crystal Mountain Resort on
May 15, 1999, and will last approximately 1 '16 hours. I have been informed and
understand that all interview and documentary data will be treated with strict confidence
and that my identity will not be disclosed in final reports of the study. I understand that
my participation in this research is completely flea and voluntary, and that I may choose
not to participate at all, that I may refuse to respond to certain questions and that I may
discontinue my involvement at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which I am

otherwise entitled.

 

 

Name Date

197

APPENDIX E

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW DOCUMENTS

198

StalT Interview Protocol
Interview Script

Interviewer: Hello, again. (Introductions will not be made since the interviewer and
interviewees have met.) Thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview. As
you know I am researching the impact of computer mediated communication on
cuniculum development, research that is being conducted for my dissertation study
through Michigan State University. Your perspectives are very important to my research.
I have no vested interest in your remarks, so there are no particular answers I am seeking.
I am interested in your true thoughts, ideas, and feelings. Anonymity cannot be
guaranteed because of the small number being interviewed and the clearly difi‘erent roles
held by those being interviewed. However, your comments will be held to a strict
standard of confidentiality. In the next two hours I will ask you questions relevant to the
K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project that concern the impact of CMC in curriculum
development. Our interview will be recorded. Ifat any point you would like me to turn

ofi‘ the recorder, this will be done. Do you have any questions before we begin?

199

Staff Interview Questions

1. In what ways do the teachers use electronic communication?

2. How has electronic communication afl‘ectcd other forms of communication by
the teachers?

3. In what ways has stafi‘ used electronic communication to support the project
teachers?

4. What efi‘ect has the technical training had on teacher use of electronic
communication?

5. What challenges have the teachers faced in using electronic communication as
a tool for developing curriculum, and how have they overcome these challenges?

6. What helps and what deters teachers from using electronic communication in
curriculum development?

7. What technical support was necessary? Was it sufficient? Why or why not?

8. From a stafl7support perspective, what have been the advantages and
disadvantages of using electronic communications in developing curriculum?

9. How have organizational support factors such as project leadership, financial
incentives, and training affected the use of CMC in designing curriculum?

10. What role did time and access play in the use of electronic communications for
curriculum design?

11. What role did CMC play in teacher collaboration and consensus building?

12. What implications can be drawn fi'om this process-the use of CMC in
curriculum design—that could inform practice, policy, and for further study?

13. What haven’t I asked you that is important to a project using CMC in curriculum

design?

200

Susan Meston
18076 Hickory Street
Spring Lake, Michigan 49456

March 30, 1999

Dear Terry,

As part of the research for my dissertation through Michigan State University on
the impact of computer mediated communication on curriculum development, I am asking
stafi‘ and consultants close to the K-12 Education in Philanthropy Project to participate in
an individual interview. The purpose of the interview is to consider various aspects of the
curriculum development process, particularly the efi'ect of electronic communication on
that process. The interview will last approximately two hours, and will be taped by means
of a tape recorder.

Your participation in an interview will be valuable to my research because you
have a unique perspective on the project as well as on the benefits and the problems
associated with curriculum development by electronically connected, geographically
dispersed project members. I will be using an ethnographic approach to my study, which
will allow me to consider my research questions from the perspectives of the project
participants.

I want to assure you that I will treat this research with the utmost confidentiality.
Identifying information, including names, program affiliations, and other descriptors, will
be altered, masked, or removed in final chapter reports. Further, information will be
reported in the aggregate wherever possible. However, because of your unique position
with the project, anonymity cannot be assured. Kathy Agard, project director, and I have
discussed that there will be no direct positive or negative consequences due to your
participation or nonparticipation as far as the project is concerned.

If you have questions or concerns regarding this research, you may contact my
dissertation committee chair, Dr. Maenette Benham, at (517) 351-9438. You may also
contact the Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS), Dr. David Wright at (517) 355-2180, if you have questions regarding rights as
human subjects of research.

I will call you within the next two weeks to discuss my project further and to set
up a time for our interview if you are interested in participating. If you would like to
contact me before that time, please feel free to call or email. I will be happy to respond to
any questions you have. Attached is a consent form that indicates your interest in
participation in an individual interview. I will ask for it on the day of our scheduled
interview. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Susan W. Meston

Phone: (616) 767-7204
smeston@remc4.k12.mi.us

201

Consent Form
Individual Staff Interviews

I agree to participate in the research project, “The Impact of Computer Mediated
Communication on Curriculum Design.” I have received and read the invitation letter
form Susan Meston dated March 30, 1999, which summarizes the purposes and
procedures of this research and which includes her address and telephone number in case I
have any questions or concerns about the study that I may wish to discuss with her. I
understand that my participation in this research entails one individual interview which will
take place during the spring of 1999 and will last approximately two hours. I have been
informed and understand that all interview and documentary data will be treated with strict
confidence and that my identity will not be disclosed in final reports of the study. I
understand that my participation in this research is completely free and voluntary, and that
I may choose not to participate at all, that I may refirse to respond to certain questions, or
to provide any of the requested documents, and that I may discontinue my involvement at

any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which I am otherwise entitled.

 

 

Name Date

202

REFERENCES

203

REFERENCES

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). W
Amerigns. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, R D. (1995). Curriculum reform: Dilemmas and promise. W
_71, 3336.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1995). W
h k: r r fr rri lm " Alexandria,VA: Author.

Bikson, T. D, & Eveland, J. D. (1990). The interplay of work group structures and
computer support. In J. Galegher, R. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds), muggy;

 

290). Hillsdale, NJ -- Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brophy, J ., & Alleman, J. (1991). A caveat: Curriculum integration isn’t always a good
idea. W2). 66-70.

Castle. 8.. Livingston. 0. & Trafion. B. (1990). W
W Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Boston, MA

Center for Media Education. (1995, July-August). From discussion to action [12
paragraphs]. Innggive [On-line serial]. 1(8). Available:
httpj/epn.grg/cmflmfgggtivg/ 1 8/ 1 8gi$,hml

Chemey. L. (1994. Apfil). WWW Paper
presented at the Berkeley Conference on Women and Language, Berkeley, CA.

Coulter, B., & Feldman, A. (1995). We, Available:
h ‘// .t rc. /res Ch/i fin in .
Creswell, J. (1994). Resggh design: malitgtive and quantimivg apprgaghgs.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davis, B. H. ,,&Brewer J P. (1997).
W Albany: State University of New York Press.

 

204

DiMauro, V., & Jacobs, G. (1995, Febmary). Collaborative electronic network building
[On-line]. :Ijhe Journal ef Qempgtm in M_a_th gg §eience Tegqhing. Available:

~//www u/ bn t/A. . olla iv .h ml
Doll. R C. (1974). WWO“ ed.)-

Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Drayton, B. (1993). Design for a science network. In R Ruopp, 8. Gal, B. Drayton, &

M Pfister (EdS) WM 145-197)
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Elmore, R F., & Fuhrman, S. H. (Eds). (1994). W
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Eurich-Fulcer, R., & Schofield, J. W. (1995). Wide-area networking in K-12 education:
Issues shaping implementation and use. W2), 211-220.

FeldmmAH. &Nyland H (1994 April) W

mmmunitiee: ngne frem the Alig Teeteeg [On-line]. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Available.

h 'l/ .r. /r h/ r.hml

Fettennan, D. M. (1998). W (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Flinders, D. J., Noddings, N., & Thornton, S. J. (1986). The null curriculum: Its
theoretical basis and practical implications. WM 323-342.

Folch-Lyon, E., & Trost, J. F. (1981). Conducting focus group sessions. Smdjesjn
Femily Planning, 12(12), 443-449.

Fullen, M. G. (1982). The meaning ef efiugienfl engage, New York: Teachers
College Press.

Galegher, J., Kraut, R., & Egido, C. (Eds). (1990). In ll w rk: i
tghnelegjefl fegndetiens of eeepemive werk, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Glaser. B. G. & Strauss. A. L. (1967). MW

gualitetive reegreh, Chicago: Aldine.

Glatthom, A. A. (1987). Currieulgm renewel. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

205

Glatthom, A A (Ed.). (1997). W191!) (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA'
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Gwynne, S. C., & Dickerson, J. F. (1997, April 29). Lost in e-mail. lime, 88-90.

Hafner, K. (1997, May). The epic of the well [66 pages]. m [On-line], 5_, Available:
WWW

Hafner, K, & Lyon, M. (1996). W
New York: Simon & Schuster.

 

HageLJ. III,&Armstrong,A. (1997). ' .
We; Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Havelock. R G. (1973). WWW
Englewood Clifi‘s, NJ: Educational Technology Publications,

Herring, S. C. (1993). Gender and democracy rn computer-mediated communication.
WWW “-27

Honey. M. & Henriquez. A (1993). W
W New York: Bank Street College of Education, Center for
Technology in Education.

Hull, G. A (1989). Research on writing: Building a cognitive and social understanding
of composing. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds), Ieward the thimn ng

WW Almadria. VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Hunt, E. J. (1996). Communicating in the information age. WW
Rflifl, 23, 23-25.

Jackson, D. F., Bourdeau, G. ,Sampson, A., & Hagen, T. J. (1997). Internet resources
for middle school science: Golden opportunity or “Silicon Snake Oil.” W

W1). 49-57

Jacobs, H. H. (1989a). The interdisciplinary concept model: A step-by-step approach for

developing integrated units of study. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed. ), W

W (pp 53-65) Alexandria. VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jacobs, H. H. (Ed.). (1989b). Interdiggiplingg erieelgm: Deejge egg implemmetien.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

206

Jacobs, H. H., & Borland, J. H. (1986). The interdisciplinary concept model: Theory and
Practice W 268-274

KollocKP. &Smith.M (1994 Jmuary) WWW

MW [On-line] Available
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/csoclpapers/virtcomm/Virtcomm.html

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R, & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for
helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. Ihe
WW5). 483-497.

Krause, A (1997, July). Can the spam! [5 pages]. Wmmn-hne Part
Two]. Available: . - .. -

 

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). A coherent curriculum in an incoherent society?
Pedagogical perspectives on cuniculum reform. In J. A Beane (Ed.), 19mm;
We; (pp. 158-169). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

LeCompte, M. D., &Preissle, J., with TesclLR (1993). W
W (2nd ed) Orlando. FL: Academic Press

Lesk0. N.. & Flinders. D. J. (1999. July 27). WWW
Bhilenthrepy Prejgt, Unpublished document compiled for the Council of
Michigan Foundations.

Lieberman, A, & Grolnick, M. (1997). Networks, reform, and the professional

dwelOPment of teachers In A Hargreaves (Ed). W
W (pp. 192-215). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.
Lissy, W. E. (1996). Cyberspace problems. W 19-20.

Ludlow, P. (Ed). (1996). High neen en the elgtrenie igntig: Ceneepttte] iesttes in
We; Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Marken, G. A (1995). E-mail enhances contact, not content. Ii R l i erl
fl 47-48.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). W (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy

instruments. in VI i n n P 1' al i 9(2), 133-152.

207

McGuire, T., Kiesler, S. & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion

effects in risk decision making WW
52(5), 917-930.

McKie, J. (1996). Is democracy at the heart of it? Commercial perceptions of

technology WW [On-lino serial] 1(4) Available:
nlin or k/ nlin 1/4/l

 

McnimSHB (1998). .1-3.£‘ ' 2.
(Rev. ed..) Sam Francisco: Jossey- -assB

Minstrell,J. A (1989). Teaching science forunderstanding. InL. B. Resnick&L. E.

Kloofer (Eds ) WWW
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

MSU Evaluation Team (Eds). K-12 ' in bi! East Lansing: Michigan
State University, University Outreach.

NewmaanF. M., Secada,W. G., &Wehlage, G. G. (1995). W
- :.: : 'Madison:Wisconsin

 

Center for Education Research.

Palmer, J. M. (1995). Interdisciplinary curriculum—again. In J. A Beane (Ed.), M!
W (pp. 55-61). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Pate, P. E., McGinnis, K., & Homestead, E. (1995). Creating coherence through

curriculum integration. In J. A. Beane (Ed.), Waltz—m (pp.
62-70). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Perelman, L. J. (1997, Fall). Technos interview. Tmhnee, 6(3), 4-11.

Ponder, G. (1995). Imaging curriculum. In W (pp. 2.35-2.37).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & Osthofl‘, E. (1994). Standard setting as a strategy for
upgrading high school mathematics and science. In R. F. Elmore & S. Furhman
(Eds), v rn n f rri l m (pp. 138-166). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Pratt, D. (1994). urri lm lannin Ah n k r r f in . Orlando, FL:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

208

Reid, E. M. (1996). Communication and community on Internet relay chat: Constructing
communities In P Ludlow (BIL). Warm.
W (PP 397-411) Catnbndsc MA MIT Press

Resnick, L. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: An overview.

In L- B- Resnick & L- E. Kloofct (Eds). WWW
99W Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Rheingold, H. (1996). A slice of my life. in my virtual community. In P. Ludlow (Ed.),
, ' _.. ._ * 2 (pp. 413-

 

436). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Riel, M. (1990a). Cooperative learning across classrooms rn electronic Learning Circles.

W42. 445-466

Riel, M. M. (1990b). Four models of educational telecommunications: Connections to
the fixture. BMW“). 261-274.

Riel, M. M. & Harasim, L. (1994). Research perspectives on network learning.
W083) 91- 113

Riel, M. M., & Levin, J. A. (1990). Building electronic communities: Success and failure
in computer networking. Wig 145-169.

Schlecty, P. C. (1990). W San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schoenfeld, A H. (1989). Teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving. In L. B.
Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds. ),T hinkin
m Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Short, E. (1995). Cuniculum practice. InA rri l han k(pp.1.7-2.l8).

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Silva, M., & Breuleux, A. (1994, July). The use of participatory design in the
implementation of Internet-based collaborative learning activities in K-12
classrooms. Int rson Com utin and Technolo : An Electr nic
W0). ISSN: 1064-4326. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University, Center for Teaching and Technology, Academic Computer Center.

Available: http;//gge§t.are,ne§e,gev/miegrpetmtml

Silver, B. D. (1998). Report on baseline survey. In MSU Evaluation Team (Eds. ), LL;

W (Part 2 PP 1-24) East Lansing: Michigan State
University, University Outreach.

209

 

SproulLL. &Kiesler. S (1991) W
m Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stake. R. & Easley. J. (1978). W Urbain-ChampaisnI
University of Illinois, Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation

and Committee on Culture and Cognition

Strauss, A L., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N.

K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), WW Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sypris, T. (1992). Building community for an interdependent world among Michigan

community colleges In W
W (Report for the AACC-Kellogg Beacon Project). Kalamazoo,

MI: Kalamazoo Valley Community College.

Tanner. D..&Tmmer. L. N. (1980). Warsaw
ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Thomberg. D- D- (1994). Wm San Carlos. CIA
Starsong Publications.

Turkle, S. (1995). if n h n' I ' i h f th In New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Turkle, S. (1997, March-April). Seeing through computers: Education in a culture of
simulation. Ihe Ameriegn Preeeect [On-line serial], 3;. 76-82. Available:

http://egnergtpreepecfl 1/3 ltttrk'fe. html

Vaughn, 8., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. ( 1996). F333 gtoup intervime in Queetion
31mm Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weir, S. (1992). Elgronie communities ef lmere: Peg er figien? (TERC Working
Paper). Cambridge, MA: TERC.

Welch, D. (1999, September 26). Ford hit by e-mail protest. W p. B1.
Wilson, M. (1998). Report on journals, round 1. In MSU Evaluation Team (Eds), K-12
egggtien in philanthrepy (Part 3, pp. 1-5). East Lansing: Michigan State

University, University Outreach.

210

rlT]ijljfl'flljilijjljfljirI