INFORM ATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a m anuscript sent to us for publication and m icrofilm ing. W hile the m ost advanced technology has been used to pho­ tograph and reproduce this m anuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the m aterial subm itted. Pages in any m anuscript m ay have in d istin ct p rin t. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify notations w hich may appear on th is reproduction. 1. M anuscripts may not always be complete. W hen it is not possible to obtain missing pages, a note appears to indicate this. 2. When copyrighted m aterials are removed from the m anuscript, a note ap­ pears to indicate this. 3. Oversize m aterials (maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sec­ tioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand com er and continu­ ing from left to rig h t in equal sections w ith small overlaps. Each oversize page is also film ed as one exposure and is available, for an ad d itio n al charge, as a standard 35m m slide or in black and w hite paper form at. * 4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive m icrofilm or m icro­ fiche b u t lack clarity on xerographic copies made from th ; m icrofilm . For an a d d itio n al charge, all photographs are available in black and w h ite standard 35m m slide form at. * ♦For more information about black and white slides or enlarged paper reproductions, please contact the Dissertations Customer Services Department. University Microfilms International 8613268 Bancroft, Beverly Anne A CHILD’S PRESENT IN A FUTURES-ORIENTED SOCIETY: HOW SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR PUPILS Ph.D. Michigan State University University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1985 by Bancroft, Beverly Anne All Rights Reserved 1986 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified herewith a check mark V 1. Glossy photographs or pages 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______ 3. Photographs with dark background_____ 4. Illustrations are poor copy______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page_______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______ . ’ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______ 11. Page(s)____________lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)____________seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received_________ 16 . Other________________________________________________________________________ . Text follows. University Microfilms international A CHILD’ S PRESENT IN A FUTURES-ORIENTED SOCIETY: HOW SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR PUPILS By Beverly Anne Bancroft A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan S tate U niversity 1n p a rtia l f u lfillm e n t of the requirements fo r the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Adm inistration 1985 Copyright by BEVERLY ANNE BANCROFT 1985 ABSTRACT A CHILD’ S PRESENT IN A FUTURES-ORIENTED SOCIETY: HOW SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR PUPILS By Beverly Anne Bancroft The purpose of th is study was to describe selected p o lic ie s and practices present 1n a sampling o f 600 Michigan ru r a l, suburban* and urban public elementary schools which Influenced the lo cal a v a ila b ilit y of microcomputers fo r students, the le v e l of student access to and p a rtic ip a tio n with e le c tro n ic learnin g, and the educational uses of microcomputers made by both teachers and students. The study was prompted by the need to gather and use baseline data emerging from the f i r s t s ig n ific a n t fiv e -y e a r period of microcomputers 1n school set­ tin g s , 1980-1985. Three surveys were conducted tc gather observations by comput­ ing experts regarding c h a ra c te ris tic s of h1gh-usage schools. Informa­ tio n from a large random sampling of elementary school p rin c ip a ls concerning local uses and numbers of computers, and In terv ie w data from teachers and adm inistrators providing descriptions and 1n-depth analy­ ses of educational computing a c t iv it ie s a t s ix selected s ite s . Beverly Anne Bancroft The average number of microcomputers across a ll schools sampled was eight. When averages were set aside. however, the data Indicated a wide-ranging computer d is trib u tio n and disparate student access and p a rtic ip a tio n op portunities across a ll community types. Regardless of the numbers of computers owned, most schools have developed an In s tru c tio n a l plan and share a b e lie f about the e s s e n tia l­ it y of computing o p portunities fo r elementary students. Each school community used tr a d it io n a l, frequently accompanied by entrepreneurial and grass-roots means to provide fo r students what was deemed to be an appropriate curriculum . School c h a ra c te ris tic s , other than funding, th a t appeared to f a c i l i t a t e a h1gh-access and p a rtic ip a tio n program fo r both students and teachers Included prin cip al leadership and Involvement, ongoing and targeted local staff-developm ent In terven tio n s, a local computer "b u ff." enthusiasm fo r and commitment to the concept, and c re a tiv e uses of time and equipment. The p o te n tia l value of th is study lie s 1n I t s fu tu re re p lic a ­ tio n a t the elementary level and I t s adm inistratio n to Michigan m iddle/ ju n io r high schools and high schools fo r purposes of noting present practice and evaluating equitab le outreach to a ll students. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation 1s extended to the members of my doctoral commit­ tee: Richard E. Chapin, D ire c to r of Michigan S tate U n iversity L ib ra r­ ies; Edward D. Roeber, Michigan Department of Education, D ire c to r of Michigan Educational Assessment Programs; and to Professors In the Department of Educational A dm inistration: Lawrence W. Lezotte, co-advisor of the d is s e rta tio n ; James L. Page; C. Robert Muth; and Louis Romano, program advisor. Special thanks to th e fo llo w in g educational computing research­ ers, p ra c titio n e rs , elementary p rin c ip a ls , and s t a tis t ic a l data experts, whose Input was In valuable a t various stages of the document's preparation. Educational computing experts: Lucy Alnsley, Larry Alexander, Ann Deke, E laine D ld le r, Joan Falrey, Cass Gentry, Carolyn G ilbreath, Margaret Schmidt, Wayne Scott, Lary Smith, Grace Snyder, Ron Wlmmer, and Karl Z1nn; computing consultant experts: Lynn A llen; p rin cip al ship experts: Joan Burleigh and Louise Birch, David Dean, Janet Koepke, Ron L o tt, and Jean Marlowe; and data and design experts: Michael Ward and Lawrence Lezotte. Im portant technical assistance a t various phases was provided by David Donovan, A ssistant Superintendent, Michigan S tate Department of Education, and P a tr ic ia Slocum, Michigan Department of Education; Molly Bancroft, Sue Cooley, Paty Gould, G. Sutherland Hayden, Lorraine H u ll/ Kent Leach# P h y llis Music# and Frank Womer. C o lleg ia l support was ever present from Michigan S tate U niversity professors: James Costar# Howard Hickey# Joe Levine# James Snoddy# and Louis Stamatakos; and from Connie Stoelton# U niversity of Michigan; Jack Minzey, Eastern Michigan U n iv e rsity; Mary Jo Lomas# Dearborn Public Schools; Karen Mercler# Birmingham Public Schools; and Robert and Caryl Ferguson# F e rris S tate College. A s p ir itu a l underglrdlng# sustaining the e ffo rt# came from the members and frien d s of C hrist's Ecumenical Church# Traverse C1ty» Michigan. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................... v ii Chapter I. II. BACKGROUND............................................................................................ 1 Introduction .................................................................................... Statement of th e Problem ........................................................... P u r p o s e .................... Need fo r the S tu d y ....................................................................... Research Objectives ................................................. D e s ig n ................................................................................................ Population and Sample ........................................................... Methods and Procedures ........................................................... Assumptions or Lim itations ....................................................... D e fin itio n of T e r m s ................................................................... Summary and O v e rv ie w ................................................................... 1 3 5 5 10 11 12 13 15 16 18 A REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE.............................................. 20 Society# Technology# and C alls fo r Change ........................ Society and th e Changing Technology .............................. Technology and C a lls fo r Educational Change . . . . C alls fo r K-12 Public Education to Reform and to Assim ilate New Technologies............................................... An Overview of the Implementation and In te g ra tio n of In s tru c tio n a l Computing Programs In to K-12 P ublic School Settings Using Selected E x a m p le s ........................ A Discussion of Selected Topics Related to Micro­ computers and Student Learning............................................. Some Current Educational Uses of Microcomputers In S c h o o ls ................................................................................ Descriptions of Selected Examples of Student Learning With Microcomputers............................................. S pecialized Uses of Microcomputers 1n In s tru c tio n : Selected E x a m p le s ............................................................... Policy Considerations Confronted by Educational Planners Formulating Educational Computing Program s........................................................................................ 20 21 24 iv 29 32 41 42 50 57 62 Page III. IV . Educational Uses as a Policy Consideration ................. Student Access as a Policy Consideration ..................... Educational Equity as a Policy Consideration . . . . S ta ff Training and Technological Updating as a Policy Consideration ........................................................... In s tru c tio n a l Software as a P olicy Consideration . . Policy Issues Related to In s tru c tio n a l Hardware . . Funding and Focus as Policy Considerations ................. A B rie f Overview of the A rriv a l of Microcomputers and the Implementation of Educational Computing 1n Michigan Public Schools .................................................. S um m ary............................................................................................ 66 70 71 DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ....................................................................... 91 In tro duction .................................................................................... Population and Sample ............................................................... Methods and Procedures ............................................................... Research Questions ....................................................................... Related Research Questions .................................................. In s t r u m e n t s .................................................................................... Analysis of the D a t a ................................................................... Summary .............................. . . . . . ...................................... 91 92 94 101 102 104 106 107 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA....................................................................... 108 In tro duction .................................................................................... The 0p1n1onna1re Sent to Educational Computing E x p e r t s ........................................................................................ The Statewide School Survey .................................................. Population and Sample ........................................................... Responses to the Major Research Questions ................. Six S ite V i s i t a t i o n s ................................................................... Blue Barn Elementary School, Rural .................................. Snow Sky Elementary School, Rural ................................. Sunny Lane Elementary School, Suburban ......................... Green V ista Elementary School, Suburban ..................... C1tys1de Elementary School, Urban .................................. Metro Lake Elementary School, Urban ............................. Summaries of In te r e s t From the Results of In te r ­ views With P rin c ip a ls , Teachers, and Computing Consultants a t the Six School S ite s V is ite d . . . 108 v 73 77 80 82 85 90 109 110 110 113 138 144 149 156 162 167 172 178 Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, AND REFLECTIONS.............................................. 186 S u m m a ries ....................................................................................... The Statewide Survey ............................................................... School S ite S u m m a ries ........................................................... C o n c lu s io n s .................................................................................... S um m ary........................................................................................ Recommendations fo r Practice .................................................. Recommendations fo r Research .................................................. R e f l e c t i o n s .................................................................................... 188 188 197 202 207 208 215 218 APPENDICES............................................................................................................ 220 A. COMMUNITY T Y P E S ................................................................................ 221 B. CORRESPONDENCE AND SURVEY INSTRUMENTS ................................... 228 .................................................................................... 275 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2. 3. 4. Page Educational Computing Experts' Ranked Opinions of C h a ra c te ris tic s Most Often Present In a School or D is t r ic t Where High A ccess/P articipation Oppor­ tu n itie s Are Provided fo r S tu d e n ts ................................... 96 Number of Elementary Schools Responding, by Community T y p e ................................................................................................. 110 Number of Possible Elementary Schools 1n the D is tr ic ts of the Responding Elementary P rin c ip a ls ............................. Ill Number of Educationally Dedicated Microcomputers fo r Student Use a t 361 Michigan Elementary School S ites 113 . . 5. Approximate R atio of Students to One Computer In a Sample 115 of Michigan P ublic Elementary S c h o o ls ........................... 6. Numbers and Percentages of Schools, by Community Type, Reporting Planned In s tru c tio n Across Grades ..................... 7. Percentage of Time Computers Are 1n Use During School D a y .................................................................................................. 8. Time A llo tte d to Student Use of Computers Each Week 9. Number and Percentage of Schools, by Community Type, Providing In s tru c tio n a l Computing Time to Groups E ith er as P art of the General Education Curriculum or In Addition to I t ................................................................ 116 117 . . . 118 119 10. Placement of Micros and Terminals In Elementary Schools . 120 11. Number and Percentage of Schools, by Community Type, Reporting Yes or No to the Use of Computers to In s tru c t 1n Several C u rric u la r Areas ...................................... 121 Percentage of Schools O ffering Students Educational Computing O pportunities 1n Various Content Areas . . . . 122 12. vi I Page 13. P rin c ip a ls ' Perceptions of Teachers' Q u a lific a tio n s to Teach the Schools' Specified Computing C u rricu la . . . 124 Schools Reporting the Presence of an 0n-S1te Computer E n t h u s ia s t ............................................................................................ 125 Schools Reporting Learning Outcomes fo r Computing ................... 126 16. Percentage of Schools, by Community Type, C itin g a Long-Range Plan fo r In s tru c tio n a l Computing .......................... 127 17. D is tric t-L e v e l Commitment to Funding P o lic ie s ........................... 128 18. P rin c ip a ls ' Perceptions of Level of Enthusiasm fo r In s tru c tio n a l Computing Evidenced by Various Subsets of the School Community................................................................... 129 Michigan Elementary Schools Surveyed That Reported Having a D is t r ic t Computing Consultant .................................................. 130 Funding Sources fo r Educational-Computing-Related Expenditures Representing D ollars Beyond Local School or D is t r ic t A llocations ................................................... 132 Middle School Expectation That A rrivin g Elementary Students Have Achieved a Specified Level of Computer Understanding ....................................................................................... 134 Percentage of 361 Schools Using Micros fo r Adm inistration and Computer-Managed In stru c tio n .............................................. 135 Elementary Schools Reporting Number of Pieces of In s tru c tio n a l Software a t the School S ite .............................. 136 24. Elementary Schools Reporting Access to an ISD Consultant . 137 25. Percentage of Schools Networking Educational Computing Resources................................................................................................ 137 A v a ila b ility of Computers fo r A ll Students When Divided by Number of Microcomputers, Using Demarcations of 25/50/25% to Group as High, Moderate, and Low A v a ila b ility ........................................................................................ 140 14. 15. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 26. viii Page 27. 28. Selected Summary Data From Six School S ite s V is ite d , May 1985 ................................................................................................ 183 Selected Data From Six School S ite V is ita tio n s , May 1985 ................................................................................................ 184 ix CHAPTER I BACKGROUND Introduction In communities across the United States# In d iv id u a l public schools vary 1n both t h e ir commitment to and resources fo r providing In s tru c tio n a l computing o p portunities fo r t h e ir students (Komoskl# 1984). Even when an e f f o r t 1s put forth# 1t v a rie s 1n kind and magnitude w ith in a school# across school sites# 1n d is tric ts # and across states (Lautenberg# 1984). Recommendations urge th a t students be accorded access and p a rtic ip a tio n op portunities fo r learning with and about microcomputers# and about th e technological understandings and a p p lic a tio n s necessary to become p art of an Informed and p a r tic ip a tiv e c itiz e n ry . An equi­ ta b le d e liv ery of appropriate In s tru c tio n a l computing op p o rtu n ities has been encouraged from the federal le v e l (National Commission on Excel­ lence 1n Education, 1983); by heads of s ta te governments (Council of Chief S tate School O ffic e rs Resource Center on Sex Equity# 1984); by business and Industry (Goldberg# 1984; Meyers, 1983); by professional education organizations# fo r example# the National Council o f Teachers of Mathematics (1984) and the In te rn a tio n a l Reading Association (1984); and by In tere s ted c itiz e n groups (American Association o f U n iversity Women# 1985; National Committee fo r Economic Development# 1985). 1 2 Just how to use computers 1n school settings* both to the students' advantage and cost e ffe c tiv e ly * has recently become one of the most pressing questions advanced by educational planners (Associa­ tio n of Supervision and Curriculum Development* 1985; Klein & S tro th e r, 1984). Concern about th e c h ild 's l i f e 1n a tim e of rapid technological change* and children's In te ra c tio n w ith computing as an aspect of th a t change, have been discussed by Greenberg (1985), Hayes (1967), and Z1m1les (1985). Almost 20 years ago, Hayes wrote of the computer as a "powerful tool to aid 1n s tim u la tio n of Im agination, c r e a tiv ity and problem solving," but re q u irin g "the Im aginative and c re a tiv e e ffo rts of those most concerned w ith children as In d iv id u a ls (and not as response mechanisms) to see 1n what ways 1 t can be so used" (p. 260). Although In s tru c tio n a l computing has a 20-year histo ry 1n public schools (Koetke, 1984), the e a rly years of educational computing a c t iv it ie s reached p ro p o rtio n a te ly few of the nation's students or teachers. I t was only a f t e r 1980 when the more adaptable and cost- e f f ic ie n t desk-top microcomputer evolved and p ro life ra te d th a t In s tru c tio n a l computing ap p licatio n s and school uses of microcomputers achieved a national focus (Ferres, 1982; W right, Melmed, & F a rris , 1982). The m icroelectro nic or "high tech" age 1n which students are receiving t h e ir formal education 1s characterized by rapid change and Innovation. Microcomputers are only one such Innovation (H a ll, 1981). The sheer number of microcomputers present 1n school settin g s has more 3 than doubled 1n the past year. And, from 1983 to 1984, the number of schools w ith a t le a s t one microcomputer has Increased from 24,696 to 55,765 1n the nation’s 81,506 public schools (M arket Data R e trie v a l, 1984). Statement o f the Problem The ra p id ly changing events of the "high tech” age have transformed the liv e s of a ll c itiz e n s of Planet Earth (Shane, 1983). P resently, public schooling 1s embroiled 1n two major, y e t not dis­ parate Issues: (a) c a lls fo r major educational reform (Passow, 1984) and (b) a press to " r e t r o f i t ” to embrace the newer technologies (Shane, 1981). While a number of analysts have discussed th is turm oil 1n terms of rees ta b lis h in g the United S tates’s dominance 1n the world market­ place, others have viewed the c r is is as an opportunity to develop a le a rn in g -o rie n te d society through the promotion o f life lo n g learning (Berman, 1984). Even as the debates about national education reform and the a s s im ila tio n of the newer technologies flo u ris h , the m a jo rity of ch ild ren 1n America continue to experience t h e ir 13 years of education 1n the context of a h is to r ic a lly tra d itio n a l public school s e ttin g (Leonard, 1984). The responses policy makers choose fo r e ith e r educational reform or fo r " r e t r o f it t in g " have a d ire c t e ffe c t on today's students and teachers. educators: Z1m1les (1985) noted the com plexities th is e n ta ils fo r "The m u ltifa c e te d character of educational goals leaves the teacher w ith nagging fe e lin g s of not having done enough" (pp. 17-18). 4 He pointed to a steady stream of change 1n p o lic ie s * curriculum* and change even "w ith in the child ren themselves.” In discussions of his book Mlndstorms* Papert (1980) viewed computers 1n education* when used advantageously* as " c a rrie rs of powerful Ideas and o f the seeds of c u ltu ra l change*11 p e rm ittin g c h il­ dren to discover* think* and learn 1n new and In te g ra tiv e ways. His extensive studies and those of his colleagues have tended to confirm these premises. But there 1s a world of d iffe re n c e between what computers can do and what society w i ll choose to do w ith them. Society has many ways to r e s is t fundamental and threatening change. This book 1s about facing choices th a t are u ltim a te ly p o lIt lc a l [emphasis added], (p. 5) B u ffle (1984) reported* "History documents th a t educators tend not to be proactive" (p. 111). But society has demanded a response from public education to address the new technologies. The present study sought to contrib u te Inform ation to an a s -y e t In s u ffic ie n t body of knowledge about how educators and policymakers generally have addressed the Issue of providing a ll students w ith educational opportunities relevan t to new technologies (s p e c ific a lly microcom­ puters) and what educational uses have been emphasized. The problem focused on 1n th is d e s c rip tiv e study concerns 1f and how local schools have In it ia t e d educational computing e ffo r ts even 1n the absence of both c le a r mandates and adequate resources. Koetke’s (1984) words c la r if y th is focus: "C ertain ly there Is much research to be done regarding th e a p p lic a tio n of computers to the 5 learning process, but th e re 1s nothing to be gained and much to be lo s t by using th a t as an excuse to do nothing today” (p. 163). Purpose The purpose of th is study 1s to describe selected p o lic ie s and practices present 1n a sample of Michigan public ru ra l, suburban, and urban elementary schools th a t r e la te to the In te g ra tio n and Implementa­ tio n of In s tru c tio n a l computing a c t iv it ie s fo r students. Of In te re s t are the depth and breadth of student access and p a rtic ip a tio n opportu­ n itie s , the kinds of educational applications present, and the local elements noted or c ite d th a t helped c h a racterize a local elementary school microcomputer education e ffo r t. I t 1s also of In te re s t to lo cate and study 1n somewhat greater d e ta il a few elementary schools th a t appeared from the data to evidence a high degree of access and p a rtic ip a tio n opportunities fo r both stu­ dents and teachers and to describe the context 1n which f a c ilit a t in g c h a ra c te ris tic s seemed to occur. An In te n tio n of th is study 1s to attem pt to provide fo r educational planners Inform ation th a t might serve as an In d ic a to r of present progress toward a general In teg ra tio n of educational computing across community types and across grades 1n Michigan public schools. Need fo r the Study There are c u rre n tly thousands of microcomputers 1n place 1n public schools. Local school s ta ffs , d is tr ic ts , educational agencies, professional organizations, and concerned groups have adopted various 6 actions to promote K-12 In s tru c tio n a l uses of computers. Consequently, a v a rie ty of uses, le v e ls of In te g ra tio n , and access opportunities are provided fo r students across school s ite s . ,rrhere 1s no ty p ic a l way schools use computers 1n the curriculum because the technology 1s so new and has been Introduced In to schools In such a disorganized fashion" ( Report on Education Research, 1985, p. 8 ). While some schools are only now acquiring t h e ir f i r s t computer and a few pieces of In s tru c tio n a l softw are, other schools have Im ple­ mented highly sophisticated K-12 programs, with a documented p h ilo ­ sophical commitment to promote a f u l l range of student and teacher competencies. By the very nature of the loosely coupled American educational system, which Howe (1983) c a lle d the "nonsystem" of education, there has already resulted a d is p a rity 1n the provision of In stru c tio n a l computing o p portunities fo r students. Local schools may choose to , or not to , engage 1n microcomputer education; they u ltim a te ly decide which students w i ll have the o p portunities and what uses w ill be promoted. Any com puter-related Im plementation decision Involves a fin a n c ia lly costly and long-term process, Involving even more than the a c q u is itio n of courseware, hardware, the tra in in g of s t a ff , and the educational plan (Gray, 1984; G uertln, 1983). Moreover, 1 t requires school leaders to develop a program 1n the context of a c o n tin u ally changing technol­ ogy accompanied by s h iftin g expectations from society. The need to determine the present level of In te g ra tio n of In s tru c tio n a l computing a c t iv it ie s 1n Michigan schools was v e r ifie d by 7 the Michigan S tate Board of Education (1984) 1n the B lueprin t fo r A ction: The Michigan S tate Board of Education (1984)# based on the recom­ mendation of the re fe re n t technology group shall . . . acquire e x is tin g school d i s t r ic t plans 1n order to develop and provide planning models fo r school d i s t r ic t and Interm ediate d i s t r ic t use [and] evaluate the le v e ls o f computer lite r a c y w ithin the s ta te [emphasis added], (pp. 21-22) The status of computer lite r a c y among secondary and elementary school students 1s a question of national In te re s t. The National Center of Education S ta tis tic s (Lockheed# Hunter# Anderson# Beazley# & Estey# 1984) and other national groups gathered together experts 1n educational computing to design a questionnaire fo r school s e lf-s tu d y th a t would a s s is t local d is t r ic t s 1n assessing t h e ir In divid ual progress w ith In te g ra tin g th is new technology. The re su lts of t h e ir work# The Computer L iteracy Assessment Instrum ent# revealed the magnitude of the task and also the v it a l need fo r schools to plan fo r students those com puter-related a c t iv it ie s th a t are based on the best of c u rre n tly a v a ila b le Inform ation from research and p ra c tic e. The need fo r th is study was undergirded by the assumption th a t when educators are about to launch a new program# they are most anxious to make rational# technical decisions based on good# p ra c tic al models or research (Cuban# 1984). To provide an 1ssues-or1ented overview of the topics th a t presently confront In s tru c tio n a l computing policy mak­ ers, experts have urged a "healthy dose of planning#" based on current research# p ra c titio n e r experiences# and an a n a ly tic a n tic ip a tio n of fu tu re technological requirements. 8 Even though the ra te of Implementation of microcomputers In to public education 1s uneven across school s ite s , educators must accept the r e a lit y of t h e ir u ltim a te In te g ra tio n In to schoolsettings (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1980). Shelngold, Kane, and Endrewelt (1983) used the case study method to gather Inform ation on In s tru c tio n a l computing 1n schools and v e rifie d the need fo r fu rth e r research. Yet, 1n 1983, there 1s not much more knowledge than there was 1n those pioneering d is t r ic t s 1n 1980 about the educational outcomes of using microcomputer technology fo r In s tru c tio n . Indeed, given the accelerating ra te a t which schools are purchasing microcom­ puters, the problems have In te n s ifie d , (p. 153) From a baseline knowledge and the continued documentation of Important developments 1n the use of th is technology 1n schools, 1 t w ill be more possible to bu ild e ffe c tiv e models from which local schools may draw Ideas and form ulate plans to f i t t h e ir local needs (White, 1984). The present study 1s, 1n fa c t, an offshoot of a previous f i e l d based research e f f o r t of a year’s duration. "How Three School Systems 1n Southeastern Michigan In teg rated Microcomputing In to Th eir In stru c­ tio n a l Programs" (Bancroft, 1983a) stressed the need fo r fu rth e r research 1n Michigan schools. H all (1981), whose work w ith change models has provided a useful framework fo r In s titu tio n a l change, recommended nine steps th a t need to be considered by those who study microcomputing Implementation 1n school s. With regard to a ll nine, one overarching recommendation 1s th a t emphasis be placed on more d e scrip tive studies [and] studies which 9 emphasize development of hypotheses and theory bu ild ing, not ju s t the development, but extend descriptions o f what has happened. (p. 17) School s ta ffs have recently come to re ly more on fie ld -b ased research to guide t h e ir school-lmprovement practices (J u s tlz & Mason, 1984). They also send s t a f f members to v i s i t schools where a c t iv it ie s of In te re s t can be reviewed (B ancroft, 1983b). When Johnson (1983) studied how schools acquired t h e ir Instructional-com puting agenda of action, he reported a c e rta in cycle of a c tiv ity common to a l l s ite s . Cory (1984) re ferred to id e n tifia b le stages through which schools pass 1n adding microcomputer in s tru c tio n to the curriculum. These reports corroborated a commonality of Implementation s tra te g ie s across school s ite s , as schools In d iv id u a lly work through the 1nnovat1on/adopt1on processes. Such findings have reinforced the premise th a t a school’s Implementation process can be f a c ilit a t e d by knowledge of the documented p ractices and progress evaluations extracted from demographlcally s im ila r schools (H a ll, 1981). Becker (1982) corroborated the need fo r fu rth e r research as a basis fo r more r e lia b le decision making both by local schools and fo r product developers: For each of the problems th a t may re s u lt when microcomputers are Introduced In to the school’ s ongoing educational s tru c tu re , systematic research could help discover t h e ir Incidence and se ve rity and the conditions under which the problem Is minimized. We need to develop an unbiased and representative body of Inform ation about how schools decide to obtain and use microcom­ puters and other technological to o ls , how they use them, and the e ffe c ts th e ir use has on students and the s o d a ! organization of th e school. 10 » However* 1n the absence of research* those who Implement various uses of microcomputers 1n educational environments should share with other educators how they deal with them. (p. 56) Egs.ear.gJh-Qbj gctly.es The purpose of th is study was to c o lle c t d e s c rip tiv e data* system atically* statew ide, which would provide Inform ation on the kinds and le v e ls of student use of In stru c tio n a l computing p o lic ie s and Implementation practices prevalent 1n Michigan pu blic elementary school s. The four major research questions d e a lt w ith (a) the le v e l of In te g ra tio n of microcomputers across ru ra l* suburban, and urban elementary school s ite s ; (b) the le v e ls of access op portunities fo r most students w ith in a school; (c) the kinds of educational uses prevalent w ith in and across schools; and (d) the policy decisions th a t are being formulated or are In place to Implement educational computing act1v1t1es. Fourteen a n c illa ry questions were Included. For example* p rin c ip a ls were asked what s p e c ific funding sources were used* 1f s t a f f tra in in g and updating were provided, 1f educational ob jectives were 1n place, 1f and what external technical assistance was used, and where school computers were located. In a d d itio n , three r o le -s p e c ific In te r ­ view questionnaires were prepared to adm inister to a p rin c ip a l* two teachers, and a computing consultant or central o ffic e a d m in is tra to r a t s ix selected high access/use school s ite s . The educators* responses, coupled w ith on-s1te observations* enriched the research and perm itted discussion of any local c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t seemed to co ntrib ute to a 11 c lim a te of high student access and p a rtic ip a tio n op portunities w ith microcomputers. I t was a n tic ip a te d th a t these re in fo rc in g a ttrib u te s * 1n addition to any notable success-oriented lo cal p o lic ie s and prac­ tic e s * might be usable findings fo r schools planners In it ia t in g com­ puting a c t i v i t i e s . Pe.sJ.flfl This tw o-t1ered study 1s d e s c rip tiv e 1n nature* using the survey technique. questionnaires. The research o b jectives were Incorporated In to The f i r s t questionnaire was broadly d is trib u te d by mall to 600 elementary school p rin c ip a ls across an equal sampling of ru ra l* suburban, and urban elementary schools. The second t i e r of the study used questionnaires to gather Inform ation a t s ix elementary school s ite s . Preceding these exercises was an op1n1onna1 rfe:- sent to 17 computing experts who provided s p e c ific Input of value 1n form ulat­ ing purposeful In v e s tig a tiv e d ire c tio n fo r the e n tir e study. Good and Skates (1957) described th e nature and value of d e s c rip tiv e research 1n the follow ing way: Much of the s ig n ifican ce and Importance of th e d e scrip tive study lie s in the p o s s ib ility of In v e s tig a tin g the status of conditions a t any given tim e and of repeating the survey a t a la t e r date, thus providing descriptions of cross-sections a t d iffe r e n t tim es* 1n order th a t comparisons may be made, the d ire c tio n of change noted and evaluated and fu tu re growth or development predicted. Such guidance 1s of r e la tiv e ly great Importance 1n our complex and ra p id ly changing modern s o c ie ty , (p. 550) The s ix on-s1te v is ita tio n s provided an opportunity to adm inister an In terv ie w questionnaire to the p rin c ip a l* two teachers* 12 and one d is t r ic t adm in istrato r. While these b r ie f In terview s did not allow fo r d e ta ile d observations, the responses to the questionnaire Item s did provide ric h e r Inform ation than was possible to derive from the statew ide survey questionnaire. Slavln (1984) discussed the lim ita tio n s and advantages of the In terview method of data gathering. Taken 1n the aggregate, these case summary In terview s offered Inform ation and perspectives a v a ila b le only from educators working d ire c tly w ith both Implementation problems and promising computerre la te d p ra c tic es . Population and Sample An I n i t i a l questionnaire was sent to p rin c ip a ls of 600 Michigan elementary schools, approximately one-fourth of a ll public elementary schools. The schools sampled 1n th is study were drawn from the l i s t s of community types developed by the Michigan Department of Education (1971). The schools, randomly selected, were from fiv e s tra ta grouped In to urban, suburban, and ru ra l community types: Urban I , Tri-C ounty, which Includes Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb grouped w ith Urban I I I , Urban O utstate; Suburban I I , Town and Urban Fringe of Tr1-County Area, grouped w ith IV, Urban Fringe, Outstate; and Rural. (See Appendix A fo r d e fin itio n s of Michigan school d is tr ic ts by major community type and a map In d ic a tin g region and community-type c a teg o rie s .) The s t a f f of the O ffic e of Technical Assistance and Evaluation, Michigan Department of Education, gave guidance 1n the elementary school selection process and 1n form ulating com puter-related questions 13 th a t might provide needed answers fo r educational agency planners. (The description of s e le c tio n processes may be found 1n Chapter I I I . ) Methods and Procedures Before the present study, a field -b ased research was conducted (B ancroft, 1983a). I t described how three K-12 school systems 1n southeastern Michigan In teg rated In stru c tio n a l computing In to t h e ir schools. The chronology of those a c t iv it ie s served to Illu m in a te c e rta in elements w ith in th e context of the Individual schools th a t appeared to fo s te r high student access and p a rtic ip a tio n opportunities. The notion of local f a c i li t a t i n g c h a ra c te ris tic s found fu rth e r v e r i f i ­ cation 1n the re s u lts of an op1n1onna1re prepared and disseminated before In it ia t in g the present study. on the oplnlonnaire.) (See Appendix B for Inform ation The op1n1onna1re was mailed to 17 In s tru c tio n a l computing experts who were asked to describe or name c h a ra c te ris tic s they believed would be present 1n a school where a high degree of access to and p a rtic ip a tio n 1n In stru c tio n a l computing experiences was present fo r students. T h eir responses, unweighted, were lis te d and ranked according to those a ttrib u te s most frequently mentioned. These c h a ra c te ris tic s were used to help form ulate p e rtin e n t and appropriate questions fo r the statew ide mall questionnaire and the on-s1te In te r ­ view questionnaires. (See Appendix B fo r sample questionnaires.) The statew ide m all questionnaire was developed to provide general Inform ation about the Implementation, In te g ra tio n , and uses of In s tru c tio n a l computing 1n Michigan elementary schools and to serve subsequently as a v e h ic le fo r discovering school s ite s where there was 14 supportive evidence of a high degree of student computer access and educational usage. The second s e t of Instruments were com puter-related/ ro le s p e c lflc questionnaires fo r use when In terv ie w in g local s t a f f : p rin c ip a l, a computing consultant, and two teachers. the Questions 1n a ll Instances were form ulated from examples 1n the re la te d lit e r a t u r e or from the Input of educational computing experts. Schools selected fo r on-s1te v is ita tio n met c r it e r i a set fo rth fo r In d ic a tin g h1gh-access and h1gh-use opportunities fo r most students and, 1n a d d itio n , broad ap p licatio n s. (See Chapter I I I fo r a discus­ sion of c r it e r ia .) To ensure the appropriateness of a ll Inclusions 1n the statew ide questionnaire, f iv e acting computing teachers or computer consultants reviewed the content. The revised questionnaires were p ilo t tested by elementary p rin c ip a ls fo r appropriateness and ease of completion fo r the respondents-at-large. (See Appendix B fo r le t t e r s to e x p e rts .) In addition to computer education experts, the fo llo w in g documents were used to frame research and survey questions: Study, the Rand "Successful” Teachers* Patterns o f Microcomputer-Based In stru c ­ tio n (Shavelson, W inkler, Stasz, Felb el, Robyn, & Shaha, 1984); Com puter Literacy...A ssessm ent 1n Schools (Lockheed e t a l., 1983); H a ll’s (1981) synthesis recommendations described 1n "Issues Related to the Implementation of Computers 1n Classrooms"; and th e Montana O ffice of Public In s tru c tio n 's (1983) sample worksheets and surveys. 15 Suggestions fo r developing the questionnaires' formats were found In Designing and U t iliz in g M a llQ u e s tio n n a ires In Educational Research (Humphries, 1983). O verall guidelines fo r developing the design were derived from Summing Up (L ig h t & P H lm er, 1984). H a ll's remarks about the microcomputer's fu tu re and long-range p o te n tia l Influenced the methodology selected fo r th is study: My recommendations would be th a t few of the lim ite d funding resources be Invested In dissemination per se. Rather, these resources need to be Invested 1n fu rth e r research and development e ffo rts around softw are and exploring Issues 1n re la tio n to Im plem entation of microcomputers 1n d iffe r e n t kinds of school s e ttin g s . Assumptions or Lim itations 1. I t was assumed th a t a m a jo rity of elementary schools would be making a local e f f o r t to provide some kind of educational computing exposure or a c t iv it y fo r students. 2. I t was assumed th a t Michigan elementary school progress 1n microcomputer education Im plementation would be s im ila r 1n d ire c tio n to th a t reported fo r elementary schools g e n e ra lly . 3. I t was assumed th a t v a ria tio n s 1n the kind and provision of educational computing op portunities would occur across and w ith in d is tr ic ts and even w ith in schools, whether schools are ru ra l, urban, or suburban. 4. only The study was lim ite d by tim e and by a v a ila b le funds to asampling of Michigan public elementary schools. 5. The study was lim ite d to s e lf-re p o rtin g survey questionnaires mailed to p rin c ip a ls , and three of s im ila r content 16 adm inistered to a few educators a t s ix school s ite s . G eneralization from such s e lf-re p o rte d survey and In terview data provides a window 1n tim e but lacks the v a lid it y of a c o n tro lled study. 6. With the Implementation of a new technology and even w ith the local school's best e f fo r ts to accommodate the change comes a simultaneous absence of expectations about what might or should be present to evidence th a t e f f o r t . D e fin itio n of. Terms The fo llo w in g terms are discussed as they are used w ith in the parameters of th is study. Access. The term "access” as I t re fe rs to th e lin k in g o f a computer's memory through a programming language 1s not applicable. Access re fe rs herein to the e f f o r t of schools to provide most students w ith an opportunity to work w ith computers 1n educationally supportive ways. Chapter I . Federal funds d is trib u te d through s ta te agencies and allo cated to help the low est-achieving students w ith Improvement of basic s k ill s . Purchases designated only fo r use of those students. Chapter I I . Federal funds d is trib u te d through s ta te agencies to augment local school In s tru c tio n a l p rojects. Computer lit e r a c y . ra re ly been agreed upon. A term widely used# but whose meaning has Lockheed e t a l. (1983) described 1 t as: Whatever a person needs to know and do w ith computers 1n order to function competently 1n our Information-based society. I t Includes three kinds of competence: knowledge# s k ill s and understandings: (1) th e a b il it y to use and In s tru c t computers to aid 1n learning# 17 solving problems, and managing Inform ation; (2) knowledge of func­ tio n s , ap p licatio n s, c a p a b ilitie s , lim ita tio n s , and social Im p lica­ tio n s of computers and re la te d technology; and (3) understanding needed to learn and evaluate new applications and social Issues as they arise. Courseware. Equity. See Software. Moursund (1984) described equity as "emotion laden" and meaning d iffe r e n t things to d iffe r e n t people. E s s e n tia lly , equity 1s the provision of something equally and f a i r l y to a ll concerned. Hardware. The components of the computer, Including the display monitor, the keyboard, disk d riv e s , p rin te rs , and so on. High-tech era, new technologie s , m icroelectronic age. Terms th a t help describe the present tim e 1n society as 1 t 1s a ffec te d by numerous s c ie n t if ic breakthroughs. In s tru c tio n a l computing, educational computing, e le c tro n ic le arn in g , and microcomputer education. Terms used Interchangeably to d ire c t the focus of the computer as one tool fo r student le a rn in g , when used with appropriate software and In a planned and guided context. LOGO. A sophisticated programming language whose creators have developed special programs whereby children may have computer experi­ ences th a t enhance such s k ills as problem solving, procedural thin kin g , recursion, debugging, and graphing. Networking. Linking computers and/or data bases fo r re trie v a l or In te ra c tiv e communication; or s ta ffs or schools sharing human or m a te ria ls resources to enhance local programs. Software. The In stru c tio n s and programs th a t are used In the computer; a ls o , courseware. 18 Use and p a rtic ip a tio n . study. The word "use” has two meanings 1n th is The f i r s t has relevance to student use of and access to school computers. Lezotte (1984) emphasized th a t the mere presence of com­ puters* even In an open s e ttin g * may not Insure f a i r use across groups and grades. High use and p a rtic ip a tio n 1n th is study Imply the e f f o r t to provide appropriate settings* access* and use tim e. The other meaning of use 1n th is study means educational usage, th a t 1s, the uses th a t engage students w ith in a given school. to rs have spent time* e ffo r t* and money acquiring computers. Educa­ More time* Alvarado (1984) suggested, should be given to planning fo r the best uses of those computers w ith in schools. "All students should learn to use computers In a v a rie ty of ways* and understand the r e la ­ tio nship of microcomputers to society" (p. 14). Use* many computer educators would agree, 1s more Im portant 1n many ways than numbers of computers present In schools. High use and p a rtic ip a tio n 1n th is study Im plies making com­ puters a v a ila b le as much of the tim e as possible to the most students possible, and progressing toward broader applications of computers across curriculum content areas. Summary and Overview Chapter I established the need fo r the study. I t portrayed the necessary steps and ra tio n a le fo r determining th e level of In te g ra tio n of computers and softw are In to a sample of Michigan public elementary schools, the access and p a rtic ip a tio n opportunities* and le v e ls of educational usage c u rre n tly prevalent fo r students. I t Indicated the 19 need to define what local policy decisions and f a c ili t a t i n g a c t iv it ie s must accompany such an Implementation. The means selected to address the concerns of In te re s t 1n the present d e s c rip tiv e study were set fo r th . Chapter I I , the review of lit e r a t u r e , contains selected Issues and concerns 1n fiv e com puter-education-related areas: (a) society, technology, and c a lls fo r change; (b) an overview of the In te g ra tio n and Implementation of K-12 educational computing; (c) a discussion of student learn in g , e ith e r with or about computers; (d) a summary of some of the policy Issues confronting educators planning the Implementation of computing programs; and (e) an overview of the a r riv a l of microcom­ puters and the In te g ra tio n of educational computing In to Michigan publ 1c school s. Chapter I I I o u tlin e s the methods and procedures used 1n th is d e s c rip tiv e study and describes the survey Instruments. Chapter IV contains a review of the findings from the statewide mall survey of elementary schools and the on-s1te v is ita tio n s to s ix school s. Chapter V provides the summary of the research, followed by conclusions, recommendations, and re fle c tio n s . CHAPTER I I A REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE Although the a c q u is itio n of microcomputers and student opportu­ n itie s fo r a v a rie ty of In s tru c tio n a l computing a c t iv it ie s , K-12, continue to Increase, much remains to be learned and understood about th is technological phenomenon. reviewed 1n th is chapter: Five co n te n t-re la te d topics are (a) Society, Technology, and C a lls fo r Change; (b) An Overview of the Implementation and In te g ra tio n of In s tru c tio n a l Computing Programs In to K-12 Public School S ettings; (c) A Discussion of Selected Topics Related to Microcomputers and Student Learning; (d) Policy Considerations Confronted by Educational Planners Formulating Educational Computing Programs; and (e) A B rie f Overview of the A rriv a l of Microcomputers and the Im plementation of Educational Computing 1n Michigan Public Schools. Society, Technology, and C alls for_Chanae The fo llo w in g subsections estab lish a framework fo r the e ffe c ts of rapidly changing technology upon people 1n general, upon the social systems and various work s e ttin g s , upon a ll systems th a t must keep pace, and upon the system of K-12 education s p e c ific a lly . Headings include (a) Society and the Changing Technology, (b) Technology and 20 21 C alls fo r Educational Change# and (c) C a lls fo r K-12 Public Education to Reform and to A ssim ilate New Technologies. Society and the Changing Technology Von Puttkamer (1983) depicted the present times: We are liv in g in the most dynamic generation since human beings began to evolve s o c lo -c u ltu ra l systems more than th re e m illio n years ago. . . . Only a few g e n e ra tio n s were needed t o c r e a te a s itu a tio n that# h is to ric a lly # represents absolute novelty; fo r the f i r s t time 1n our evolution we are able to : * manipulate# control and change our own biolo gical# genetic substance; * carry out c o lle c tiv e s e lf-d e s tru c tio n by In te ra c tin g with elementary building blocks of our world; * create a world-wide communication and Inform ation network of an exten t and effectiveness never dreamed of before; [and] * throw o f f the shackles of our planet 1n the course of spreading out 1n the universe. The microcomputer 1s only one of the many transform ing to o ls of the high-technology era. I t was selected as the major focus of th is study because i t s use and presence 1s widespread# and the computer represents one of many such recent technological innovations th a t Influence the d a ily liv e s of many members of society# causing them to cope and adjust. Shane (1983b) c a lle d the microprocessor "both the source and support system fo r the tra n s itio n s already underway.” Von Puttkamer (1984) observed th a t such new technologies appear to surface 1n quantum leaps# rath er than as a steady# even force. "In d ivid u als struggle to hold 1 t back fo r as long as 1 t takes to a s s im ila te 1t» to digest 1t and understand it# and to enrich 1t»" In d ic a tin g th a t a "pause 1s required by in d iv id u a ls fo r consolidation" (p. 4). Shane (1983a) to ld of a social d is o rie n ta tio n th a t accompanies th is kind of rapid change. 22 Na1sb1tt (1983) Id e n tifie d ten transform ations th a t are present 1n society and said th a t none 1s so subtle "yet explosive" as the m egashift from an In d u s tria l to an Inform ation society. S in c la ir (1984) questioned the p re v ailin g meanings of "Informa­ tio n society" or "Inform ation technology": But ta lk of Inform ation technology confuses an Issue; I t Is used to mean people handling Inform ation ra th e r than handling machines* and there 1s l i t t l e th a t 1s fundamental 1n th is . The real revolution which 1s ju s t now s ta rtin g 1s one of In te llig e n c e . Electronics 1s replacing man's mind, ju s t as steam replaced man's muscle, (p. 257) The s h if t from the "smoke-stack" In d u s tria liz e d society to the present "high tech" society tran spired 1n only a few decades. I t began when the p o ten tial of global communication by s a t e l lit e became a r e a lit y with the launching of Sputnik 1n 1957. Subsequent networking developments have perm itted the almost Instantaneous transmission of Inform ation, creatin g an Inform ation economy. Na1sb1tt (1983) reported th a t over 60% of Americans spend t h e ir working tim e c reatin g , processing, or d is trib u tin g Inform ation. Microcomputers and other technologies also change the fa b ric of s o d a ! In te ra c tio n . Whether one liv e s In a p rim itiv e , a g ric u ltu ra l v illa g e or resides 1n a predominantly "high tech surround," there are evolving, almost d a lly , new options and challenges. For some In d iv id u a ls and countries, threatening Im p lic a tio n s are Imposed by these emerging developments (Raymont, 1983). Shane (1983b) c ite d from his Interview s th a t people are concerned about "whether or not human beings can cope fa s t enough to deal w ith the changes and problems th a t threaten them" (p. 12). 23 Boger, Blom, and Lezotte (1984) c a lle d fo r a tte n tio n to the status and nurturance of children 1n a pressured* "high tech" society: The development of computers* communication s a t e llit e s and te le v is io n could serve to advance the agenda fo r our c h ild re n , or they could become an ever-Increasing p a rt of the problem, as broadcast te le v is io n 1s a t the present tim e. The a v a ila b ilit y and dissem ination of more Inform ation 1s c le a rly a "plus" fo r c h ild re n , 1f 1t 1s used w isely. The problem 1s our child ren could become "Inform ation rich" and "experience poor." Who w i ll help our children cope approp riately with the new Information? W ill I t be a v a ila b le to a ll? Apprehension has been expressed about the possible s1de-effects of a "high tech" society, such as machines replacing people or school settin g s th a t Is o la te students ra th e r than s o c ia liz e them. But Dwyer (1980) a n tic ip a te d th a t "recent advances 1n technology . . . o ffe r fa s cin atin g p o te n tia l as agents fo r Implementing a rich and q u ite deep view of education" (p. 8 7 ). Agresto (1981) said th a t taking "potshots" a t technology w ill not help resolve the complex Issues surrounding education. " I f tech­ nology 1s not an Independent fa c t but a cohort of our values, then the humanities and technologies have much to say to one another" (p. 7). The ra p id ly evolving changes 1n society caused by technology were summarized by Lewis (1983): There 1s a period of tim e apparent in a ll history when the ra te a t which to o ls have been developed o u ts trip s the ra te a t which subsequent human adaptation to use such tools takes place. The present era, w ith the concomitant pressures of automation upon the In divid ual and the accelerating trend of technological development appears to be such a tim e. In years to come, 1 t 1s predicted th a t human beings w i ll be forced toward acceptance of and adaptation to these kinds of changes In an unnaturally short tim e, perhaps more than once during t h e ir working l i f e . (p. 87) 24 Technology and C alls fo r EducaM flD&l-Chflngg By 1990» Jullussen (1984) predicted th a t the home computer market would to ta l nearly $14 b illio n . Presently 15% of American homes have a personal computer fo r fa m ily use. Pogrow (1982) a n ticip ated th a t by 1985 computers would be part of e ig h t m illio n homes. The business sector was reported to be a c tiv e ly using about three m illio n microcomputers 1n 1980 (M o llto r, 1981). Greenes (1981) estim ated th a t the computer* 1n some manner* would be the primary work tool of as many as 50% of the United States' work force. Computer and com puter-related products are 1n themselves a c o n tin u a lly growing and a t the same tim e maturing Industry* which reconfigures as I t s la te s t products become marketed (Anderson* 1984). But as computers become In f ilt r a t e d In to d a lly l i f e , the number of h1gh-technology occupations w i ll account fo r only 7% o f the new jobs created during th is decade. Rumberger (1 n H o lH f le ld , Educational forecasters Levin and 1984) projected th a t w h ile fu tu re c itiz e n s w i ll re q u ire a broad understanding of technology, It s effects* and It s a p p lic a tio n s , they w ill not require "high tech" vocational tra in in g . Raymond R e ls le r (19844), an American Can Company executive, believed the s k ills of most value to students are those th a t w i ll tra n s fe r, those th a t stress problem solving and s tra te g ie s fo r adapting to change. Current technical job s k ills may become quickly obsolete. "Most people now change employers three, four, perhaps fiv e times . . . and most people th a t stay with one or two employers . . . have th e ir job changed w ith in th a t company several dozen times" (p. 5 ). 25 People 1n a ll walks of l i f e continue to be Influenced by the m icroelectronic revolution. People who bank e le c tro n ic a lly * view a space s h u ttle l i f t - o f f , or play a video game have frequent In te ra c tio n s with computers 1n th e ir d a lly liv e s , but may not stop to consider or r e fle c t upon t h e ir present or fu tu re Involvement. S in c la ir (1984) said, " I t often seems th a t each new step 1n technology brings misery ra th e r than contentment but th is Is because 1 t brings change fa s te r than benefits— and change, though often s tim u la tin g , 1s always disturbing" (p. 2 5 7). I f technology 1s destined to change the way American people liv e , le a rn , and work, then educational reform and reeducation have become essential policy considerations (Shane, 1981). H all (1981) confirmed th a t most In d iv id u a ls react to an Innovation, such as microcomputers, through a sequence of behaviors. These "stages of concern" and the change process, he emphasized, must be understood by those w ith re s p o n s ib ilitie s fo r Implementing computer education programs. The stages (H a ll, Loucks, Rutherford, & Newlove, 1975) Include the In d iv id u a l’s f i r s t awareness o f the Innovation and culm inate when the person 1s able to make a p p lic a tio n s of 1t» even to the extent of enhancing his personal or professional l i f e . E n tire groups, even when apprehensive about a s s im ila tin g a new technology, can be helped to a more rapid and propitious adaptation through planned In terven tio n and continuing education. "The adoption of microcomputers must be understood as 1 t occurs w ith in each s ite , as well as n a tio n a lly " (H a ll, 1981, p. 18). 26 For decades the common perception of American education has been a formal and separate process th a t occurs w ith in a given period of tim e. A c h ild who attended school during h e r/h is peak learnin g years was destined to graduate to use th a t accumulated knowledge 1n the In d u s tria liz e d society during h is /h e r peak production years. Experts have now predicted th a t In tervention s c a lle d "recur­ rent" education, 1n ad d itio n to on-the-job re tra in in g , w i ll comprise a life lo n g education fo r workers (H o lH fle ld , 1984). In d u s trie s have already adopted automated processes. Including extensive applications of robotics. Allen (1984) noted th a t "fewer workers are employed, and those th a t remain req u ire h ig h e r-le v e l s k ills and greater v e r s a t ilit y . . . . Knowledge 1s becoming a major commodity and source of power" (p. 1 ). For 30 years the large number-crunching tasks common to both government and big business have been accommodated e a s ily on the g ian t main-frame computers (Futkowskl, 1984). I t has only been 1n the la s t f iv e years th a t sm aller businesses and un its of government have looked to technology to accomplish such tasks by using th e less expensive and more adaptable microcomputers. But unlike the la rg e public and p riv a te sector operations, the small businesses have Inadequate local fin a n c ia l or teaching resources fo r the re tra in in g of t h e ir employees 1n databased management, accounting processes, Inform ation r e tr ie v a l, or spreadsheet analysis. Consequently, these employers expect t h e ir employees to go back to school or emerge from public school with a 27 sense of the current technologies and to be to some exten t "computer 1I t e r a t e . " R e ls le r (1984) acknowledged the need fo r technical s k ill s and Incremental change but encouraged educational planners to provide o p portunities fo r students to th in k ; to be visio nary, f le x ib le , and Innovative; and to go beyond merely coping or try in g to catch up w ith technology. 'The key to Improved education 1s students, not computers," according to Moursund (1984a, p. 184), educational computing pioneer and a u th o rity : The goal 1s fo r everyone to become a s e lf - r e lia n t and Independent le a rn e r. Computers can play a helpful ro le . . . and an Increasing ro le as change agent, as w ell as w ith in the curriculum . Far bigger Improvements are possible 1f we can help students to take Increased re s p o n s ib ility fo r t h e ir own education, (p. 184) Whether ju s t if ie d s t a t is t ic a lly or not, tra in in g a t the public school level and the postsecondary re tra in in g of adults fo r the new technologies have surfaced as a v ir tu a l mandate from many segments of society. Educational planners who have confronted the c a ll to keep pace w ith the new technologies, w h ile also focusing on the long-term public good, have encountered not only am biguities, but also the challenge of providing an action plan w ith in In s titu tio n s th a t have been h is to r ic a lly slow to respond (Meyer, 1983). When Shane (1981) talked about the e s s e n tia lity of " r e tr o f ittin g " in d iv id u a ls to take t h e ir proper place 1n the "S ilic o n Age," he focused a tte n tio n on some e th ic a l and s o d a ! ra m ific a tio n s of the evolving tim es. In th e global race to " r e t r o f it ," c e rta in nations 28 technologically have become sorted, as have numerous In d iv id u a ls and students, In to groups c a lle d "haves” and "have nots." Komoskl (1984) c ite d the current In e q u itie s between those who have computers and those who do not; and those who have access to learning w ith and about computers, and those who do not. Any machine th a t produces such a monumental Influence on people, places, and things, Goldberg (1984) said, "requires planning which not only Incorporates the lessons of h isto ry , but also projects fu tu re prospects." He added th a t American c itiz e n s cannot a ffo rd to be computer I l l i t e r a t e . He recommended th a t businesses th a t have a stake 1n the fu tu re workforce must help public schools w ith the educational task. How to prepare students of a ll ages to face the myriad s o d a ! and knowledge challenges has become co n tro versial. As one example, when a recent b i l l was Introduced 1n the United States Congress to provide high-tech hardware to schools, M. Joan Parent, president of the National Association of School Boards, responded: Such g if ts are the la s t things schools need to b o lster th e ir com­ puter education programs. I f 1t Cthe computer] does not f i t In to the teacher's In s tru c tio n a l strategy fo r achieving the school dis­ t r i c t ’s curriculum , then 1 t becomes a classroom toy. (Education J2aily» 1984, p. 3) A number of representatives o f s ta te , lo c a l, and national educational groups apparently concurred: "Schools f i r s t need help 1n tra in in g t h e ir teachers, developing curriculum and researching the Impact of computers on students before they s t a r t w irin g t h e ir classrooms fo r the Inform ation age" ( Education D a lly , 1984, p. 3 ) . 29 C alls fo r K-12 Public Education to Reform and to A ssim ilate New Technologies C urrently United States public schools have been c a lle d upon to (a) reform th e ir c u rric u la and modes of operation (D o lla r, 1984) and (b) prepare students fo r H f e 1n a "high tech" era (Education USA, 1982). In recent years, but culm inating 1n 1983 with what Howe (1984) c a lle d the "Year of the Reports," comprehensive studies of schools, such as those of Boyer (1983), Goodlad (1983), and S ize r (1984), were joined by several dozen task force and commission reform reports, Including the widely publicized Nation a t Risk (National Commission on Excellence 1n Education, tio n T. H. B e ll. 1983), In it ia t e d by then Secretary of Educa­ Without exception the authors and members studied various aspects of school H f e or the schooling process and concluded th a t public education was 1n urgent need of Immediate reform. A number of the task force recommendations said the major need fo r these com­ prehensive reform measures was to regain the nation's position of economic s u p e rio rity , which Involved re tra in in g the workforce and upgrading the educational level of students to the perceived require­ ments of a "high tech" society, w h ile a t the same tim e bolstering c itiz e n morale and boosting national secu rity (Berman, 1984). Most of the long-range studies and task force reports addressed the need to emphasize the basic s k ills and, 1n a d d itio n , to Incorporate In to the c u rric u la a sustained emphasis on communication a b il it ie s , problem-solving exp ertise, higher mental process th in k in g , and computer 30 technology-related understandings. The Nation a t Risk s p e c ific a lly recommended one-hal f year of computer science fo r every student* a suggestion th a t generated both a c tiv ity and controversy ( Education D a lly , 1984). Many experts who pioneered 1n educational computing have speculated th a t In stru c tio n a l computing would, depending on a v a ila ­ b i l i t y of hardware and courseware fo r students and teachers, become a tool to f a c i l i t a t e and enhance the basics of reading, w ritin g , and mathematical and s c ie n tific computation (Moursund, 1984). Luehrmann (1984) spoke of In s tru c tio n a l computing as an ongoing process, with appropriate s k ills being presented and Incorporated a t the best teach­ ing and learnin g moments fo r students. None advocated a quick com puter-1Iteracy " fix " as a panacea fo r catching up w ith technology. Some disagreed with the concept of requirin g a h a lf-y e a r of computer programming or lite r a c y fo r high school graduation. N either are a ll local schools reacting quickly to the wave of reform reports and c a lls fo r change. Passow (1984) described nine decades of not d is s im ila r reform movements growing out of c r is is oriented s itu a tio n s . The reports have raised concern among educators th a t any changes made solely 1n response to new In it ia t iv e s may be only cosmetic, Inappropriate, or "too l i t t l e and too la te " (Leonard, 1983). Before the current rush of mandates fo r general school reform and fo r " r e t r o f it t in g " education fo r the "high tech," a number of the approximately 16,000 school d is t r ic t s were engaged 1n lo cal e ffo r ts to 31 Improve# even during tim es of declin in g enrollm ents and human and fin a n c ia l resources. For example# rich case studies were c ite d by Edmonds (1982) of successful school reform and Improvement e ffo r ts th a t began 1n the mid-1970s and continued to prosper In to the 1980s (Lezotte# 1984a). S im ila rly# microcomputers and educational courseware were being accumulated by public schools 1n the early 1980s a t phenome­ nal ra te s (Lockheed e t a l.» 1983). For the states and local educational In s titu tio n s responding d ire c tly to the reform reports# Lezotte (1984a) cautioned: "One fear shared by many educators 1s th a t the curren t reform movement may turn out to be only enrichment programs fo r the r e la t iv e ly advantaged." Koetke (1984) commented# 1n regard to In s tru c tio n a l computing: C ertain ly there 1s much research to be done regarding the applica­ tio n of computers to the learning process# but th e re 1s nothing to be gained and much to be lo s t by using th a t as an excuse to do nothing today. Wagshal (1984) In terp re te d th e sustained a tte n tio n of reformers on both e le c tro n ic learn in g and school Improvement as providing additional external support and enthusiasm fo r school-lmprovement a c t iv it y : The coming decade may w ell be our la s t chance— our window 1n tim e— fo r determining whether computer technology w ill play a major ro le 1n our education In s titu tio n s , or merely dominate our d a lly liv e s (as te le v is io n does) w hile we Ignore 1 t 1n the schools, (p. 253) H o lllf le ld (1984) c a lle d the recent p o lit ic a l focus on "high tech" 1n education a h elp fu l circumstance# 1n th a t 1 t reemphasizes the Importance of education; however# he stressed th a t schools must r e s is t the pressure to provide s p e c ific technological tra in in g th a t w i ll only 32 become obsolete. He re fe rred to Stanford researcher Russel Rumberger’s reminder of the real purposes of education# which Include the prepara­ tio n fo r careers, fo r c itiz e n s h ip , and fo r le is u re tim e. "The computer should be used as a tool fo r learn in g , not as a subject th a t w ill d is p la c e more fundamental learning" (p. 3 ). An Overview of the. Implementation and In te g ra tio n of In s tru c tio n a l Computing Programs I n t o K-12 Public School Settings Using Selected Examples The current surge of a c tiv ity and present le v e l of In te g ra tio n of microcomputer education In to public school s e ttin g s can be a t t r i b ­ uted to local grass-roots e ffo r ts (Gray, 1984). I f the estim ate of a h a lf - m illio n microcomputers 1n public school s e ttin g s by 1985 were a fa c t (Bork, 1984), then 1 t could be said th e phenomenon was a bottom-up event (Odden, 1984), generated a school or d i s t r ic t a t a tim e across s ta te s . Market Data R etrie v a l (MDR) (1984) reported th a t 1n two years the number of schools w ith microcomputers had more than doubled. The percentage of d is t r ic t s using microcomputers rose from 41.7% 1n f a l l 1982 to 86.1% 1n f a l l 1983. While senior high schools led the way, the elementary schools revealed the most vigorous growth by t r ip lin g the numbers of computers on s it e 1n only one year. "Even schools th a t are usually ’ low’ spenders have made a great e f f o r t to bring microcomput­ ers In to th e ir schools." MDR also pointed out th a t whether a school was urban, ru ra l, or suburban did not seem to be a major fa c to r 1n pred ictin g which types of schools were accumulating computers. They 33 concluded: "While there may s t i l l be a higher percentage o f 'r ic h ' schools with computers, the 'poor* schools have succeeded 1n becoming less computer poor." In additio n , "states th a t appear to be leaders 1n terms of the number of computers owned are often below the national average when 1t comes to the number of students who must compete fo r each com puter" (p. 1). Estimates of the number of computers 1n American schools ranged from 350,000 to 550,000 1n 1985 (Bork, 1984). Desk-top microcomputers only became a v a ila b le and economically fe a s ib le a c q u is itio n Items fo r schools 1n the e arly 1980s. Almost w ithout exception, th is phenomenal growth has been reported 1n terms of numbers. However, th is does not provide assessors w ith Inform ation needed to In d ic a te the d is trib u tio n of computers among students; the kinds, range, depth, or q u a lity of the usage; the m a te ria ls or software used; nor the professional resources employed to assure appropriate educational uses. N either 1s Inform ation re a d ily a v a ila b le about what Issues are considered in the local Implementation process, such as the commitment to funding or, as another example, the decision to t r e a t computing as an appendage to the curriculum or to In te g ra te 1 t through­ out the curriculum. A National In s titu te of Education study (Shavelson e t a l., 1984) th a t looked a t teaching behaviors of teachers who were exemplary users of microcomputers 1n mathematics and science In s tru c tio n reported th a t although numbers of microcomputers appeared la rg e , they tra n s la te d In to less than one fo r each school, making them la rg e ly Inaccessible to 34 most classrooms. Time fo r students to use the micros was also lim ite d . "Educational ap p licatio n s of microcomputers do not come close to th e ir p o te n tia l; and even 1 f a v a ila b ilit y and a c c e s s ib ility were not a fac­ to r , very few teachers have y e t been educated to use them In stru c ­ tio n a l l y . 11 The re p o rt, e n title d "Teaching Mathematics and Science: Patterns of Microcomputer Use#" described three Impediments to Implementation: In s u ffic ie n t numbers of classroom microcomputers to make an educational d iffe re n c e ; a lack of In form atio n about the best use of microcomputers and how to t r a in teachers to use them; and a shortage of q u a lity , curriculum -appropriate software. Carnlne (1984) c ite d th re e key variab les th a t must be present to In teg ra te computers e ffe c tiv e ly In to the curriculum : (a) resource a llo c a tio n , (b) q u a lity softw are, and (c) Implementation methods. When a school or d i s t r ic t decides to Implement an In s tru c tio n a l computing program, experts recommend th a t an upfront policy analysis 1s essential 1f a ll roadblocks are to be addressed and overcome (Gray, 1984). Dershlmer (1982) named the fo llo w in g considerations when planning Implementation s tra te g ie s fo r microcomputers 1n public education: tr a in in g , funding, choosing softw are, communicating with other users, matching lo cal goals w ith the technology, selecting from the diverse a p p lic a tio n s , se le c tin g hardware, and eq u itab le use. Cory (1983) provided a four-stag e model fo r schools to use when developing a computer-Implementation program: (a) "Getting on the Bandwagon," (b) "Stage of Confusion," (c) "P ulling I t A ll Together," 35 and (d) "Full Im plem entation.” A few schools* she noted* are s t i l l at a pre-stage* wondering whether or not they should s t a r t . Projects th a t have studied the Implementation of K-12 microcom­ puter education Include: * The Mainstreaming Computers P roject (Carnlne* 1984) 1s a planning, developing, and Implementing model th a t "addresses variab les Important to any e f f o r t to mainstream computers" (p. 7 8 ). * The Shelngold* Kane* and Endrewelt study (1983), 1n collabo­ ra tio n with the Bank S tre e t College of Education and sponsored by the National In s t it u t e of Education, compiled Inform ation on the uses of computers 1n th re e geographically d is tin c t school systems. * The extensive and continuing studies a t the Massachusetts In s t it u te of Technology* led by Papert (1980), Involved school children 1n usages of the powerful computer language* LOGO. Accounts may also be traced through the work of Pea (1984), R1ord1n (1984), Watt (1983), and more re cen tly F ire Dog (1985)* among others. * Becker (1984a)» In a series of reports on School Uses of Microcomputers (from 1983 through 1984), with an update (Chlon-Kenney, 1985), has touched upon many Im plementation Issues and has thus helped trac k the development of microcomputer education 1n schools. * The Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium (MECC)» w hile not a s p e c ific model of a school Implementation project* has been a major force 1n school Im plementation of computer education 1n Minne­ sota. In 1973* a consortium of the S tate Department of Education, the U niversity of Minnesota* the S tate U niversity System* and the community 36 colleges formed to provide computing services 1n which a sharing e f f o r t was assessed as the most c o s t-e ffe c tiv e method of d e liv ery . At th a t tim e the giant main-frame computer provided hook-ups with hundreds of classrooms (Rawltch, 1982). Although the services rendered have changed over the years, the ro le of MECC has been expanded to provide not only resources and leadership w ith in Minnesota but also elsewhere 1n the United States (MECC B u lle tin , 1984-85). * In 1981-82, six schools 1n Maryland and V irg in ia were studied to track the In teg ra tio n of computers In to a K-8 curriculum (Hunter, Dearborn, & Snyder, 1983). Moursund (1984a) addressed the challenges of Implementation e ith e r on a d i s t r ic t - or school-at-a-t1m e basis by pointing to the massive s ize of the U.S. public education system, 1n which approxi­ mately 45 m illio n students are e n ro lle d 1n 100,000 public or p riv a te schools with two m illio n educators and schools w ith school expenditures to ta lin g well over $100 b illio n annually. Acknowledging the slowness of the public school system to change, Moursund questioned th a t the present expenditure of 1% of to ta l school monies on precollege comput­ ing would have a s ig n ific a n t e ffe c t on educational computing fo r a ll students. State education agencies have recently become more Involved 1n school-lmprovement e ffo r ts and the swing to address the new technolo­ gies. Lezotte and Bancroft (1985) reported 35 states w ith some kind of reform In it ia t iv e . As a re s u lt many have urged t h e ir governors and le g is la tu re s to get Involved 1n the uses of microcomputers and 37 telecommunication systems In education. This Is predicted to have a s ig n ific a n t e ffe c t on a c t iv it y a t the lo cal le v e l over the next decade ( Education Week, 1984). West V ir g in ia recorded I t s I n i t i a l In s tru c tio n a l computing a c t iv it ie s evolving from a statew ide educational network. The In ten ­ tio n 1s to provide stronger In s tru c tio n a l components to low -w ealth d is tr ic ts , and e s p e c ia lly to schools 1n the mountainous areas. West V ir g in ia w i l l boast the f i r s t statew ide In s tru c tio n a l computer network 1n the nation. Access to In s tru c tio n a l programs 1n a ll subject areas, s ta te ­ wide b u lle tin boards dissem inating news, presentation of new guidelines fo r curriculum , and presentation of broad school Issues w i ll be Incor­ porated In to the network’s p o te n tia l. Teachers and students w i ll eventually be able to work w ith t h e ir counterparts 1n other schools. Evaluating the success of the p ro ject to date, a leader commented: 'The level of In te ra c tio n among thee kids 1s amazing. . . . Networking 1s v it a l. Schools simply cannot continue to function w ithout sharing t h e i r re so u rce s ” (E lc h n e r, 1984, p. 1). Excerpts from Education D aily (1984) characterized, with some humor, a m ixture of Ideas about the nature of the s ta te s ’ recent Involvement and th e p r io r it ie s states choose to address: In many sta te s , o f f ic ia ls say, the tr a d itio n o f local autonomy hinders the development of computer lite r a c y te s ts . A recent survey of superintendents 1n North Carolina showed th a t w h ile adm inistrators agreed students should be computer l i t e r a t e , they opposed mandating a single set of standards. . . . The development of standards 1s also hampered by the fa c t th a t educators don't always agree on what constitu tes computer lit e r a c y . . . 38 We often don’t know what p a rtic u la r p ro ficien c ie s we are ta lk in g about. . . . (p . 2) A top p r io r it y fo r 1986 from the federal level was recently reported by Manual J u s tlz , former d ire c to r of the National In s t it u t e fo r Education. Funding 1s to be allo cated fo r research and development e ffo r ts fo r In s tru c tio n a l technology and school Improvement ( Report on Education Research* 1985). In ad d itio n to formal research studies on school Implementation and documentation from s ta te and federal reports* a v it a l source of Inform ational data on the In te g ra tio n of microcomputers 1n schools comes from the schools themselves* of times recorded 1n professional jo u rn a ls or shared through presentations a t conference s ite s . A few examples are Included here. * Rosemount High School (Wilson, 1984). "Just about everyone a t Rosemount High School 1n Minnesota has been using computers d a lly fo r a decade," Rosemount’s prin cip al reported. V is ito rs from many states, Canada, and Europe have learned about the educational p o te n tia l o f microcomputers from t h e ir observations a t Rosemount, he noted. * Palo A lto , C a lifo rn ia ( School Tech News, 1984). E ig h t- hundred-student Jordan Middle School boasts a student tu to r program th a t, w ithout distu rb in g the regular school curriculum , manages to guarantee th a t I t s eighth graders are p ro fic ie n t 1n fundamental computer programming s k ill s and th a t 25% w ill be competent w ith Word S ta r, word processing, and/or M u lti pi an, a spreadsheet database program. The p rin cip a l has offered to share the plan fo r the student tu to r program with other schools. 39 * Cupertino Union D is t r ic t (1983). S ta ff members wrote a K-8 computer lite r a c y program 1n 1981, re visin g 1 t 1n 1982. The plan Involves a ll students w ith the computer as p a rt of the regular c u rric u ­ lum. In divid ual and ample use tim es are provided. The comprehensive objectives are met through Including them 1n In s tru c tio n with content courses. The creators emphasized th a t "we s t i l l do not tr u ly know about students’ lim it s a t each grade level on computers." According to the p rin c ip a l, another school adopting th is model "must assess the strength of It s s t a f f , th e configuration of the computers' locations and the p r io r ity of t h e ir usaga" * Case studies of four school d is t r ic t s th a t have successfully Introduced computers In to t h e ir educational programs (Undelow, 1982) o ffe r a v a rie ty of examples fo r school Implementation processes. For example, Houston Independent School D is t r ic t established a department of technology. The d i s t r ic t contracted w ith softw are publishers to provide computer m a te ria ls to f i t the Houston curriculum . * In Jefferson County, Kentucky, with a grant from the Humana Corporation and a school board plan to ra is e $4.5 m illio n , 85 e le ­ mentary schools w i l l be equipped w ith computers. praised the machines as student m otivators. An a d m in is tra to r Teachers have been encour­ aged to be c re a tiv e 1n Incorporating computers In to t h e ir In stru c tio n a l plan. F in a lly , another means of Id e n tify in g schools' In teg ra tio n of computers 1s to Id e n tify th e ir uses w ith in the curriculum content 40 areas. Both researchers and school personnel have contributed to th is knowledge base. One example 1s the "W riting to Read" program (Wallace# 1984) adopted by the Portland# Oregon# Public Schools 1n 1983. I t te s ts the theory th a t child ren w i ll learn to read by f i r s t learnin g to w rite . A ll primary students become w rite rs using the word processor. student typed: w ith you One " I H k e t the t1pe r l t e r Best of a ll and I H ke to work And I H k e t Hsonlng to the story's But best I li k e working with you." The magnitude of w ritte n reports re la ted to various applica­ tio n s of computers 1n the K-12 curriculum 1s Impressive. During the course of the present study# three data-base searches of three d if f e r ­ ent data bases located between 10#000 and 11 #000 to p ic a l Items. Many educators believe th a t the In s tru c tio n a l and school a d m in is tra tiv e uses of computers are c lo sely In tertw in ed . Caldwell (1984)# for Instance# described how computers a s s is t adm inistrators and teachers w ith routine record keeping# u ltim a te ly unleashing more In s tru c tio n a l tim e. Students' learning d e fic ie n c ie s are frequently monitored by means of computer-managed In s tru c tio n . Teachers may quickly prescribe appropriate help fo r In divid ual students. In s p ite of the mixed responses to the presence and place of microcomputers 1n public schools# t h e ir numbers and uses are growing. Evidence of the determ ination of In d iv id u a ls and groups to Implement In s tru c tio n a l computing In public schools grows as educators form computer using groups# attend a growing number of local and national 41 computing conferences, subscribe to a number of e le c tro n ic education jo u rn a ls , e n ro ll In community education and college computing classes, sponsor summer computer camps fo r youngsters, and campaign fo r com­ puters and software fo r t h e ir local schools. A new group presently forming professional lia is o n s 1s education computing consultants. Also, many states and teachers are working fo r c e r t if ic a t io n of com­ puting teachers. In the past f iv e years, 115 computing perio d icals have In itia t e d pu blicatio n (U ndelow , 1984a). Numerous professional organizations, such as the In tern a tio n a l Reading Association (1985), have published guidelines fo r schools to follow when In te g ra tin g computers In to school s e ttin g s . Becker (1982) pinpointed the challenge: We must th in k c le a rly about how we want our children's education to Improve, what computers can do to help, how th a t assistance can, 1n fa c t, be accomplished, and whether any of th is 1s affordable. Through appropriate research, w ell-organized s tra te g ie s of educa­ tio n a l program development, and careful policy-making and s t a ff development by school systems, we may be able to make today's dreams about computers and kids In to tomorrow's r e a lit ie s . A. Discussion of Selected Topics. Related to Microcomputers and Student Learning Computers or some form of computing a c t iv it y 1s present 1n most Americans' d a lly liv e s . In fa c t, John Diebold, In an In terview on public te le v is io n 's Late Night America, December 13, 1984, estim ated th a t there are 20 m illio n "computer lit e r a t e " adults 1n the United States. A presence of sustained In te r e s t 1n microcomputer education (W right, Melemed, & F a rris , 1984) and reports such as th a t of the Task Force on Education fo r Economic Growth (Hunt, 1983) have generated 42 demands th a t schools upgrade students’ knowledge base and prepare today's pupils fo r fu tu re c re a tiv e uses of technology. Despite these pressures and r e a lit ie s , there Is an ambivalence among educators, researchers, and fu tu r is ts as to not only what consti­ tu te s a microcomputer education, but what tru e values the microcomputer u ltim a te ly holds fo r student learning or the enhancement of learning (Brophy & Hannon, 1984). Tashner (1984) surmised, "There are as many v a ria tio n s of computer lite r a c y as th e re are people attem pting to define I t . The understandable re s u lt 1s one of confusion fo r educators who must make c u rric u la r decisions Involving computers and children" (p . 1 ). Some experts predict th a t the computer w i ll soon be so absorbed 1n In d iv id u a ls ' d a lly liv e s th a t what appeared I n i t i a l l y as essential fo r teachers and students to learn w i ll "s e lf-d e s tru c t." Educators, fo r the most p a rt, c u rren tly are acting to assure th a t students' s k ill s and understandings of technology w ill not be taken fo r granted. Many local schools and d is t r ic t s have made a v is ib le commitment and have a t le a s t begun the process of providing educational computing opportuni­ tie s fo r students. To date, the schools' agendas on th is m atter have varied according to each school's In te re s t, understanding, funding c a p a b ility , and commitment (Becker, 1984; Market Data R e trie v a l, 1984). Some Current Educational Uses of Microcomputers 1n Schools This subsection presents discussions of the current educational uses of (a) examples of student le a rn in g -re la te d computer a c t iv it ie s 43 and (b) sp ecialized uses of microcomputers 1n In stru c tio n * Including the learning disabled, w ritin g /co m p o sitio n , mathematics, as to o ls fo r exp lo ratio n , and fo r economically disadvantaged or m inority students. The Fast Response Survey System (W right e t al.» 1984) reported th a t 1n 1982 the two c h ie f purposes of school computers were fo r com­ pensatory/remedial education, fo r basic academic s k ills or fo r learning enrichment when used as a to o l, and, when viewed as an object of In s tru c tio n , fo r teaching computer lite r a c y or programming. Elemen­ ta ry and ju n io r high schools more frequently lis te d computer lite r a c y as a major In s tru c tio n a l use. Programming was common 1n high school. Elementary schools used computers more fo r teaching tr a d itio n a l sub­ je c ts . I t 1s m isleading to rep o rt 1981-82 school-year s ta tis tic s fo r the rap id ly changing f ie ld of educational computing, but 1t provides a benchmark a t a tim e when th e re Is an annual doubling, even t r ip lin g of numbers of computers a t school s ite s (Market Data R e trie v a l, 1984). At present, computer usage, even among schools having computers, varies (W right e t a l., 1984). For example, about 10% of the schools used th e ir computers only 17 minutes per day, whereas 13% of the schools 1n 1981-82 used th e ir computers f iv e hours per day. Elementary students were more lik e ly to receive some exposure to computers than were students attending senior high schools th a t offered computer-based In s tru c tio n , even though more high schools provided computer-based In s tru c tio n . 44 Papert (1980) said th a t the computer's value lie s not so much a t the s k ill le v e l of learning about I t s functions and then operating 1t» but with I t s In te ra c tiv e c a p a b ility of opening up problems fo r solving and c rea tin g a window fo r exploration of microworlds. His years of experimental work a t Massachusetts In s t it u t e of Technology w ith young child ren and the programming language LOGO focused on the c h ild programming th e computer. "And 1n teaching th e computer how to th in k , children embark on an exploration about how they themselves th in k " (p. 19). Pea (1983), 1n studying th e prospects of the tra n s fe r of le a rn in g , problem solvin g , and programming with LOGO, cautioned: While we b elieve th a t . . . 1t would be premature to discard programming or LOGO from the set of microcomputer uses 1n schools, these studies do ra is e serious doubts about th e sweeping claim s made fo r the co g n itiv e b e n efits of learning to program, p articu ­ l a r l y 1n LOGO. (pp. 3 0 -3 1 ) Research and p ra c tic e , based on educational computer applica­ tio n s , are 1n constant debate about the Issue of student learning. Shave!son and Salomon (1985) discussed the framework o f educational computing by emphasizing the need to think beyond ju s t the cogn itive concerns and confront the "equally Im portant Issues"— philosophical, h is to r ic a l, s o c io lo g ic a l, economic, te c h n ic a l, c u rric u la r, and peda­ gogical : The Impact of the new technology on cognition 1s not guaranteed. I t s Impact depends la rg e ly on how students and teachers use C1tD. Whether C its ] e ffe c ts . . . are profound depends on learners' m otivations, expectations, a ttrib u tio n s , s e lf-p e rc e p tio n s , . . . which, 1n tu rn , a ffe c t the extent to which computers are "m indfully" or "mindlessly" engaged, (p. 4) 45 They c ite d a "mindless use of LOGO" as a c h ild 's engagement 1n t r l a l and-error programming a c t iv it ie s . Such use does not produce a mental set where powerful Ideals w ill form. As child ren use computers more freq u en tly, they w ill encounter a demand fo r a greater degree of "expl1c1tness 1n language than th a t Involved 1n ordinary conversational language. Computers never under­ stand ambiguous utterances . . . and never read between the lin e s " (Olson, 1985, p. 7). Olson perceived th a t to be In t e llig e n t 1n a computer-using society, one w i ll need to be s k ille d In making meanings expl1c1t. C alfee (1985), 1n contrasting and comparing computer lite r a c y and book lite r a c y , urged educators to reconsider the goals of In stru c ­ tio n 1n reading and w ritin g and to Incorporate the computer In to th in k ­ ing about a student's ac q u is itio n of lite r a c y . decade or two, " I t 1s lik e ly th a t In a lite r a c y w i ll no longer Imply 'book lit e r a t e '" (p. 8). C hildren, he believed, have a unique learnin g experience, even as they I n i t i a l l y confront a machine and a softw are package. Teachers, as they jo in with students 1n problem solving, play a ro le as a model fo r these In te ra c tio n s 1n modern H f e , and 1n being communicators and In te r p r e t­ ers of s itu a tio n s fraught w ith uncertainty. Exemplary teaching w ith computers also moves students fu rth e r along a chain of events Involved 1n problem solving using computers and programming than does "ty p ic a l" teaching, according to L1nn (1985), whose recent work 1s on the cogn itive consequences of programming In s tru c tio n 1n classrooms. She found th a t with appropriate 46 In s tru c tio n and computer access* many students can solve computerprogramming problems# and some may gain g eneralIzable problem-solving s k ills from Introductory programming courses. In a recent work# Patterson and Smith (1985) studied the ro le of computers 1n teaching higher order thinking. They perceived bar­ r ie r s Inside of the classroom and curriculum th a t w ill# a t le a s t fo r the next two decades# s t i f l e the promising po ten tial they have docu­ mented 1n using computers to teach higher order thinking. They acknowledged th a t most schools do not presently emphasize higher order thinking# but they believed th a t microcomputers can help do th is . A computer’s "capacity to hold the a tte n tio n of students fo r long periods of tim e and to engage them with complex problems Is w ell documented. And# computer softw are 1n th is area 1s Improving rapidly" (p. 34). They suggested th is d e fin itio n of higher order thinking : " [ I t ] occurs when a person 1s engaged 1n a c tiv e and sustained co g n itive e f f o r t directed a t solving a complex problem and when the person makes e ffe c ­ t iv e use of p rio r knowledge and experience 1n addressing the problem." I t must be a complex problem. The uses of computers# which are not commonplace as y e t 1n classrooms# according to Lesgold and Re1f (1983)# w ith proper design of the unit# can allow students to form ulate hypotheses# te s t them# analyze re s u lts and re fin e th e ir concep­ tions. Moreover# they can provide the student w ith a record of the course of his or her Investigations# p e rm ittin g greater s e lf awareness of th in kin g and learning, (p. 21) At the present time# stu d e n t-re la te d microcomputer education 1n schools may Involve any or a ll of the fo llo w in g elements categorized as 47 s k ill s or applications: computer-aided In s tru c tio n (CAI), Including d r i l l and p ractice, sim ulations, and tu to r ia ls ; programming or using th e languages of computing such as LOGO, Pascal, and BASIC; algorithm s, th a t 1s, step-by-step procedures re la te d to problem solving; computer a p p licatio n s, such as word processing, data-base management, and spread-sheet analysis; learn in g about the machine I t s e l f ; and gaining understandings of the computer and technology’ s e ffe c t on the s o d a! fu tu re , e s p e cia lly pertainin g to e th ic a l usages. Tashner (1n ERS B u lle tin , 1984) Id e n tifie d seven major components of computer lite r a c y programs 1n schools and emphasized th a t a l l seven remain sources o f debate: (a) teaching about the machine, (b) teaching about programming, (c) teaching about algorithms and procedures, (d) computer-assisted In s tru c tio n , (e) computer applica­ tio n s , ( f ) computer e th ic s , and (g) Impact of computers on our current society and the near future. Becker (1982) lis te d s ix major In s tru c tio n -re la te d uses of computers: 1. D r i l l and P ra c tic e : using computers fo r student practice of s k ill s whose p rin c ip le s are taught by teachers 1n tra d itio n a l ways. 2. T u to ria l D ialog: Using computers to present Inform ation to students, diagnose student misunderstandings, and provide remedial In s tru c tiv e communication and Individually-des1gned p ra c tic e . 3. Management of In s tru c tio n (tie d e ith e r to computer-based d r111— and-pract1ce or to a separate scoring system; or Independent of e ith e r one): Using computers to provide the teacher with reports of In d ivid u al student performance and to suggest appropriate learning tasks fo r Individual students. 48 4. Sim ulation and Model B u ild in g : Using computer programs to demonstrate the consequences of a system of assumptions, or the consequences of varying an assumption, usually 1n conjunction with In s tru c tio n 1n science or social studies. 5. Teaching Computer-Related In f o r m a tio n S k ills : Using the com­ puter to teach students and have them apply such s k ills as typing, e d itin g t e x t, and re trie v in g Inform ation from computer systems. 6. Teaching Computer Programming: Having students learn to program computers as part of t h e ir In s tru c tio n 1n mathematics or simply fo r the understanding o f programming I t s e l f , (p. 15) Hofmelster (1984) stressed the In s tru c tio n a l applications of computers and discussed them 1n th re e areas: (a) computer-ass1sted In stru ctio n (CAI), which puts the le a rn e r 1n d ire c t contact with the computer; (b) computer-managed In s tru c tio n (CMI), which concerns the diagnosis of pupil strengths and needs and p re s c rip tiv e In s tru c tio n a l In terventions; and (c) computer lit e r a c y , which e n ta ils the learners becoming aware of the a p p lic a tio n s of computers 1n society, acquiring technical operational s k ill s re la te d to the computer as a machine, and acquiring knowledge of the computer’s lo g ic a l process and formal pro­ gramming languages. The Montana O ffic e of Public In s tru c tio n (1983) prepared fo r constituencies a 11st of how computers can be used 1n schools: fo r In te g ra tio n In to curriculum areas; problem solving; tu to rin g ; d r i l l and practice; teaching computer lit e r a c y — th a t 1s, to teach about com­ puters, how they are used 1n everyday l i f e , the responsible use of computers, and so on; In s tru c tio n a l games; sim ulations; hand-eye coor­ dination; teaching computer programming; word processing; adm inistra­ t iv e applications; counseling and career Inform ation; managing 49 In s tru c tio n ; lib r a r y usage; teach er/stud ent research; and students with special needs. White (1983) reported th a t "much of what we know about e lec­ tro n ic learning— learning v ia e le c tro n ic sources— 1s anecdotal and word of mouth" (p. 13). Because the f ie ld 1s new* she cautioned th a t many of the "so -called ” findings may not hold up over tim e. Kullck (1983)* 1n a synthesis o f research* v e r ifie d th a t computer-based In s tru c tio n (CBI) has progressed 1n the la s t 20 years. Pioneers 1n CBI believed from the s t a r t th a t the computer would bring students great b e n efits such as b e tte r* more com fortable, and fa s te r learnin g; op portunities to work w ith v a stly ric h e r m aterials and more sophisticated problems; personalized tu to rin g ; automatic measurement of progress; and more tim e fo r meaningful contact with le a rn e rs , (p. 19) How educational computing was Integrated and Implemented (or* 1n some cases, not) In to a school’s curriculum (Cory, 1984; Natkln, 1984; Skinner* 1982); teachers’ a ttitu d e s about using computer and how they were prepared to teach with and about them (Peterson, 1984; Wlmmer, 1983); how students learn w ith and from computing (Kullck* 1984; Papert, 1980; Webb, 1984; White, 1984); what uses were deemed essential fo r students (Becker* 1982; Bork, 1984b; Cupertino, 1983; Luehrmann, 1984; Moursund, 1984b); and which students have access and use (Shavelson e t al.» 1984; The Computing Teacher, 1984) become no less Im portant but much less c le a r as the diverse menu of educational uses and p o te n tia ls of microcomputers are In vestig ated, v e r ifie d , and oftlmes n u llif ie d by researchers and p ra c titio n e rs a lik e . Pepe (Market Data R e trie v a l, 1984) re fe rre d to the present ambivalence about what c o n stitu tes a ju s t if ia b le computing curriculum 50 a t public school s ite s . "There 1s a genuine b e lie f th a t the computer 1s a powerful tool th a t w i ll Increase the p ro d u c tiv ity of e ith e r learning or teaching. This 1s probably the most Im portant reason fo r a school to purchase a computer and# yet# 1 t 1s the one th a t 1s most speculative" (p. 1 ). Walker (1983) stated th a t communities# schools# and teachers must embrace computer education# 1n s p ite of the fa c t th a t enormous practical# pedagogical# and technical problems must be solved. . . . Success 1n using microcomputers fo r education w ill not solve the serious educational problems schools face# but f a ilu r e w i ll leave the schools even more poorly equipped to cope with them. While e a rly experiments and e ffo r ts w ith computer-assisted In stru c tio n (CAI) did not have the promising outcomes fo r students th a t many e arly computing teachers a n tic ip a te d (Shoen & Hunt# 1977)# more recent developments 1n technology and the continuing Improvement of In stru c tio n a l software# from the e a rly mere re p lic a tio n of p r in t onto disk# have encouraged a cadre of tra in e d and committed educators to move away from In s tru c tin g students In beginning awareness and lite ra c y # and toward the a p p lic a tio n of computers In to a ll possible curriculum areas and aspects of learnin g (Minnesota Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development# 1982; Moursund# 1984a# 1984b; Powell, 1984). Descriptions o f Selected Examples of Student Learning With Microcomputers Numerous and diverse studies conducted 1n laboratory and school settin g s, surveys# case studies# dissertations# and lo cal school and 51 d i s t r ic t anecdotal reports help describe findings about the r e la tio n ­ ship of microcomputing to student learning. Because of the recency of educational computing 1n public schools, few researchers or reporters have ventured conclusive s ta te ­ ments or g e n e ra liza tio n s about student learning and microcomputers. S p e c ific aspects of e le c tro n ic learnin g have provided In te re s tin g fin d ­ ings but usually recommend fu rth e r research. For example, Griswold’ s (1984) study of elementary students’ a ttitu d e s during two years of com puter-assisted In s tru c tio n found s ig n ific a n t Improvement 1n stu­ dents’ s e lf-c o n fid en c e, which could over tim e be p o s itiv e ly re la te d to In d iv id u a l student achievement. An Educational Technology Center was recently announced by the Educational Testing Service ( ETS Developments, 1984). Funded by the National In s t it u t e of Education and located a t the Harvard Graduate School of Education, a consortium w i ll examine ways to employ technol­ ogy to Increase the achievement of students 1n elementary and secondary schools. "Through the national dissem ination e f f o r t , the Center hopes to e lim in a te much of the mystique th a t now surrounds the use of tech­ nology 1n th e classroom " (p. 8 ). Becker (1984a) surveyed 1,600 microcomputer-owning public and nonpubllc secondary and elementary schools and reported data on school uses of microcomputers 1n 1,082 schools during the 1982-83 school year. The re s u lts of th a t study were 1n press during spring 1984. In the same tim e frame, Becker Intends to I n i t i a t e a new study th a t w ill "provide more up-to-date d e s c rip tiv e Inform ation and more d e ta ile d data 52 about currlculum -spec1f1c environments 1n which computers are used In schools” (p. 9 ). An example of the types of In q u irie s made by Becker Include scheduling students a t computers# w a it tim e fo r use and a c t iv it ie s conducted w h ile computing and w h ile waiting# and what outcomes were achieved during those times. With our survey data# we cannot measure whether grouping students a t the computer 1s b e tte r or worse than having them work In d ivid u ­ a lly under the given circumstances. At best# we can examine whether teachers whose students work 1n pairs or groups b e!1eve th a t t h e ir students have more p o sitiv e learning or a ttltu d ln a l outcomes than do teachers whose students work by themselves. . . . What might be seen as an e ffe c tiv e arrangement fo r one use of computers— say# teaching programming to high school students— might not be seen so p o s itiv e ly fo r another use— e.g.# d r1 ll-an d -p ract1ce w ith elementary school students. Thus# the analysis must be lim ­ ite d to those schools where the one teacher’ s use 1s e s s e n tia lly synonymous with the school’ s use. . . . T h 1rty-f1ve ju n io r high school students p a rtic ip a te d 1n a oneweek LOGO programming workshop w h ile Webb (1984) studied the Im plica­ tio n s fo r students of learning w h ile working 1n groups of three. She concluded th a t learnin g computer programming can be accomplished suc­ ce ss fu lly 1n group settin g s. The Wisconsin Center fo r Educational Research (1984) has as one of It s projects# one th a t In vestig ates the stages of development 1n young c h ild re n ’ s mathematical problem-solving s k ills # so th a t software programs can be developed to re in fo rc e and build on children's natural s k ill s 1n problem solving. Kullck# Bangert# and W illiam s (1983)# 1n a m eta-analysis of 51 research studies on the e ffe c ts of computer-based Instruction# cited# 53 among others, the fo llo w in g : (a) th a t 1t can Improve student learning, (b) th a t students' a ttitu d e s toward computers are more p o s itiv e because of Involvement with computer-based In s tru c tio n , and (c) th a t various findings have shown a savings of from 39% to 88% on student learning tim e using computer-based In s tru c tio n . The researchers explained th a t the rapid changes 1n technology and 1n the actual classroom uses of computers could a lt e r t h e ir p re d ic tiv e value. In summarizing the re s u lts of a year-long p ilo t p ro ject 1n s ix elementary and middle schools 1n Montgomery County, Maryland (Hunter e t al.» 1983), the researchers noted the fo llo w in g c h a ra c te ris tic s present In schools where both teachers and students made rapid s trid e s 1n a tta in in g computer lite r a c y : (a) s u ffic ie n t computer equipment, so th a t when scheduled c a re fu lly , most students had access; (b) s u ffic ie n t and varied software; (c) a knowledgeable, resourceful media s p e c ia lis t; (d) planned and ongoing teacher tra in in g ; (e) strong teacher collabora­ tio n and support from a computer coordinator; ( f ) a d m in is tra tiv e sup­ port and leadership; and (g) student enthusiasm. "The high In te re s t of students 1n com puter-related a c t iv it ie s proved to be a major m otivating force fo r teachers" (p. 118). Teachers discovered th a t students could help each other, were e n th u s ia s tic about the study of procedural th in k ­ ing, and were resources of help and Ideas fo r t h e ir In structors. The researchers of the p ilo t p ro je c t reported two negative facto rs, other than lim ita tio n s caused by underfunding: (a) the complexity of In te g ra tin g new to o ls and m a te ria ls In to e x is tin g tr a d itio n a l c u rric u la : "Many of the s k ills th a t computers teach best 54 are not Included 1n the e x is tin g curriculum ”; and (b) the I n f l e x i b i l i t y of the teachers' workday# fo r experimenting and Innovating. The researchers recommended th a t facto rs which fo s te r or Impede f a c i l i t a ­ tio n of In s tru c tio n a l computing be given a tte n tio n by schools Intending to I n i t i a t e programs. White (1983)# d ire c to r of the Electronic Learning Laboratory a t Teachers College# Columbia University# where numerous research projects with student learning are underway# believes 1 t 1s s t i l l too e a rly 1n the Innovation to e x tra p o la te answers and th a t technology 1s changing too ra p id ly to get locked In to a d ire c tio n th a t cannot be a lte re d to b e tte r advantage. Her present observations Include: 1. Pupils do learn more quickly when they are exposed to computerassisted In s tru c tio n than 1n tr a d itio n a l classroom In s tru c tio n . 2. Computers may be ju s t as e ffe c tiv e fo r c e rta in types of learning as 1s the printed page fo r others. 3. No system atic studies In d ic a te th a t computers m otivate pupils# but observation In d icates th a t children take to computers li k e "ducks to w a te r." 4. Some of the c h a ra c te ris tic s which seem to be Im portant to children 1n re la tio n to computers are the Idea of a challenge# the Involvement of fantasy# and the game format. "A p ilo t study by the E lectronic Learning Laboratory found th a t pupils Involved with the computer ask more questions than they do 1n the tr a d itio n a l classroom." 5. Technology has been found to be a ttr a c tiv e to children 1n contemporary society. 6. So fa r few studies are a v a ila b le to describe what kind of c h ild might I n i t i a l l y have the smoothest experience working with computer language. Early evidence suggests th a t children who are good 1n mathematics and science which are a llie d s k ill s to programming w ill be successful computer users. 55 7. Computers, so f a r , have not Isolated child ren from one another; 1n fa c t groups around a computer have tended to s o c ia liz e t h e ir le arn in g experience. That may change when children have t h e ir own computers. 8. Software 1s only 1n I t s Infancy. So f a r , 1t 1s not very sophisticated. P rin t m a te ria l, lik e te x t books, does not tr a n s la te w ell In to very good software. "At the moment, even bad softw are seems to be capable of teaching. The secret 1s the computer seems to keep children attending to the learn in g , and the p ractice r e a lly happens." 9. Nobody knows y e t what computer technology can r e a lly do. "The technology w ill make d iffe r e n t demands on the learner. C h il­ dren w i l l re ly more on Imagery comprehension than on word comprehension." 10. Nobody knows what the newer technology such as t e le te x t, vid e o te x t and videodisc w ill be. F in a lly , White concluded: What the new technology can do and what form 1t w ill take 1s anyone's guess a t th is po int, but we do know th a t 1t 1s e x c itin g , 1 t 1s happening and 1 t 1s going to change. Schools w i ll neverbe the same again, (p. 15) Shelngold e t a l. (1983), working w ith the Bank S tre e t College of Education, used the case-study method to Increase understanding of th e e ffe c t of a technological Innovation on children and teachers 1n the classrooms and three demographlcally diverse school s ite s . Student learning w ith computers was a ffected a t a ll le v e ls of Implementation and use by the In d iv id u a l's In te ra c tio n with the computer system th a t surrounded 1 t. The authors also found th a t: 1. 1n the social The p rin cip al 1s a major source of support fo r teacher preparation. 2. No one y e t r e a lly knows the "educational or developmental consequences of using microcomputers." 56 3. Student outcomes reported by teachers are s o c ia l, re la tin g to student In te ra c tio n , statu s, and self-esteem , and w ith few excep­ tio n s , such as with the le a rn in g -d isab led students, there were no "sp ec ific expectations about what c h ild ren would or should learn." 4. The fa c t th a t "no one knew what child ren were learning by In te ra c tin g w ith microcomputers ta rg e ts th is as high p r io r ity fo r research" (p. 4 3 0 ). Shelngold e t a l. commented: "The cases examined here, however, suggest th a t microcomputers on t h e ir own are u n lik e ly to promote any p a rtic u la r outcomes" (p. 431). A m u ltiyear study th a t Id e n tifie d concepts, Issues, and s e t parameters fo r educational computing 1n schools drew Input from national computer experts. The assessment questions form ulated as guidelines fo r school self-assessm ent In dicated 1n la rg e measure th a t I t 1s Im portant fo r students to know and do w ith computing (Lockheed e t a l . , 1983). Becker (1984b), 1n review ing present practices 1n public schools, was disheartened by the overuse of d r i l l and p ra c tic e. Rather than helping students expand t h e ir In t e lle c t s , [ 1 t ] condi­ tions them to regard the computer as a ra th e r boring tool of the teacher over which they have l i t t l e co n tro l. . . . Where Is the . . . In s tru c tio n th a t deals w ith th in k in g and understanding? (p. 31) 57 Specialized Uses of Microcomputers 1n In s tru c tio n : Selected Examp.l.e.5 Microcomputers and the learning disabled. The computer can, according to Weir, Russel, and Valente (1982) make equal op portunities possible fo r the learning disabled c h ild . The computer 1s f le x ib le and perm its and teacher to design a plan unique to the learn in g needs of a special student, whether the c h ild 1s ph ysically disabled and needs reinforcem ent with concepts such as motion and space; or the c h ild cannot speak or 1s hearing Impaired, with the computer has the f a c i l i t y of communication. (p. 346) LOGO, fo r example, 1s a powerful language, through which, with the teacher's assistance, an a u t is t ic ch ild can bu ild bridges to " s e lfin it ia t e d and s e lf-d riv e n a c t iv it ie s " (p. 347). A ph ysically handi­ capped c h ild may have h is /h e r f i r s t opportunity to respond to feedback or I n i t i a t e solutions. A major problem fo r severely disabled In d iv id u a ls with l i t t l e motor control 1s th a t of being t o t a lly dependent on other people to produce a w ritte n record of t h e ir or other people's thoughts. . . . The unleashing of trapped In te llig e n c e can be q u ite dramatic, (p. 347) Computers and w ritin g In s tru c tio n . In th is section only a sampling of numerous possible computing applications 1s discussed 1n r e la tio n to student learning. Beyond the knowledge needed to operate the system, some keyboarding e x p e rtise , and the In te lle c tu a l s k ill s to produce coherent thought, the student can be aided by a computer 1n ta c k lin g w ritin g assignments and Improving expression. A te x t can be changed and revised ra p id ly w ithout laborious manual re d raftin g . Workman (1983) said th a t w ritin g 1s "coaxing what one means to the surface through w ritin g words on paper" (p. 203). Word processing has 58 become the most popular home and business use of the computer# one of the c h ie f reasons being the ease with which one can change copy. Rubin and Bruce (1983) named s ix ways 1n which computers help students w r ite more successfully: (a) planning before w r itin g , (b) the In te g ra tio n of reading and w ritin g , (c) w ritin g fo r a real audience, (d) two-way w ritte n communication, (e) cooperative w ritin g e ffo r ts , and ( f ) understanding th a t re visio n 1s p a rt of production. Becker (1984b) reminded educators to keep 1n mind the cost and r e la tiv e e ffic ie n c y of computer-based w ritin g as compared to less technologically sophisticated means. Under optimum conditions, he perceived computer-based w ritin g as: a possible means of enabling students to express b e tte r the vague thoughts and fe e lin g s th a t abound In side each of them and to tran s­ la te t h e ir Ideas In to a p u b lic ly v is ib le , defensible, In te lle c tu a l product . . . a means fo r students to become l i t e r a t e , but to use lite r a c y to make a productive co n trib ution , (p. 37) Microcomputers and mathematics In stru c tio n . Selected examples of p o s itiv e achievement e ffe c ts fo r students having guided mathematics In s tru c tio n with computers were recorded In a 1978 study of f i f t h and sixth graders 1n West L a fa y ette , Indiana. They Increased t h e ir In te r ­ est 1n mathematics and t h e ir a b i l i t i e s to problem solve. An a d d itio n al study, conducted by Berger, U niversity of Michigan, resulted 1n an Increase In elementary and ju n io r high school students' achievement with estim ation s k ills , le v e ls (Action Research, regardless of the students' I n i t i a l a b ilit y 1981). 59 Wisconsin eighth-grade students solving mathematics problems w ith the use of the microcomputer outperformed both students w ithout computers and those using only flowcharts (Foster# 1983). Burns and Bozeman (1981) used meta analyses to In te g ra te findings of computer-based In s tru c tio n 1n mathematics teaching 1n elementary and secondary schools and found computer-based t u to r ia ls raised achievement te s t re s u lts by .45 standard deviations and th a t computer-based d r i l l and p ra c tic e raised te s t scores by 3 4 standard deviations. The National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (1978) lis te d ten " In te rre la te d " s k i l l areas "basic to development of pupils' a b il it y to reason e ffe c tiv e ly 1n varied s itu a tio n s ." Educational computing was one of the essen tial s k ill areas noted. Microcomputers as to o ls fo r exploration fo r a ll learners as w ell as fo r In t e lle c t u a lly g ifte d learners. I t has been repeated through various sections o f the present study th a t oftlm es the problem­ solving and in te ra c tiv e uses of computers may promise the highest p o ten tial fo r a valuable co n trib u tio n to student learning# but fo r various technical and managerial reasons have gained l i t t l e a p p licatio n across school s ite s . When computers have been used 1n these more sophisticated realms# the usage reported frequently occurs among classes or opportunities fo r the g ifte d and ta le n te d (Shavelson e t al.» 1984). The d r i l l and practice structured lessons have commonly been those received by low-achieving students. 60 The present study 1s not designed to s in g le out which computer applicatio n s have most relevance fo r learning. The emphasis 1n the few examples offered 1s to present the magnitude of the p o te n tia l. I t 1s Im portant as the knowledge base grows fo r educators to attend to the equitab le d elivery of the best ap p licatio n s to the most students pos­ s ib le (L e z o tte , 1984b). L im itin g the p o ten tial of the computer and the groups who have access may obviate the opportunity fo r enhancement of students' In t e l­ le c tu a l experiences, according to Leonard (1984). Strange as 1 t might seem, 1 t would be e n tir e ly possible to put m illio n s of computers 1n the schools w ithout producing any real change 1n education. Computers could be cordoned o ff In a separate department. . . . Students would go [th e re ] to learn how to use computers, but the re s t of the school would remain ju s t as 1 t 1s. (p. 51) Some computer educators do emphasize th a t the exploratory a ttrib u te s a v a ila b le 1n fu tu re computer softw are may enhance the learn in g and a ttitu d e s of a ll students. Discussion around the topics was reported by Jorde and Ford (1985), F e rre ll (1985), Griswold (1984), and Gourgey (1985). Koetke (1984), fo r example, explained th a t the computer 1s not lik e the automobile or the microwave oven; 1 t 1s In te ra c tiv e , a c a p a b ility th a t can expand the In t e lle c t . He believed th a t both teachers and students should be programmers. Leonard (1984) commented th a t "education of the purely ra tio n a l fa c u ltie s 1s only h a lf an education" (p. 56). The Idea th a t the computer can store and re trie v e vast amounts of Im portant data and manipulate complex, m u ltitie re d problems th a t would take an In divid ual 61 hours or days to execute was described by Bork (1984a), Leonard (1 9 8 4 ), and Koetke (1 9 84 ). Powell (1984) summarized the fra m e -s h lft model th a t he and his colleagues cu rren tly apply to classroom models where students have opportunities to explore and In te ra c t with computers using la te r a l th in kin g or frame s h iftin g . Computers . . . are windows upon the aggregate knowledge base of m ankind, once we have le a rn e d how to use them t h i s way. . . . The fa c t th a t we can have computers store and perform data transforms enables us to preserve and tap the In te llig e n c e of others (and ourselves), (p. 21) This c a p a b ility enables students to move rap id ly up the hierarchy of abstraction w ithout performing every transform procedure along the way. Thinking divergently and having tim e to suspend making judgments le ts students evaluate constructively. Powell also observed students using th is model as they are a c tiv e ly and con stru ctively engaged 1n learnin g, c a llin g 1 t a "rewarding experience" fo r a broad segment of the student popul a tlo n . Microcomputer In s tru c tio n fo r thelow -Incom e or m inority student. While most reports of low-1ncome, m ino rity student in te ra c ­ tio n s with microcomputers are linked to upgrading essential s k ills w ith d r i l l and practice, one project provided students 1n th is socioeconomic category with a home computer fo r m u ltip le usage. The Study of In te r ­ a c tiv e Technologies 1n Education (SITE) a t New York U n iversity provided 24 students with a home computer and 22 other students w ith a computer only during the school day (Ely, 1984). P o s itiv e changes were reported fo r the home-computer-using students 1n the fo llo w in g areas: 62 1. Those w ith computers to take home had appreciably b e tte r attendance records during the program. 2. Students became teachers of others a t home# of re la tiv e s , and of neighbors. 3. The students# ages 7 to 14# evidenced an expansion and enrichment of t h e ir language and an Improved a ttitu d e toward learning# Including enhanced self-esteem . 4. Both parents and students voiced an Increased hope fo r the c h ild re n ’ s fu tu re l i f e . 5. Their o v e rall educational s k ills Improved. Helen Kelly# d ire c to r of the study# advised educators to "make meaningful progress towards computer equity; educational In s titu tio n s must take a leadership ro le 1n helping children and fa m ilie s to u t i l i z e th is new technology as a major learning t o o l." Policy Considerations Confronted by Educational Planners Formulating Educ a tio n a l Computing Programs This portion of the li t e r a t u r e review focuses on the subjects of policy and change# 1n and o f themselves# and presents a few Impor­ ta n t policy and p ra c tic e Issues re le va n t to the In te g ra tio n and Imple­ mentation of K-12 In s tru c tio n a l computing programs c u rre n tly 1n process. Discussion Includes policy considerations re la te d to (a) educational usages# (b) student access# (c) educational equity# (d) s t a ff tra in in g and technological updating# (e) In s tru c tio n a l s o ft­ ware# ( f) In stru c tio n a l hardware and peripherals# and (g) funding and focus Issues. 63 American society generally expects two provisions from It s public schools: (a) th a t students w ill have access to education and (b) th a t the education provided w i l l be of a q u a lity and content s im ila r to th a t offered to a ll other children (Brookover & Lezotte, 1981). In the United States the histo ry of public education records a series of c a lls fo r reform (Passow, 1984). When society encounters a dramatic s h if t h is to r ic a lly , the American public expects I t s schools to respond. I t has been freq u en tly stated th a t schools m irro r society (N atkln , 1984). The current wave of reform reports and mandates In d icates a ris in g tid e of public pressure on the educational system to Improve schools and the academic achievement of today’ s students and to provide a te c h n o lo g ica lly re levan t curriculum . A s w irl of Issues 1s Immedi­ a te ly raised once public schools commit to any change. Evans (1981) admonished: has been. ’’There 1s no halfway house, and never Once the f i r s t step has been taken, a ll others must follow unless we are to return with the Insects to dust” (p. 2 9 3). Walker (1983), a s e lf-a d m itte d ’’veteran” of educational re v o lu tio n , predicted th a t the s p o tlig h t on computers-1n-educat1on w i ll s h if t 1n tim e and suggested th a t educators ponder both the a ttrib u te s and lim ita tio n s of computers by asking, "What can students learn or teachers teach using computers th a t they could not do, or could do only w ith d i f f i c u lt y , otherwise?” Computers, he commented, are (a) a supplement, not a s u b s titu te fo r tr a d itio n a l education; (b) d i f f i c u l t to use, and teachers are few who are prepared to use them; (c) changing 64 rap id ly and th e re 1s l i t t l e standardization; (d) lacking s u ffic ie n t or appropriate and q u a lity softw are; and (e) so recent an Innovation th a t "we are only beginning to understand [them] 1n education. Microcomput­ ers w ill not solve (and may aggravate) several of the most serious curren t problems confronting education— notably equity* school finance* and divergent public expectations" (emphasis added) (p. 119). Howe (1983) spoke of the "major gaps and unattended Issues" raised by national reform groups. Educators are experiencing both an " e x h ila ra tin g and In tim id a tin g " c lim a te . He urged planners to study the more serious* scholarly research before "doing something." P o liti­ cal leaders who form ulate many p o lic ie s th a t a ffe c t local schools work w ith in two- to fo u r-year In te rv a ls ; local schools* h is to ric a lly * must change over longer periods of time. Gray (1984) reported th a t "microcomputer technology . . . p art of curriculum mandates In v ir t u a lly every state" (p. 72). 1s But eventually a policy response to In s tru c tio n a l technology w ill evolve from each of the over 16,000 local school d is tr ic ts (Lezotte & Bancroft* 1984). Holloway and McDonald (1981) urged a "controlled consideration of the growth and im plementation of microcomputers" (p. 2). They defined policy as the "means by which a governing body form ulates and states It s In ten tions" (p. 5) and recommended policy development as a f i r s t response. In addition to developing a philosophical and fin a n c ia l commitment to In s tru c tio n a l computing, Rockman and Rampy (1983) found 65 ty p ic a l school d i s t r ic t adm inistrators and boards to be c u rre n tly concerned w ith (a) curriculum Impact, (b) courseware development and evaluation, (c) teacher tra in in g , and (d) equity. An overarching consideration fo r policymakers 1s change I t s e l f , es p e cia lly 1n a tim e of ra p id ly transform ing technologies (Grant, 1983; G uertln, 1983; Hall e t a ! . , 1975). Policy analysis, according to Gray (1984), helps planners focus on problems, Issues and needs. Policy analysis 1s a v e h icle by which d i s t r ic t adm inistrators can gain knowledge fo r decision making r e la t iv e to an Innovation lik e computer use. Through policy analysis they can come to understand the problems-1ssues-needs surrounding computer use 1n t h e ir own d is tr ic t s . As a re s u lt, they can be In a po sition to set the d ire c tio n and content of such a change, (p. 76) "More Im portant fo r change 1n p ra c tic e ," Fullan (1982) noted, 'Ms Im plem entation-level p a rtic ip a tio n 1n which decisions are made about what does work and what does not" (p. 65). Issue w ith reform ers: D o lla r (1983) took "They miss the center of the ta rg e t, which 1s the dysfunctional s tru c tu re of the school It s e lf " (p. 8). three necessary Ingredients necessary fo r school change: He spoke of c re a tiv e resources, community support, and leadership. A Los Angeles County computer consultant said: Schools a re fa c in g a new way to work . . . a new way to le a r n [and] a new personal to o l. . . . More changes w ill keep coming. . . . We face not a cosm etic but a s t r u c tu r a l change . . . 1 f schools do not ris e to th is occasion, other In s titu tio n s w i l l . (G uertln, 1983, p. 30) Koetke (1984) warned th a t "schools have only two or th re e years l e f t In which they w ill be able to again grasp the reins of educational 66 leadership* and th a t can only be done by making rapid changes 1n an In s titu tio n tr a d it io n a lly slow to respond” (p. 169). Educational Uses as a Policy Consideration When a school begins to provide microcomputers fo r educational purposes, local educators must have answered th is question to t h e ir s a tis fa c tio n ! "How w i ll computers enhance and maximize student learning?" L i t t l e 1s known about who are using th e computers and fo r what purposes they are being used. . . . Recent surveys In d ic a te the primary uses . . . are fo r programming 1n BASIC, general 'computer awareness courses' and fo r d r1 ll-a n d -p rac t1 c e applications. . . . L i t t l e cum ulative knowledge has been obtained. (Lockheed e t al.» 1983, p. 3) Educators could be e a s ily confused, fo r, according to a recent report, "there 1s no ty p ic a l way schools use computers because the technology Is so new and has been Introduced In to the schools In a disorganized fashion" ( Report on Education Research, 1985, p. 8). Luehrmann (1984) o u tlin e d tim e lin e s and s tra te g ie s th a t could be used by d is t r ic t s to assure, as much as possible, th a t students a tta in a degree of computer lite r a c y . He did not Include a b1ts-and- pleces approach over the course of 13 school years, but c a lle d fo r a "beachhead" approach, and believed his plan would be workable w ith in the tim e, s t a f f , and fin a n c ia l constraints extan t 1n school d is t r ic t s across the nation: We are asking too much of our schools today 1n expecting them to In te g ra te the computer Immediately In to th e ir tr a d itio n a l curriculum . We must never fo rg e t th a t th a t 1s the u ltim a te goal of teaching computer lite r a c y — to give students computer s k ill s they can use 1n a ll of t h e ir tr a d itio n a l subjects. But we must also not 67 lose s ig h t of the p ra c tic a l constraints th a t make th a t goal a long term p ro je c t . . . and not one th a t can be accomplished overnight, (p. 40) Moursund (1984a) urged educators to perceive computers as an "aid to accomplishing the underlying purpose of each of the basics.” For example* "'w ritin g * w i ll Include keyboarding and the use of a word processor. . . . 'A rith m e tic ' w i ll Include making use of ca lc u la to rs and computers as aids to problem solving" (pp. 4 - 5 ) . A ctually* student usage has changed from the beginning days of microcomputers 1n school# and before when te rm in a ls were wired to mainframe computers. The th ru s t 1n the e arly days was a goal of stu­ dent " lite ra c y *" which loosely defined 1s a student awareness o f and acquaintance w ith computers* perhaps a programming course e le c tiv e 1n the eighth grade* and some computing 1n business# mathematics* or computer science classes a t the high school (M ille r# 1982). Emphasis w i l l be changing as technology changes* computer experts believe. Present computer usages embrace a broad array of student understandings and a p p lic a tio n s a t appropriate tim es and 1n appropriate content areas and* Im portantly* presented by w e ll-tra in e d and e n th u sias tic teachers (Moursund* 1984f ) . asked* "Where 1s the change? about science labs?" (p. 185). Yet Moursund (1984a) Has the geometry course changed? How While he found some schools w ith ade­ quate computers to support broad curriculum changes* he discovered th a t even those schools retained a more or less tr a d itio n a l curriculum . Moursund c ite d those com puter-related changes th a t have already occurred and are 1n place 1n most schools: 68 1. Large numbers of students now take computer lite ra c y * programming* or computer science* even 1n elementary school. 2. "Some computer use has been In teg rated In to some parts of the school curriculum ." 3. Computers are forcing a reexamination of the curriculum . In Becker’s (1984a) study of school uses of microcomputers* the major elementary school uses were: In tro duction to computers (64%); d r i l l and p ractice (59%); programming (47%); tu to rin g fo r special students (41%); programming to solve problems (27%); recreational games (24%); demonstrations* labs, sim ulations (20%); a d m in is tra tiv e usage (10%); and student word processing (3%). The South Dakota Department of Public In s tru c tio n (1984) asked s ta te schools, "Which curriculum areas u t i l i z e computers?" N inety- seven percent of the K-12 schools reported t h e ir most common usages to be computer lite ra c y * computer programming, mathematics* reading, science, and language a rts* with computer lite r a c y dominating the elementary re s u lts , and computer programming, the secondary report. Mathematics was a noticeably used component across most elem entary, ju n io r high, and senior high schools. A llen (198*0 reminded educational policy makers th a t updating tra in in g to be 1n tune w ith changes w ill be essential and w ill need to continue beyond grade 12. Goldberg (1984) encouraged business and Industry to share the re s p o n s ib ility fo r s e ttin g a curriculum agenda and funding I t . But Giroux (1984) cautioned, "We must c r i t i c i z e the movement to lin k outcomes of education so le ly to needs of the business 69 community— a philosophy th a t undermines e ffo r ts to equip students with the s k ill s necessary to analyze the sophisticated processes a t work” (p. 6 ) . Bork (1984b) provided sketches of the best and the worst scenarios of c u rric u la r uses of computers and stated, "Most learn in g 1s s t i l l taking place through the passive learning modes th a t have been dominant fo r hundreds of years: Shavelson e t a l. books and lectures" (p. 2 4 2). (1984) gave examples of the d a lly uses of microcomputers by various teachers, categorizing them as "orchestra­ t io n ," "e n ric h m e n t," "adj unct-1nstruct1on," and " d r ill and practice." The researchers concluded: Simple lo g is tic a l procedures need to be considered, such as rules fo r student use, tra n s itio n s between computer and non-computer a c t iv it ie s , and grouping s tra te g ie s . . . and more Im portantly . . . matching the computer and a v a ila b le courseware to t h e ir In s tru c tio n a l goals, the s tru c tu re of the subject m atter, the nature of the students, and the content of In s tru c tio n , (p. 97) F in a lly , policymakers need to consider educational usage of microcomputers 1n re la tio n to equity. Shavelson e t a l. (1984) reported findings concurring w ith those of Becker (1983), The Computing Teacher, (1984), Relsner (1983), and Walker (1983): "Microcomputer-based in s tru c tio n might sy ste m a tic ally d if f e r as a function of Income le v e l, and m ino rity and a b il it y status" (p. 62). They observed: S p e c ific a lly , classrooms w ith students above average 1n a b il it y and low 1n number of m in o ritie s tended to be found with teachers characterized as "orchestrating" the ongoing curriculum with a wide v a rie ty of microcomputer-based In s tru c tio n a l modes stressing both s k ill ac q u is itio n and conceptual knowledge. As the a b il it y level decreased and percent m ino rity Increased . . . the In s tru c tio n tended toward "enrichment" or "adjunct In s tru c tio n ." 70 They fu rth e r surmised: The fiv e classrooms w ith a high percentage of m inority students, low 1n a b i l i t y , employed microcomputers to d e liv e r d r i l l and p ractice on basic s k ill s taught 1n class. I f the medium 1s the message, the message delivered to students of " d r ill and practice" teachers 1s s u b s ta n tia lly d iffe r e n t from the message received by students of "o rc h e s tra to rs ." (p. x11) Goldberg (1984) urged th a t "we position ourselves as e ffe c tiv e users of the Inform ation machines: to develop Inform ation and not ju s t program on them" (p. 2 8 4 ). Student Access as., a Po licy. Cpds I deration School policy makers have been reminded to attend to the access arrangements made fo r students to achieve the In s tru c tio n a l uses specified by the school. Brookover and Lezotte (1981) suggested th a t current federal p o lic ie s and programs c it e three standards th a t determined whether lo c a l-le v e l educational programs were advancing educational equity: access, p a rtic ip a tio n or use, and outcomes. They asserted th a t a ll th re e must be present. Lezotte (1984) s tated th a t many f a c i l i t i e s , kinds of equipment, services, and choices (whether caused by policy decisions or lack of p o lic ie s ) are Inaccessible to some students: Access to computers and computing In s tru c tio n 1s lim ite d fo r many students. The le v e ls of access to new technologies commonly vary from bu ild ing to bu ild in g w ith in a given school system. School people might explain th a t one school has d iffe r e n t p r io r it ie s from another. Whatever the reason o ffered , the fa c t remains th a t some students, usually the most underserved by the schools— have been denied access to some valued s e rv ic e , (p. 4) I t has been not uncommon fo r schools to have a p o lic y , w ritte n or u n w ritten, or perhaps caused by a lim ite d number of computers, which 71 extends computer uses and access to selected In d iv id u a ls or groups. Student access to computers 1s closely re la te d to where computers are placed, how they are scheduled, how s t a f f supervise and provide fo r access, and how s t a f f are train e d to help students. For example, 1f only one or two computers are a v a ila b le 1n a given school, or 1f only a few teachers are computer p ro fic ie n t and a v a ila b le to a s s is t students a t c e rta in tim es, then e q u itab le access to a l l students 1s v ir t u a lly 1mposs1ble. Access 1s also Influenced by funding. Without fe d e ra l, s ta te , or external supplementary funding, many fin a n c ia lly strapped lo cal schools and d is t r ic t s have had to decide where to place t h e ir few computers fo r maximum use and effectiveness (Anderson, Welch, & H arris , 1984). At present, some a v a ila b le external funds designate student access to spedal-needs groups. .Ediic a t to n a l E q u ity as, a P olicy Consideration Becker (1982b), 1n his extensive study of school uses of micro­ computers, found th a t w ith in each school questions arose concerning use, access, and d is trib u tio n of computers and In s tru c tio n a l computing o p p o rtu n ities: Some schools tend to allow the b rig h te st, most motivated students to use a lim ite d number of computers. . . . D r i l l and p ractice uses may be channelled to the low er-achieving students. . . . Such d ivisions may exacerbate the v a ria tio n s 1n a tta in e d academic competencies between the I n i t i a l l y slow and the I n i t i a l l y highachieving students, (p. 55) 72 Komoskl (1984a) noted a v a rie ty of In e q u itie s 1n the provision of student In s tru c tio n a l computing opportunities. Lautenberg (1984) described the differences 1n opportunity a v a ila b le to students 1n the same school d is t r ic t . "Children, liv in g 1n one neighborhood, may attend a school where th e re 1s ample In s tru c tio n , equipment, softw are and encouragement, w h ile students 1n another neighborhood may have little or no such opportunity." Anderson e t a l. (1984) lis te d th e s ize of community, the region one liv e s 1n, one’s sex, and one’s race as facto rs th a t have been reported as Influencing a student’ s educational computing op portunities. Elementary p rin c ip a ls can help diminish computer anxiety and promote eq u ity, according to Winkle and Malhuls (1982), by (a) enhanc­ ing the self-concept of g ir ls concerning computer technology through structured a c t iv it ie s th a t are success oriented, (b) promoting computer lite r a c y as a survival s k i l l , and (c) expanding career goals fo r g ir ls to Include technology. The equity Issue was perceived by D o lla r (1984) and Lautenberg (1984) to extend beyond the f a i r d is trib u tio n of In s tru c tio n a l comput­ ing to a l l students regardless of Inherent demographic differences. They saw equity as a societal problem, as w e ll. Edmonds (1979) defined equity as the "simple sense of fairness In the d is trib u tio n o f the primary goods and services th a t characterize the social order" (p. 15). He questioned some prevalent In te rp re ta tio n s of "the minimum le v e l of goods and services to which a ll are e n title d " (p. 15). 73 Koerner (7982) and Wilson (7982) reminded secondary adminis­ tra to rs to help close the technolog1cal-sk1ll gap fo r a ll students. According to Lautenberg (1984), "The uneven d is trib u tio n of computers among schools raises concerns th a t a new form of segregation 1s developing, separating those who are fa m ilia r with and competent to deal with the new technology and those who are not" (p. 13). S ta ff Training and Technological Updating as a Policy Consideration Bork (1984a) believed th a t, g e n e ra lly , "United S tates’ teachers are poorly train e d to use computers e ffe c tiv e ly " (p. 179). Teachers, d 1 s tric t-tra in e d 1n computer uses through occasional 1nserv1ces, gain l i t t l e la s tin g understanding o f educational a p p lic a tio n s , he reported. And, as fo r preservice teacher education, he said, "Training about computers offered by many schools of education 1s worse than no tra in in g a t a l l . A few rare exceptions o ffe r e x c e lle n t t r a in in g ." Shotwell (1983) believed the most Im portant component 1n Implementing a computing program 1n K-12 education 1s the tra in in g of the In s tru c tio n a l s t a ff . A d i s t r ic t th a t has new computers and lo ts of software, but no tra in e d s t a f f , 1s lik e an a ir li n e with a hundred brand-new 767 j e t a ir lin e r s and no p ilo ts ," according to Helen D ltz le r (1983, p. 101), who d ire c ts s t a f f development fo r the Montana O ffic e of Public In s tru c tio n . May states have recommended or soon w i l l , w ith varying s tip u la ­ tio n s, minimum competencies fo r educators, a t le a s t fo r the teaching of computer science (Education D a ily , 1984). Im portant to th e s t a f f 74 development and ongoing tr a in in g of teachers 1s the p rin c ip a l's leader­ ship. Local adm inistrators need to be supportive of ongoing s t a f f tr a in in g and be Involved 1n such tra in in g themselves. M1ms and P o iro t (1984) Id e n tifie d 35 desirable adm inistrator competencies. Undelow (1984) wrote an e n tir e book on a d m in is tra tiv e involvement with computers. P rin c ip a ls can be In flu e n tia l 1n helping teachers overcome computer phobia and Instrum ental 1n assuring the In te g ra tio n of computers In to the curriculum. Moursund (1983) pointed to a major Implementation problem 1n schools as th a t of " tra in in g teachers so they have the knowledge# s k ills # and a ttitu d e s to e ffe c tiv e ly use computers w ith students" (p. 8). He suggested th a t p rin cip a ls might expedite s t a f f development by (a) choosing an 1n-house expert who 1s enthu siastic about educa­ tio n a l computing# (b) overseeing an In d iv id u a liz e d teacher-made plan fo r keeping up in the f ie ld and re la tin g th a t to the teacher's In s tru c ­ tio n a l area# (c) encouraging and Implementing addition al tra in in g opportunities# (d) creatin g an awareness of courseware evaluation and lo c a tin g sources to help teachers s e le c t proper courseware# and (e) making the most use of the equipment provided. Results of a study by Shavelson e t a l. (1984) added s ig n ific a n t Inform ation to what makes successful m1crocomputer-us1ng teachers. findings promise to enlighten tra in in g processes and help define the courseware th a t would enhance pedagogical alms. The 75 Shelngold e t a l. (1983) were convinced of the Importance and complexity of teacher Involvement with microcomputer education. From the case studies* 1t appeared th a t such In te g ra tio n 1s lik e ly to take place only 1f classroom teachers a c tiv e ly work toward I t . . . . I t may not be accidental th a t where microcomputers were located 1n elementary classrooms* there were also teacher b u ffs , (p. 428) "What c o n stitu tes a w e ll-q u a lifie d teacher?" asked Moursund (1 984-85). Most of the necessary research remains to be done. I suspect th a t a major part of the answer w ill be the teacher. There 1s no s u b s titu te fo r a w e ll-q u a lifie d * experienced teacher supported by appropriate technology, (p. 4) Becker (1984b) found th a t 1nserv1ce presentations were f r e ­ quently on s in g le Issues, and because of tim e and resource lim ita tio n s , only c e rta in elements of In stru c tio n a l computing were Included 1n local tra in in g programs. Before beginning t h e ir s1x-school study of microcomputers 1n school s e ttin g s , researchers provided teacher o rie n ta tio n fo r the teachers to be Involved w ith student a c tiv ity . Without such p r e lim i­ nary reinforcem ent w ith machine and software* Hunter e t a l. (1983) said th a t "teachers would have been less w illin g to tr y In stru c tio n a l com­ puting 1n th e ir own classroom" (p. 117). When a technology 1s new* only a few* whom H all (1982) c a lle d "early adopters," jump 1n to learn a ll there Is to know about I t . That group 1n educational computing were Id e n tifie d elsewhere 1n the study as those who brought t h e ir personal computers to school fo r students and sought t h e ir own learnings In a v a rie ty of settings. However, a 76 la rg e m a jo rity of educators learn about microcomputing when 1 t 1s presented to them 1n 1nserv1ce or preservice experience. Among th is audience are those re lu c ta n t to embrace computing because of an aver­ sion to the new or to change, lack of a v a ila b le support mechanisms and resources, or doubts about the e ffic a c y of computers 1n K-12 education. The Educational Technology Center (ETS Developments, 1984) has recently developed a research agenda focusing on "the use of technology fo r In stru c tio n . . . . The Center w i ll have a tremendous Impact on how technology 1s used 1n the classroom" (p. 8 ). Much y e t needs to be known about e ffe c tiv e classroom use of computers and what teachers need to know and do to assure th a t com­ puters are a c tiv e , useful to o ls of learners. Numerous current disser­ ta tio n s have focused on these classroom In te ra c tio n s . Examples are Ferres, 'T ra in in g and Implem entation S tra te g ie s Appropriate to the Introduction of Logo In to Teachers' Curriculum (1983); Peterson, "The E ffe c t of In divid ual In service Training on Teacher Use of an Innovative Technology, the Microcomputer" (1984); and A lle n , "An Analysis of the Social In te ra c tio n s Among a Teacher and Small Groups of Students Work­ ing With Microcomputers." Dede (1983) envisioned a day when students would be "'tra in e d ' by computers and 'educated' by teachers, allo w in g both computer and teacher to function 1n more e f f ic ie n t and c o s t-e ffe c tiv e ways" (p. 22). To expedite teacher responsiveness to In s tru c tio n a l computing through preservice and 1nserv1ce tra in in g a c t iv it ie s , series of s k ill demonstrations. Lee (1983) prepared a Nalman (1982) provided a 11st of seven 77 ev alu a tiv e questions adm inistrators might use to assess th e success of a local computer education program. "One problem w ith try in g to deter­ mine the success [w ith in ] a sin g le classroom 1s th a t a great many facto rs th a t encourage teacher success are r e a lly due to a system-wide plan fo r computer use and support of 1t" (pp. 42-43). Becker (1982) urged school systems "to seek to develop computer lite r a c y 1n as many s t a f f members as possible. . . . For many teachers computer lite r a c y should also Include acquiring the a b il it y to w rite computer programs . . . and to teach programming" (p. 5 8 ). I t was apparent throughout the lit e r a t u r e th a t a concurrent need fo r s t a f f support and development occurs a t any ju n ctu re where an Innovation I n f i l t r a t e s a school or 1s fo rm ally adopted by a school system. In s tru c tio n a l Software as a Pol lev Consideration Improvements 1n the q u a lity and q u an tity of appropriate educational softw are have only recently been reported (Moursund* 198485; Natkln, 1984). Natkln encouraged educators to be p a tie n t. think we’ l l see plenty o f q u a lity software before long" (p. 15). "I Very few teachers have created softw are c u rric u la r components to supplement t h e ir teaching. Walker (1983) reported th a t "good programs are scarce . . . because creating them 1s d i f f i c u lt * tim e consuming* and expenslva" Educational Research Service (1983) reported* however* th a t w ith the growth of computer technology there has been an Increase 1n the number of d is tric t-d e v e lo p e d computer 78 programs designed by teachers and students. This courseware addressed needs of p a rtic u la r classrooms or of the adm inistratio n and also enhanced the expertise of It s developers. S ta rtin g a t base zero» a l i t t l e over a decade ago, production of s p e c ific a lly targeted K-12 educational courseware has been slow to develop because of the complexity of c u rric u la and the d iv e rs ity of student and teacher needs and a b i l it ie s to be addressed. In addition* the home and business markets have captured the a tte n tio n of major softw are developers. These and other re la ted y e t complex reasons have caused producers to be re lu c ta n t to make expensive Investments* and school people to be cautious about purchasing software th a t 1s not only expensive* but also might prove to be educationally Inappropriate or geared to a very lim ite d audience. Thus, selection and evaluation of a v a ila b le softw are were and are major discussion points among edu­ cators. The Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium (MECC) has devoted tim e and exp ertise to developing q u a lity software fo r school uses w ith in Minnesota. That software 1s used extensively n a tio n a lly . Michigan REMC's* 1n fa c t* a s s is t local schools 1n procuring 1t (Zolton, 1983). Evaluation of softw are fo r curriculum-matched uses 1n classrooms 1s time-consuming but es se n tia l. Educators take advantage of MECC's e ffo r ts to provide and d is trib u te such analyses. Education Week (1984) reported th a t d is t r ic t s 1n 30 states use the softw areevaluatlon services of e ith e r MECC or MICROSIFT. 79 Komoskl (1984a), reporting evaluations through the Educational Products Inform ation Exchange (EPIE), noted th a t "only 5 percent of hundreds of [s o ftw a re ] programs have been judged to be of tr u ly high q u a lity * w h ile more than h a lf have been judged not worth recommending to educators or p arents." Bork (1984b) lis te d the fa c to rs th a t c h a racterize poorly designed educational software: * f a ilu r e to make use of the In te r a c tiv e c a p a b ilitie s of the computer; * f a ilu r e to make use of the c a p a b ilitie s of the computer to In d iv id u a liz e In s tru c tio n ; * use of weak forms of In te ra c tio n , such as m u ltip le choice; * too-heavy re lia n c e onte x t; * too-heavy relian ce onp ictu re s , when learning; they do not help * treatm ent of the computer screen as a book page; * use of a ttr a c tiv e or e n te rta in in g m aterial which 1s only "vaguely" educational; * presenting content th a t does not f i t In to the curriculum ; * presenting game focus w ithout educational m e rit; * use of long sets of In s tru c tio n s ; * heavy dependence on a u x ilia ry p r in t m a te ria ls ; * presentation of content 1n segments without context; * use of m aterials th a t f a i l to hold students’ a tte n tio n ; Many companies are concentrating more on d is trib u tin g softw are than on developing I t . Bork (1984b) declared th a t q u a lity softw are 1s possible and must begin w ith a c le a r pedagogical purpose. "In the 80 fu tu re , school o f f ic ia ls . . . w i ll buy c e rta in brands of computers because of the ready a v a ila b ilit y of a wide v a rie ty of compatible software th a t 1s c a re fu lly prepared and e ffe c tiv e " (p. 2 4 2). Komoskl (1984b) recommended th a t educators (a) search fo r and purchase only the best softw are, using reputable evaluation sources and local Input; (b) provide teachers w ith Inform ation and tra in in g th a t helps them use the best softw are e ffe c tiv e ly ; (c) focus on the community, Involving parents and community members 1n selecting software and hardware fo r home use— ra is in g everyone’s awareness; and (d) through networking e ffo r ts , help low-1ncome fa m ilie s have access to software and hardware, as well as tra in in g . Washgal (1984) addressed the urgency of Incorporating computers and softw are In to the schools w h ile the reform era provides an encour­ aging c lim a te and argued th a t the best educational and a d m in is tra tiv e uses of computers have y e t to be tr ie d . Twenty years from now, when In te ra c tiv e e le c tro n ic technology has entered every nook and cranny of American l i f e , the U.S. school may s t i l l be conducting business as 1 t does today. Should th a t be the case, . . . the schools, s t i l l re ly in g p rim a rily on paper and pencil exercises, w i ll have l i t t l e choice but to serve as holding tanks fo r youngsters who are receiving the profoundest aspects of t h e ir education In other qu arters, (p. 254) Pol 1cv Issues Related to In s tru c tio n a l Hardware There 1s no one correct answer fo r selectin g and purchasing hardware fo r a school or d i s t r ic t , but most experienced computer experts agree th a t the softw are used should d ic ta te the hardware to be acquired (Hofm elster, 1984). Because computer systems and peripherals 81 are not always compatible* and c e rta in softw are 1s not compatible w ith a ll hardware* educators must make perplexing decisions about what to s e le c t. I t 1s an "educational process fo r a school or d i s t r ic t ; one not to be avoided," suggested Hofmelster, who recommended these steps: * The major purpose should f i r s t be Id e n tifie d . * Id e n tify the best software. * Id e n tify hardware to support the selected software. * Purchase systems, not components In Is o la tio n . * Cost considerations: The most neglected cost facto r 1s the software. Over tim e* 75 percent of the costs of microcomputer systems w ill be tie d to software. * S tandardization of equipment 1s ra re ly a c o s t-e ffe c tiv e approach. There may be a vast d iffe re n c e 1n the software and hardware requirements of elementary school CAI, ju n io r high computer lan­ guage In s tru c tio n and high school business education, (pp. 8/ 13-14) In s p ite of a ll th is advice* when a school or school system has decided to begin an In s tru c tio n a l computing program* a frequent f i r s t step has been to accumulate equipment. Undelow (1984) suggested th a t unless a system employs s t a f f who have had experience with computers, the school should seek help from a consultant 1n a service d is t r ic t or from an appropriate agency. The P rin c ip a l’s Planning Guide fo r Microcomputers (1983) c a lle d any equipment a c q u is itio n unfortunate, unless I t 1s preceded by proper planning re la te d to purpose, followed by choosing softw are, hardware, and f in a l ly planning fo r ongoing Inservice. Johnson (1983) reviewed considerations fo r school leaders to confront, a ll based on the In s tru c tio n a l ob jectives extant: 82 1. W ill the computer or computer system have the c a p a b ilitie s to meet requirements? 2. Is the softw are needed com patible w ith the system(s) 3. What physical f a c i l i t i e s must be b u ilt or adapted? chosen? How many peripherals must be acquired? 4. Is the computer the most cost e ffe c tiv e way to d e liv e r the In structio n? 5. Is the computer compatible w ith other equipment 1n the d is tr ic t? 6. What 1s the l i f e span of the equipment and peripherals? 7. Are vendors re lia b le ? 8. How a v a ila b le 1s maintenance? 9. What purchasing and funding options are available? 10. What user groups w ill have access? 11. What applications w ill be considered? Becker (1982b) reminded educators of th e r e a lit ie s of microcomputers as machines or objects 1n schools. Even though prices of microcomputers are decreasing, schools, dependent upon a v a ila b le softw are, are unable to repurchase each new and Improved model th a t a rriv e s on the scene, w ill contain an older technology. Funding and Focus as Policy Considerations In an analysis of funding required to Implement and sustain an In s tru c tio n a l computing program, Moursund (1984c) believed th a t a 83 school d is t r ic t needs to make a commitment to a permanent le v e l of funding fo r (a) hardware* (b) softw are, (c) 1nserv1ce and continuing tra in in g , (d) a computing coordinator, and (e) a contingency a llo c a tio n fo r additional 1nserv1ce, remodeling, accessing video, and community use. Among the fin a n c ia l questions th a t a ris e when a school board, d is t r ic t , or school commits to an In s tru c tio n a l computing program fo r s t a ff and students are: Obsolescence: The technology 1s changing so ra p id ly th a t microcomputers and re la te d equipment have become more powerful and less expensive, which means th a t tw o -year-old equipment could be obsolete and maintenance d i f f i c u l t to obtain. tio n : Standardiza­ In c o m p a tib ility of systems 1s common, even among models produced by the same manufacturer. Cost: Even with costs of computers lowered, a computer fo r every c h ild , 1f desirable, would be fin a n c ia lly Impos­ s ib le fo r most p u b lic ly funded school systems. The computer 1s not a panacea (Undelow, 1984). b e n e fic ial 1n p a rtic u la r situ atio n s" (p. 27). C o st-effectiven ess: 'They may not be In a d d itio n , the use of a v a ila b le computers should be maximized. The I n i t i a l purchase of equipment and software 1s only the beginning of expense. Funding must provide fo r maintenance, replace­ ment, and allowance fo r the expansion of technology (Chlon-Kenney, * 1985). Morsund (1984c) noted th a t only 1% of school funds across the nation are allo cated to educational technology. He recommended a school commitment to an annual expenditure of 2% o f budget fo r equip­ ment, softw are, maintenance, tra in in g , and peripheral components. 84 Without question, reported Howe (1984a), funding 1s the primary Issue 1n providing equitab le educational opportunities to a ll students. Yet the d is p a rity 1n funding is exem plified by the fa c t th a t 1n 1982 New York spent $3,769 per p u p il, w hile M ississippi spent $1,605. Stronge (1983) lis te d other possible funding sources, such as Chapters I and I I of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, or P art B of the Education of the Handicapped Act, foundation grants, endowments, and g if t s of parent and c iv ic groups. Only F lo rid a , to date, has mandated the Inclusion of educational computing 1n public schools (Ragan, 1983). Funding considerations must take In to account the school's mission and commitment, or focus. For example, Minnesota has made a long-range commitment to school Improvement through the establishment by the le g is la tu r e 1n 1971 of the Council on Q u ality Education. S a ttel (1983) reported th a t the Council brought the "microcomputer age In to education 1n 1977" and pointed out th a t Newsweek magazine (11/22/82) Indicated th a t Minnesota 1s leading the country 1n development of microcomputer a p p lic a tio n s , and we are!" (p. 1). Even when a commit­ ment and e f f o r t are made to bring computers and e ffe c tiv e In s tru c tio n a l softw are to a ll students, S a tte l reported a problem of d is trib u tio n th a t 1s presently being addressed: Some schools had one per classroom, whereas other school d is t r ic t s owned only one or two machines. An overarching concern of many educators has been th a t the commitment to means w ill produce equitable outcomes fo r a l l . 85 A B rie f Overview of the A rriv a l o f Microcomputers and the Implementation o f Educational Computing 1n Michigan. Public Schools The discourse 1n th is subsection 1s lim ite d to a review of selected rep resentative In s tru c tio n a l computing a c t iv it ie s and concerns th a t were reported to be present 1n Michigan public schools before 1984# when the present study began. Selected Issues re la ted to K-12 computing 1n schools across the United States have been reported 1n th is chapter. In Michigan K-12 education# the B lu e p rin t fo r Action (Michigan S tate Board of Education# 1984) Is the most p u b licized and o f f ic i a l recognition and acceptance of the Incorporation In to school s e ttin g s of In s tru c tio n a l computing and re la ted technologies. A comprehensive response to national c a lls fo r reform# I t contains long-range recommen­ dations to the le g is la tu re # to higher education# to In term ediate school d is t r ic ts , and to public schools. Technology-related recommendations Include: (a) o n e -h a lf year of computer science fo r a ll high school students; (b) the upgrading of tra in in g of teachers and adm inistrators through In service; (c) the development of standards of c e r t if ic a t io n fo r teachers who teach the computer sciences; (d) proposals fo r the funding of computer softw are acquisitions# fo r trainin g# and fo r equipment purchases fo r schools; (e) provision of a resource center fo r educators; (f) development of an experts' resource bank; (g) a c q u isitio n and dissem ination of a v a rie ty of models; (h) the In te g ra tio n of computer awareness 1n technological career areas# and (1) the promotion of Inform ation networks. 86 S ig n ific a n t to the present study was the recommendation fo r the "assessment o f the status o f In s tru c tio n al computing, act 1ylty_JD__lhe schools of Michigan" (emphasis added). Michigan educational computing pioneers* Involved 1n some of the I n i t i a l e le c tro n ic learn in g a c tiv itie s * were fru s tra te d 1n t h e ir e a rly program-1mplementat1on e ffo r ts by the poor content and q u a lity of a v a ila b le software. In an e f f o r t to fin d or develop appropriate courseware fo r students* members of a number of Regional Educational Media Centers (REMC's) across Michigan collaborated to resolve th is challenge through a networking consortium c a lle d P roject WE CAN (Zolton, 1983). WE CAN was a f i r s t statew ide major r a lly in g po in t fo r educational computing professionals 1n Michigan's geographically f a r flung school d is tr ic ts . WE CAN has become one symbol of the unifying acceptance of and commitment to educational computing 1n Michigan: With the p r o life ra tio n of microcomputers, e s p e cia lly applications 1n education 1n the la s t two to fiv e years, there has arisen a tremendous need fo r coordination* system atic planning and technical assistance. . . . The p ro ject [has] made considerable progress toward Id e n tify in g and exchanging Inform ation about microcomputers to p o ten tial users. A more recent project* M*STAR (1985), w ill extend and enhance the statew ide computer networking concept by using s a t e l lit e te le v is io n through Interm ediate school d is t r ic t s and lo cal schools. With the exception of Minnesota, which as early as 1976 made dramatic s trid e s 1n statew ide educational computing services through the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium (MECC) (RawItch* 1982), there has been only n e g lig ib le Involvement by states In the e a rly promotion and d iffu s io n of educational computing op po rtu n ities fo r 87 students. More recently* the Michigan S tate Department of Education employed a mathematics/technology consultant. By 1985* 1 t had appointed a f u ll- t im e educational computing consultant. The Michigan Department of Education’ s O ffic e of Grants Coordi­ nation and Procurement (1984) provided discretio n ary p ro jec t grants to encourage, among other In it ia t iv e s , the development of computer l i t ­ eracy projects. The S tate Library of Michigan has continued to o ffe r a microcomputer and software demonstration center 1n Lansing. In la te 1984, fiv e softw are review and demonstration centers were p ilo te d w ith in some of the In term ediate school d is t r ic t s . At the same tim e, Training of T rain er Models are being form ulated a t the U n iversity of Michigan (1985) with the co lla b o ra tio n of the Department of Education. A m u ltifac e te d tra in in g , demonstration, and assistance program, c a lle d the Tr1-County Computing Consortium, was established 1n the e a rly 1980s to accommodate teachers, schools, and d is t r ic t s engaged 1n computing projects w ith students 1n Michigan’ s three most densely populated regions, Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties (Johnson, 1983). Developing model dissemination projects fo r adoption by lo cal schools 1s an a s -ye t-u n f 1n1shed plan. In it ia t e d 1n 1982-82 and coordi­ nated by Dr. Carl Berger, 1t brought together a team of educational computing experts to work on school computing models. Elementary teachers Interview ed In fo rm a lly (Bancroft, 1983a) reported th a t a preponderance of t h e ir students obtained t h e ir e a rly encounters w ith computers a t school s ite s when teachers, community members, or adm inistrators brought t h e ir personal computers to school 88 to share or helped ra is e funds to obtain a " f ir s t " computer. These grass-roots e ffo r ts often were c a ta ly s ts fo r school boards to I n i t i a t e educational computing programs. An example of the ground sw ell of a c tiv ity among Michigan educators 1s the Michigan Association of Computer Users 1n Learning (MACUL) (Checkpoint, 1984). In 1979 12 com pu ter-p ro ficien t educators from various school s ite s 1n southeastern Michigan were working In d i­ v id u a lly to promote some uses of microcomputers fo r t h e ir local stu­ dents. Their need to obtain Ideas and t h e ir w illin g n ess to share Inform ation about student educational usages of computers Inspired them to form a support group. over 6,000 educators. By 1984 the membership of MACUL had risen to An annual MACUL conference preserves the Idea- sharing concept and 1s attended by thousands of educators. Local schools and d is t r ic t s th a t have developed d e s c rip tiv e m a te ria ls or exemplary programs and practices have tended to share t h e ir expertise 1n w ritin g or 1n workshops, or have encouraged other schools to v i s i t th e ir s ite s . A few examples Include a well-developed s t a f f 1nserv1ce model from Troy, Michigan, Public Schools (Shotw ell, 1983); a frequently v is ite d school system 1n Birmingham, Michigan, which 1n 1981 began developing a K-12 c u rrlc u lu m -In te g ra tio n model (Bancroft, 1983a); a useful plan fo r scheduling computing 1n an elementary school environment (Burleigh, 1985); and a demonstration s it e fo r the use of videodisc technology 1n re la tio n to students1 In divid ual learning s ty le s ( B illin g s , 1983). 89 P roject Best Bet (A lnsley, 1983) Involves a local blue-ribbon committee with a national e f f o r t to make the best use of technology 1n schools. Eventually a m ulti s ta te regional center w i ll provide local schools w ith p e rtin e n t research and practice Inform ation re la te d to In s tru c tio n a l computing. In 1983* over 85% of the Chapter I I Educational Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) funds 1n Michigan were requested fo r use by school d is t r ic t s to purchase microcomputers and associated m a te ria ls . Salas (1983)* then president of the Michigan S tate Board of Education, cautioned th a t many Michigan pupils a t th a t tim e had not gained access to the new technologies and emphasized: Equity of access has* th e re fo re , two aspects: th e a v a ila b ilit y of funds to the lo cal d i s t r ic t , and the c o lle c tiv e wisdom of the local school board* ad m in istratio n and teachers 1n planning fo r Immediate and long-range ac q u is itio n and use of the new technologies, (p. 9) The level of In te g ra tio n , Implementation, kinds of uses, and the d iv e rs ity of policy and practices a t work across community types are not y e t w ell documented. The documentation th a t 1s a v a ila b le about Michigan’ s local school e ffo r ts records a v a rie ty o f lo cal school and d is t r ic t responses to the press fo r change to address the new technolo­ gies, e s p e c ia lly computing (Bancroft, 1983b; MACUL N ew sletter, 1985). S alas s ta te d t h a t "unless we can fin d a way . . . to balance th e cost of technology with the diverse economic status of our schools, we are going to be faced with what w i ll become the educational access c r is is o f th e 80's and beyond." In a 1984 survey of educational computing across th e United States, Market Data R etrieval Services (MDR) (1984) reported 15,421 90 microcomputers In s ta lle d 1n Michigan’s 3,319 public schools. 6,100 were located 1n the s ta te ’ s 2,083 elementary schools. Of those, In a s ta te ranking o f 50 states and Washington, D.C., MDR c ite d Michigan as seventh 1n s ize of enrollm ent, fourth 1n number of computers, four­ teenth 1n percentage of d is t r ic t s using microcomputers, and eleventh 1n percentage of public schools using microcomputers. Lezotte (1985) suggested th a t a school s t a f f , when determining I t s In s tru c tio n a l focus or mission, should ask: What do we want our students to know and be able to do when they complete t h e ir K-12 schooling? How many students do we expect to le a rn what 1t 1s th a t we want them to know and be able to do? . . . When fo rm ulatin g a policy fo r K-12 education w ith in a school d i s t r ic t , school decision-makers base t h e ir In stru c tio n a l focus upon the answers to these questions. Then the means or resources are delegated to achieve the stated ends. (p. 1) -Summary The review of re la te d li t e r a t u r e encompassed (a) the demands of a new and changing technology on society and educational In s titu tio n s , (b) an overview of curren t Implementations of microcomputers 1n education, (c) student learnin g with and about microcomputers, (d) educational policy Issues and r e a lit ie s re la te d to microcomputers, and (e) a b r ie f overview of the a rriv a l of microcomputers and the Implem entation of educational computing 1n Michigan public schools. In th e ir t o t a l i t y , these subsections set the stage fo r an In v e s tig a tio n of the In te g ra tio n and student use of microcomputers 1n Michigan elemen­ ta ry schools. CHAPTER I I I DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The s p e c ific procedures and methods used to answer the research questions posited 1n th is d e s c rip tiv e study are presented 1n Chapter III. The study was designed to c o lle c t d e s c rip tiv e data, system ati­ c a lly , statew ide, which would provide Inform ation on the kinds and le v e ls of student use of In s tru c tio n a l computing 1n Michigan ru ra l, suburban, and urban public elementary schools. An analysis of such data, 1 t was proposed, would provide s ig n ific a n t Inform ation about the curren t d ire c tio n and exten t of policy and p ractices re la ted to In s tru c tio n a l computing 1n Michigan public elementary schools. A second t i e r of the study Incorporated a survey questionnaire In terview administered a t s ix school s ite s . The descriptions of schools and responses of Interview ees a t school s ite s , 1t was believed, would enrich the data from the statew ide survey. These school s ite s were c a re fu lly selected from a ll respondents to the I n i t i a l statew ide survey, or Questionnaire Number One. Before the generation of the statew ide and o n -s ite survey, an oplnlonnaire was constructed and sent to educational computing experts. The oplnlon- na1re helped ground the content and c r it e r i a fo r the e n tir e study. 91 92 The purpose of d e s c rip tiv e research 1s to portray accurately and o b je c tiv e ly current conditions. In terview s. I t can Include surveys and Sax (1979) reported th a t d e s c rip tiv e research often has It s g reatest value a t the beginning stages of an In v e s tig a tio n . I t can be surmised th a t the advent of the Innovation of In s tru c tio n a l comput­ ing 1n public school s e ttin g s presents such a beginning stage and th a t the present study’s attem pt to describe the status of th is development may be appropriately served by d e s c rip tiv e research. Population and Sample The population surveyed 1n th is study were elementary p rin c i­ pals. They were believed to be the b u ild in g -le v e l persons most lik e ly to have knowledge o f, or access to , the Inform ation c a lle d fo r 1n response to the survey questions. A sample of 600, approximately one-fourth, of Michigan's public elementary schools was randomly selected to receive and respond to the f i r s t mall survey questionnaire, Questionnaire Number One. To assure a f a i r representation of r u r a l, suburban, and urban school s ite s , 200 schools were randomly selected from each of those general categories. These community-type categories were so designated by the Michigan S tate Department of Education (1971). (See Appendix A fo r the Department's "D e fin itio n s of Michigan School D is tr ic ts by Major Community Types" and a map In d ic a tin g th e Department's "Region and Community Type Categories.") the follow ing s tra ta : The schools, randomly selected, were from Urban I , Tr1-County, which Includes Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb, w ith Urban I I I , Urban O utstate; Suburban I I , Town 93 and Urban Fringe of Tr1-County Area* with IV, Urban Fringe Outstate; and Rural. By using th e s tra ta designations most frequently used by the Michigan Department of Education 1n It s experimental te s tin g programs* the study’ s sampling process had I t s foundation 1n a procedure th a t had proven e ffe c tiv e during a 15-year span. Guidance 1n selecting and sampling the population was provided by the current d irecto rs of the Michigan Educational Assessment Program and the O ffic e of Technical Assistance and E valuation, re sp ectively. The population fo r a second t i e r of the study, 1n which six school s ite s were selected to p a rtic ip a te In an on-s1te Interview process, Included a p rin c ip a l* two teachers* and a d is t r ic t - le v e l ad m in is tra to r or d i s t r ic t computing consultant, 1f one had been appointed. This second sample was chosen a fte r a purposeful scrutiny and c a re fu lly derived e lim in a tio n process applied to a ll returned surveys. Two ru r a l, two suburban, and two urban schools th a t evidenced high le v e ls of use and access to educational computing a c t iv it ie s fo r a ll or most students were selected fo r a more 1n-depth, on-s1te In te r ­ view a c tiv ity . The c r it e r i a fo r selectin g these s ix elementary schools are described 1n the Methods and Procedures section. Sax characterized the In terview as a "d ire c t attem pt by the researcher to obtain r e lia b le and v a lid measures 1n the form of verbal responses" (p. 233). The survey data obtained from the In terv ie w , was believed, would help c la r if y and also provide a more measured emphasis to the assumptions and conclusions drawn from the topical 1t 94 lit e r a t u r e extant and from the findings produced from an analysis of w ritte n responses derived from Questionnaire Number One. Methods and Procedures The focus of the study developed from the In te re s tin g conclu­ sions reached in a fie ld -b ased research project completed as a req u ire­ ment fo r the Education S p e c ia lis t degree (Bancroft* 1983a). That research described how th re e K-12 school systems 1n southeastern M ichi­ gan Integrated In s tru c tio n a l computing In to th e ir schools. Those school d is tr ic ts * each evidencing varied le v e ls of resources and com­ mitment* even though 1n d iffe r e n t cycles and with diverse means and methods fo r meeting t h e ir objectives* promoted a process and program th a t encouraged a high le v e l of access and p a rtic ip a tio n computing opportunities fo r most students. C ertain c h a ra c te ris tic s appeared to be present 1n the schools and the d is t r ic t s th a t f a c ilit a t e d the Imple­ mentation and In te g ra tio n of computing across grades and across the curriculum . For example, an 1n-school computer enthusiast nearly always was a present Influence. A major purpose of the study was to ascertain the level of access and kinds of In s tru c tio n a l computing uses afforded to elementary students In a large cross-section of Michigan public schools. To derive feedback th a t would be In fo rm ative to educational agency plan­ ners and local educators* the questions developed fo r the f i r s t survey required a foreknowledge of what kinds of a c t iv it ie s might be present. In the In it ia t in g stages of the present study, an opinlonnaire directed 95 to educational computing experts v e rifie d the presence of c e rta in c h a ra c te ris tic s when a "high degree of access and p a rtic ip a tio n oppor­ tu n itie s fo r students p re v aile d .” To d e liv e r a questionnaire w ith appropriate content* an op1n1onna1re was d is trib u te d to 17 educational computing experts and professionals from Michigan and elsewhere, who lis te d and then ranked from fiv e to seven c h a ra c te ris tic s they believed needed to be present 1n a school or d is t r ic t s triv in g to promote a robust and In clu s iv e In s tru c tio n a l computing program. Their responses, unweighted, were lis te d , categorized, and then ranked by mean from the highest to lowest response ra te , according to those a ttrib u te s most freq u e n tly mentioned. These ranked responses were an In flu e n tia l fa c to r 1n form ulatin g the questions fo r the f i r s t and second survey questionnaires. Table 1 presents these a ttrib u te s . The statew ide survey, prepared to c o lle c t d e s c rip tiv e data from a sample o f 600 r u r a l, suburban, and urban elementary schools, used the Input from the op1n1onna1re ju s t described and from general in stru c ­ tio n a l computing surveys e x tan t, as w ell as from the questions posed 1n summary sections of c u rren t research studies. These are described in the section e n title d Instruments. The I n i t i a l survey Instrum ent was sent to fiv e practicing In stru c tio n a l computing consultants fo r feedback. The survey In s tru ­ ment was revised and re fin e d to Incorporate appropriate recommenda­ tio ns, and fo llo w in g th a t re visio n was sent to f iv e Michigan elementary p rin cip a ls fo r p ilo tin g to te s t I t s ease of completion, It s Inherent appropriateness to the status quo, and It s o v e rall meaning and 96 o rderlin ess. (See Appendix B fo r l e t t e r to the consultants and the p rin cip a l s . ) Table 1 .— Educational computing experts’ ranked opinions of charac­ t e r is t ic s most often present In a school or d i s t r ic t where high access/part1c1pat1on opportunities are provided fo r students (respondent ra te of return = 83%). C h a ra c te ris tic Percent A dm inistrative or p rin cip al support* Involvement* encouragement Adequate funding Continuing & appropriate q u a lity 1nserv1ce Enthusiasm fo r computers & computing by leaders, teachers & students W e ll-d e ta ile d plan fo r In te g ra tio n of computers In to curriculum Adequate to ample number of computers fo r students and open access to them A computer consultant or leader on local or d is t r ic t s t a ff High expectations fo r educational computing & commitment to concept & funding by school board Broad range of ap p licatio n s v is ib le ; emphasis on appl 1cat1ons 93% 64% 50% 50% 43% 43% 36% 36% 29% Following these refinements* the questionnaire was reviewed and approved by some committee members and by the present directo rs of the Michigan Department of Education's O ffic e of Technical Assistance and Evaluation and the Michigan Educational Assessment Program. At th a t ju n ctu re the questionnaire* with a cover le t t e r * was mailed w ith a return stamped envelope to 600 elementary school s ite s , w ith the assistance of the Michigan Department of Education. (See Appendix B fo r the Survey Questionnaire and accompanying l e t t e r of exp lan atio n .) 97 For the second t i e r of the present study# additional and re in fo rc in g questions were Included to reach a s p e c ific ta rg e t population: the principal# two classroom teachers# and e ith e r one computing consultant# 1f such a position had been established# or a d is t r ic t adm inistrator. The responses to the three Instruments prepared fo r the second t i e r of the study# I t was anticipated# would provide Inform ation and In sig h ts th a t could not be characterized by the s in g le word or q u a n tita tiv e responses gleaned from answers to Items 1n Questionnaire Number One. The In terview questionnaires provided the respondent and In v e s tig a to r w ith a structured form at fo r In te ra c tio n . The commentaries provided ample opportunity fo r open-ended responses. The p rin cip a l was requested to s e le c t teacher respondents who would represent a cross-section of s ta ff# e ith e r by grade level or by an In te re s t or even an aversion to the to p ic of educational computing. Each of the s ix s c h o o l-s lte surveys was conducted 1n less than one school day# usually w ith in three to four hours# and with s p e c ific In terview tim e lim ita tio n s prescribed by the host school. Tape record­ ings# subject to the consent of the Individual# were made of some In terview sessions# where tim e did not allow for completion of the structured In terview format. The procedure th a t was f in a lly chosen fo r selectin g th e six schools of In te re s t evolved through a t le a s t a half-dozen t r i a l formulas. I t 1s Im portant to note th a t the mere presence of numbers of a v a ila b le computers a t a school s ite frequently has l i t t l e or no 98 c o rre la tio n to high access and use by students. And although common sense would perm it readers to know th is Is true* 1n the s p i r i t of tru e research* two or more attem pts were made 1n th is study to num erically lin k higher numbers of computers to higher student use. In selectin g hlgh-use sites* what u ltim a te ly proved to be a helpful procedure derived from many "what 1f" conversations with knowledgeable committee members* as w ell as local public In s tru c tio n a l support personnel. The s ix elementary school s ite s selected fo r on-s1te v is it a t io n were derived by means of d ivid in g the responding schools Involved with the statew ide questionnaire, the f i r s t survey* In to nine sectors. Across the three school types, ru ra l* suburban, and urban, the schools were ranked o rd ln a lly by the number of microcomputers they dedicated to student use and then by the r a tio of students to one computer a t th a t school s ite . The 25% of the schools w ith the highest number of comput­ ers fo r per cap ita on-s1te student use were labeled high a v a ila b ilit y . The 25% of the schools w ith the lowest number of computers fo r per capita use by students were labeled low a v a ila b ilit y . The 50% of schools whose r a tio of students to one computer f e l l between the hlghand low-ava1 l a b i l i t y range were labeled m oderate-avallabll 1ty schools. Separating the schools In to t h e ir ru ra l, suburban, and urban types was a decision th a t stemmed from the b e lie f th a t the purpose of the survey would be b e tte r served 1f readers of the fin a l survey data could review 1 t 1n th e context of a geographic demarcation of In te re s t to th e ir special needs. 99 Once having the school s ite s ranked by the r a tio of students to one computer* 1 t then became possible to begin looking fo r schools th a t would also evidence higher degrees of student p a rtic ip a tio n than other schools. These schools were able to report a high degree of student use tim e. The c r ite r io n selected was th a t educationally dedicated computers were used w ith in the school day between 76% and 100% of the tim e. Thus* tim e use was the basic c r ite r io n fo r I n i t i a l l y locating the h1gh-part1c1 patlon school s ite s . To fu rth e r re fin e the process of lo catin g h1gh-access/ p a rtic ip a tio n schools, responses to several other questionnaire Items were reviewed and considered. These additional c r it e r i a provided a way to obtain those school s ite s fo r study th a t would be not only high users* but would be serving the greatest number of students across grades and doing so w ith the widest range of lo c a lly appropriate mate­ r ia ls and curriculum content. To enumerate, the considerations fo r s ele c tin g schools fo r fu rth e r study Included: (a) a higher number (than most schools) of computers fo r student use; (b) the fa c t th a t a ll a v a ila b le computers were 1n use 76% to 100% of the tim e; (c) most grades and a m a jo rity of students were Included 1n planned In stru c ­ tio n a l computing a c t iv it y ; (d) a broad and expanding range of applica­ tio n s and a c t iv it y were reported; (e) In divid uals and groups beyond the general education students were Included; and ( f ) an ongoing and a rtic u la te d plan, e ith e r a t the school or d is t r ic t le v e l, was m anifest. Also co n trib u tin g to a h1gh-access and h1gh-part1c1patlon c lim a te was evidence of placement of computers fo r guided use before or a fte r 100 school* during recess and lunch breaks, or fo r check-out by parents, teachers, and students on week-ends and vacation periods. A ll these facto rs were considered. The returned questionnaires having been ranked by r a tio of students to one computer were then subsequently arranged In a descend­ ing order, based on a v a ila b ilit y 1n re la tio n to maximum student tim e / use of computers as described previously. Through th is method, schools could be grouped w ith in t h e ir ru ra l, suburban, and urban categories 1n yet even more d e fin itiv e groupings. I t was now possible to c lu s te r 1n the follow ing way: (a) high computer a v a lla b ll1 ty /h 1 g h use; (b) high computer a v a ila ­ b ility /m o d e ra te use; (c) high computer a v a lla b ll1 ty /lo w use; (d) moder­ ate computer a v a lla b ll1 ty /h 1 g h use; (e) moderate computer a v a ila ­ b ility /m o d e ra te use; (f) moderate computer a v a lla b ll1 ty /lo w use; (g) low computer a v a lla b ll1 ty /h 1 g h use; (h) low computer a v a i la b il it y / moderate use; and (1) low computer a v a lla b ll1 ty /lo w use. This sorting process provided a way to view the returned survey data 1n lig h t of access and p a rtic ip a tio n . Also, 1t perm itted In te r ­ esting and Innovative e ffo r ts and a c t iv it ie s to surface, which other­ wise might have been minimized or overlooked. As an example, a v a rie ty of Innovative s tra te g ie s were Id e n tifie d 1n schools w ith moderate a v a ila b ilit y of computers but w ith high use. Such Ideas could be tra n s fe ra b le and help ful to other school s ite s , whose few computers could be perceived as an otherwise lim itin g facto r. 101 The procedures and methods enumerated perm itted the research questions to be addressed 1n a c le a r and uncomplicated way. Of curren t In te re s t to educational planners and researchers appear to be some of the follow ing: (a) what, b a s ic a lly , schools are doing to Implement change; (b) what 1 t 1s th a t local educators believe students need to know about and do w ith microcomputers; (c) what policy decisions are being made th a t a ffe c t th is a c t iv it y ; and (d) what assistance or Ideas seem to help lo cal schools and d is t r ic t s do what they believe needs to be done, re la ted to In s tru c tio n a l computing. The s ix schools selected fo r v is it a t io n exhibited a c lim a te of high access and p a r tic ip a tio n op portunities fo r students and teachers and met the c r it e r i a w ith in th e ir school type of high or moderate computer a v a ila b ilit y fo r students. They also reported In stru c tio n a l use of a ll computers during 76% to 100% of the school day. Research.Ques t I pds Of In te r e s t 1n th is study were the fo llo w in g research questions. They represent topics th a t are of c u rren t, general In te re s t to edu­ cators across s ta te s and d is t r ic t s , but fo r the purposes of th is study were lim ite d to responses from Michigan ru r a l, suburban, and urban pu blic elementary schools. 1. What 1s the representative level of In teg ra tio n of micro­ computers dedicated to educational usage? 2. What can be described as the level of In stru c tio n a l com­ puting access and p a rtic ip a tio n op po rtu n ities fo r students across grades and groups? 102 3. What educational applications of microcomputers are most generally present fo r students? 4. What local policy decisions are being developed or are 1n place to assure students In s tru c tio n a l computing (or technology) opportunities? Related Research Questions Four of the questionnaires developed fo r th is study— the s ta te ­ wide survey, the on-s1te p rin cip al questionnaire, teacher question­ n a ire , and the computing c o n s u lta n t/d is tric t adm in istrato r question­ naire— provided many " s ta te -o f-th e -a rt" answers of an Inventory nature about what elementary schools, and to some extent t h e ir s ta ffs and d is t r ic ts , are presently doing to Incorporate an Innovation. Because a de s c rip tiv e study can provide useful planning and trend data, even when not f u lly g en eralIzab le, the feedback, which was deemed to be of gen­ eral statew ide In te re s t, was selected and reported. The fo llo w in g addition al questions were e ith e r discussed or In terp re te d 1n graph or ta b u la r form. (See Appendix B fo r copies of the surveys.) 5. What funding sources are used to provide hardware, s o ft­ ware, and com puter-related acquisition and maintenance? 6. What are prevalen tly preferred physical placements or loca­ tio n s fo r microcomputers? 103 7. Are th e re expectations by middle schools th a t elementary students w i ll have achieved c e rta in In s tru c tio n a l computing s k ill s and understandlngs? 8. Are students’ computing s k ills and understandings fo rm ally measured? 9. Other than general education students* do any groups of students have access to In s tru c tio n a l computing? I f yes* which groups or Individuals? 10. Are any computers dedicated to school a d m in is tra tiv e tasks or computer-managed In structio n? 11. How many pieces of In stru c tio n a l softw are are c u rre n tly found* on average? 12. What 1s the content or d elivery system used by a d is t r ic t or school to promote 1nserv1ce tra in in g and updating fo r teachers and s ta ff? 13. On average* what percentage of s ta ffs c u rre n tly appear to be somewhat or highly q u a lifie d to teach t h e ir students w ith and about computers and computing? 14. How many schools have f i l l e d a po sition fo r a d i s t r ic t or lo cal In s tru c tio n a l computing consultant? 15. Is th e re usually a building "expert" present who helps or In sp ires students or s t a ff to get Involved 1n educational computing? 16. Is there an In term ediate school d i s t r ic t computer con­ s u lta n t re g u la rly a v a ila b le to teachers? 104 17. Is th e re a general le v e l of enthusiasm fo r computing among d is t r ic t a d m in is tra tio n , students, teachers, or parents? The fin a l question posed was framed to capture from the s ix on-s1te In terview s any evidence th a t might h ig h lig h t successful prac­ tic e s , unique e f f o r t s , or d is tin c tiv e c h a ra c te ris tic s a t the schools v is ite d . 18. In re la tio n to In s tru c tio n a l computing op portunities fo r students, are th e re d istingu ishin g c h a ra c te ris tic s present lo c a lly th a t appear to fo s te r a c lim a te of high a c ce s s /p a rtlc lp a tlo n opportunities fo r most students? The discussion of th is question 1s contained 1n Chapter IV 1n the subsection e n title d Six S ite V is ita tio n s ; findings are b r ie fly summarized 1n Table 27. In s tru m en ts The Instruments used to e ffe c t the present study Included an op1n1onna1re, a statew ide survey, and an In terv ie w questionnaire devel­ oped 1n three forms and m odified to provide sense-making Items fo r (a) a local b u ild in g p rin c ip a l, (b) classroom teachers, and (c) a d i s t r ic t a d m in is tra to r or d is t r ic t computing consultant. ments were created s p e c ific a lly fo r th is study. These In s tru ­ They were c a re fu lly designed to c o lle c t data and provide feedback on desired Inform ation. Care was taken to develop an Instrum ent th a t was both b r ie f and under­ standable. The statew ide m all survey was p ilo te d and revised based on Input from p rin c ip a ls , computer consultants, educational computing experts, and s t a t is t ic a l advisors, and by adapting s im ila r content 105 found 1n relevan t published surveys or research studies. In addition , the feedback from the op1nlonnalre, completed by 14 In s tru c tio n a l computing experts, supported the types and content of questions selected. A ll instruments were p ilo t tested by representative po ten tial re cip ie n ts of each questionnaire type. In addition to professional journal summary a r tic le s on educa­ tio n a l computing p ra c tic es , a number of current research studies and re cen tly developed educational computing assessment instruments more s p e c ific a lly Influenced th e content of questions 1n a l l categories of In te re s t. The most freq u en tly used were: the Rand study, "Success­ f u l ” Teachers* Patterns o f Microcomputer-Based In s tru c tio n (Shavelson e t a l., 1984) and Computer Literacy: D e fin itio n and Survey Items for Assessment 1n Schools (Lockheed e t a l., 1983). The l a t t e r assessment Instrum ent provided questions derived by a team of experts whose work was sponsored by the National Center fo r Education S ta tis tic s . Questions fo r fu rth e r study found 1n the work of Becker (1984b), H all (1981), Shelngold e t a l. (1983), and White (1984) were selected, adapted, and In teg rated In to the study. Guidelines fo r developing the questionnaire were adapted from Designing and U t iliz in g Mall Questionnaires 1n Educational Research (Humphries, 1983). Overall guidelines fo r developing th e design were derived from Summing Up (L ig h t & P illm e r, 1984). 106 Analysis o f the Data The Inform ation co lle cte d from the statewide survey was coded by Item response number to produce an 1tem-by-1tem breakdown fo r a ll answers of In te re s t and, fu rth e r, to enable a reporting by community type: r u r a l, suburban, or urban. Some Items required only simple reporting o f to ta ls ; others were to ta le d and then averaged. For example, the number of computers fo r educational purposes 1n a ll elementary schools sampled required only a simple t o ta l. I f , however, 1 t became of In te re s t to determine how many schools, on average, used the In s tru c tio n a l a p p lic a tio n of word processing 1n language a rts , composition, and reading as compared to those using mathematics d r i l l , a mean score might be reported. The summaries of data gathered from Interview s conducted a t each of the s ix selected elementary school s ite s were lim ite d to remarks and responses p e rtin e n t to the lo c a lly com puter-relevant practices and adaptations reported In d iv id u a lly by the local p rin c ip a l, the two teachers, and e ith e r a d is t r ic t adm inistrator or computer consultant. The decision to use and report only descriptions of In fo r ­ mation germane to the process of adaptation to an Innovation and observed f a c ili t a t i n g practices, ra th e r than pursuing a ll possible discussion points, was Influenced by the work of Downle (1976). The data from the six s c h o o l-slte summary In terview s were organized 1n the fo llo w in g manner: a description of the school, It s c lie n te le , the com puter-related a c t iv it y , and a b r ie f d e lin e a tio n of those elements, p o lic ie s , practices, or local a ttitu d e th a t distinguish 107 1t from other schools th a t also, according to survey re s u lts , evidenced a high degree of educational computing o p portunities fo r most students. The differences, ra th e r than th e s im ila r it ie s Inherent 1n these schools, were believed to provide the most In te re s tin g commentary. Summary The major purpose of th is study was to obtain d e s c rip tiv e data, s y ste m a tic ally , from an equal sampling of ru r a l, suburban, and urban Michigan public elementary schools, which might provide Inform ation about the kinds, le v e ls , and In te n s ity of educational uses of microcom­ puting by students. This chapter described the sampling procedures, the Instruments th a t were form ulated and used, and the methods and procedures developed fo r e ffe c tu a tin g th e study and u ltim a te ly report­ ing the findings. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA I ntrp.diict.lQD A major purpose of th is study was to c o lle c t p e rtin e n t data th a t would help Id e n tify the le v e ls of student access to , and use o f, microcomputers In a sampling of Michigan ru r a l, suburban, and urban public elementary schools, and to seek to provide Inform ation about In d ivid u al school or d i s t r ic t p o lic ie s and practices th a t have been developed and th a t appeared to promote the growth of an emerging technological Innovation. Chapter IV 1s arranged 1n the fo llo w in g manner: fir s t, a discussion of the ranked responses of an Inform al opinlonnalre requesting view points from educational computing experts; second, the presentation of data re trie v e d from reporting p rin cip a ls In a statew ide survey of 600 elementary schools; and th ir d , a summary of observations and feedback from v is it s and Interview s conducted a t six selected school s ite s . The In terview s were addressed to the local p rin c ip a l, two teachers, and a computing consultant or d is t r ic t a d m in is tra to r. most cases, four In terview s were conducted a t each of the selected school s ite s . 108 In 109 The Op1n1onna1re Sent to Educational Computlnq_Experts Before the preparation and d is trib u tio n of the statewide ques­ tio n n a ire * an op1n1onna1re was sent to a v a rie ty of professionals Involved 1n educational computing. They have* fo r the purposes of th is study, been c a lle d computer "experts." from one of the fo llo w in g : Th eir q u a lific a tio n s derive (a) t h e ir a c tiv e involvement 1n teaching educational computing to teachers and adm in istrato rs, (b) th e ir research 1n the f ie ld of K-12 educational computing, (c) t h e ir position description as a public school educational computing teacher of stu­ dents, (d) t h e ir reputation fo r publishing 1n th a t content area, and (e) in a ll cases a fiv e -y e a r or more acknowledged leadership ro le 1n educational computing. Of the 17 experts contacted by mall (see Appendix B for the le t t e r to the experts), 14 responded. They were asked, "What charac­ t e r is t ic s do you b elieve would be most often present In a school or school d i s t r ic t where high degrees of access and p a rtic ip a tio n educa­ tio n a l computing o p p o rtu n ities fo r students prevail?" T h eir responses, categorized and ranked, provided the g r is t fo r content of questions selected fo r the statew ide questionnaire and subsequent scho o l-slte In terview s. A review of t h e ir ranked responses follow s: (a) adminis­ tr a t o r or prin cip al support, (b) adequate funding, (c) continuing q u a lity 1nserv1ce, (d) enthusiasm fo r computers among s t a ff and stu­ dents, (e) a w e ll-d e ta ile d plan fo r In te g ra tio n , (f) adequate to ample numbers of computers and f a i r access, (g) a consultant or leader a t the 1o c a l/d is t r ic t le v e l, (h) high expectations fo r educational computing 110 by the school board/ and (1) a broad range of a p p lic a tio n s v is ib le . These ranked a ttrib u te s were f u lly described 1n Chapter I I I 1n the discussion of the Instrum entation. The Statewide School Survey Population and Sample The f i r s t survey/ mailed 1n A pril 1985 to 600 elementary school p rin c ip a ls / produced by the return deadline 361 responses/ a 60% response rate. Although not Included 1n the formal study/ a dozen or more la t e responses were received/ containing no extreme v a ria tio n s 1n o v e rall Input from those 1n the coded responses noted. When sorted by the three community types sampled/ the responses revealed a representational balance of approximately one-th1rd from each sector. Each community type was sampled to produce a p o te n tia l response of 200 schools. In the 600-school survey/ 200 questionnaires each were sent to ru r a l/ urban/ and suburban schools. Table 2 In d i­ cates the frequency and percentage of return ra te from a ll schools/ categorized by community type. Table 2 . — Number of elementary schools responding/ by community type. Community Type Frequency Percent A ll Cases Rural Suburban Urban 126 129 106 34.9% 35.7% 29.4% Total 361 100.0% Ill School population sizes varied s ig n ific a n tly . For example* one ru ral elementary school claimed only 18 students w h ile another reported over 900. Suburban schools ranged 1n s ize from 71 to 900 students. Urban schools ranged from 135 to 934 students. The mean school popula­ tio n fo r rural schools reporting was 322; fo r suburban, 407; and fo r urban, 429. The mode fo r a ll community types was between 300 and 330 students. I t was possible th a t more than one elementary school 1n a given d is t r ic t provided data fo r th is In divid ual school survey. This fa c t would only Influence Inform ation th a t Inquired about d is t r ic t Involve­ ment. In a ll cases, th a t Influence was acknowledged 1n the reporting. Table 3 portrays the d is t r ic t re la tio n s h ip of the schools responding to the present survey. Table 3 . — Number of possible elementary schools 1n the d is t r ic t s of the responding elementary p rin c ip a ls . Community Type Rural Suburban Urban Range Mean 1-14 1-25 1-167 2 .8 6.7 5 1.8 Median 2 5 20 Mode 1 4 167 The elementary schools surveyed 1n the present study were drawn from a sample of a ll Michigan public schools th a t contain a grade 4. As a re s u lt, 1,892 schools were p o te n tia l respondents. The random sample of rural elementary schools was drawn from 521 possible s ite s , 112 the suburban sample from a possible 804 schools* and the urban sample from a possible 567 schools. For convenience* the study samples were drawn from the l i s t s used by the Michigan Department of Education fo r the fourth grade Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). W ithin Michigan's 83 counties there are approximately 594 school d is t r ic t s , with the fo llo w in g designations: Community Type I , M etropolitan Core; Community Type I I , C ity ; Community Type I I I * Community Type IV* Urban Fringe; and Community Type V, Rural. Town; (See Appendix A fo r d e fin itio n s of school d is t r ic t s by major community type and designation of community type.) Depending on the c r ite r io n used* the number of public school d is t r ic t s reported fo r Michigan may vary. For example, some d is t r ic t s may not be o f f i c i a l l y c la s s ifie d as school d is tr ic t s because they do not contain a ll grades K-12. In a recent study, U p s itz (1982) reported as many as 35 varying configurations of possible grades included 1n a middle school. A s im ila r pattern also ch aracterizes elementary schools 1n Michigan. Combinations of grades noted 1n the responses Included several schools containing a l l grades, kindergarten to 12 (K-12), housed 1n one b u ild ­ ing; a t the other extreme were schools w ith only one or two grades per building. I t was expedient to code data fo r the present study 1n such a way th a t 1 t would be rep resen tative of most school populations 1n Michigan. To th is end* a ll elementary schools were categorized In to three c lu s te rs th a t embraced most of the possible combinations of grades K-6 as follo w s: kindergarten through grade 2 , grade 3 through grade 5* and grade 6 through grade 8. Each p rin cipal respondent 113 reported on a c h e c k lis t a ll the grades contained In h is /h e r school bu ilding, and the to ta l number of students 1n a l l of the grades designated by th is In v e s tig a tio n as elementary grades: K, 1, 2 , 3 , 4, 5 , and 6, or any combination th ereo f. A ll respondents reported t h e ir grade configurations. N inety- six percent contained grades K, 1, and 2; 98.9% contained grades 3 , 4, and 5; and a l i t t l e over h a lf, or 56% of the schools, reported a sixth grade. The most common grouping of grades w ith in the ty p ic a l Michigan elementary school surveyed appeared to be K-5. Responses to .th e Ma.1or Research Questions Research Question 1: What 1s the representative le v e l of In te g ra tio n of microcomputers dedicated to educational usage In a sample of Michigan public elementary schools? In the 361 elementary schools surveyed, the to ta l number of computers dedicated to student educational uses was 2,749. Table 4 presents the spread of the data across the 361 schools re p o rtin g . Table 4 .— Number of educationally dedicated microcomputers fo r student use a t 361 Michigan elementary school s ite s . Community Type Mean Rural Suburban Urban A ll schools Median Mode Number o f Micros 6 .6 9.7 6.3 5 8 5 5 6 2 829 1,256 664 7.6 6 6 2,749 114 In a recent survey of 2,337 U.S. schools, January to June 1985, Becker (1n Chlon-Kenney, 1985b) discovered th a t those elementary schools now have, on average, a t le a s t fiv e microcomputers. Across community types 1n Michigan 1 t appears, then, th a t Michigan elementary schools with an average of almost e ig h t microcomputers per school have achieved a higher a c q u is itio n level than the national estim ate of fiv e per school. Ten schools, or 3.5% of the 361 schools reporting (4 ru ra l, 2 suburban, and 4 urban), reported no computers a t th e ir school s ite . Becker found th a t n a tio n a lly 12% of K-12 schools had no computers, and another 6% had only one computer. To determine fu rth e r the level of In te g ra tio n of the computers In to the In s tru c tio n a l program of schools, the question was asked: "What 1s the r a tio of students to educationally dedicated computers 1n your school?" Table 5 portrays a purely mathematical r a tio obtained by divid in g th e to ta l student population by the number of computers a v a il­ able. That 1s, under optimum conditions of use and access, how many students to one computer would th e re be? I t 1s Im portant to note th a t p rin c ip a ls sometimes q u a lifie d th e ir r a tio fo r reasons such as "Kinder­ garteners do not use computers, which reduces the ra tio " ; or 'The computers are used only by Chapter I students, not by a ll students." However, fo r purposes of th is study, the number of computers a t a s ite and the to ta l number of p o te n tia l student users was set as the c r it e ­ rion. Which students a c tu a lly used computers 1s discussed elsewhere 1n the study. 115 Table 5 . — Approximate r a tio of students to one computer In a sample of Michigan public elementary schools. Community Type Mean Median Mode Rural Suburban Urban 76 53 118 55 44 79 50 25 0 80 50 50 A ll schools What th a t r a tio In d ic a te s fo r student users 1s not c le a r u n til th e a d d itio n al fa c to rs of use-t1me and access to computers are ascer­ tained. I f average class sizes range from 25 to 35 students* fo r example* a school w ith 325 students and four computers would be exceed­ in g ly challenged to schedule students and teachers fo r both maximum tim e and q u a lity usage. A second major research question asked: Research Question 2: What can be described as the le v e l of In s tru c tio n a l computing access and p a rtic ip a tio n opportunities fo r students across grades? Responses to the f i r s t research question Illu m in ate d two areas of In te re s t: f i r s t * the degree of success with local e ffo r ts to acquire computers; and second* a count of actual numbers of computers located In a sample of Michigan public elementary schools. Question 2 focused on who uses computers and how they are made a v a ila b le to a ll* or most* students. Inform ation. The survey posed several questions to re trie v e th is F ir s t the survey asked how many grades were 1n the school* and of those grades* how many were exposed to educational 116 computing and, beyond th a t, any planned In s tru c tio n . In a d d itio n , p rin c ip a ls were asked to rep o rt 1f a ll sections of the same grade received s im ila r tim e allotm ents. Only those schools th a t offered planned In stru c tio n fo r students responded to th is series of questions. (See Table 6 .) Table 6 . — Numbers and percentages of schools, by community type, reporting planned In s tru c tio n across grades (rounded to nearest percentage). Grade K-2 3-5 6-9 Possible responses Suburban A ll Rural Urban 183 a of 271=68% 262 of 271=97% 134 of 271=49% 52/87=60% 84/87=97% 50/87=57% 82/108=76% 104/108=96% 43/108=40% 47/76-62% 74/76=97% 41/76=54% 361 126 129 106 aF1rst number 1n each column In dicates actual responses. I t appears th a t 68% of a ll schools reporting assured equal tim e and In s tru c tio n across sections of the same grade. This fa c t 1s s ig n ific a n t 1n thinking about equity of use and access, as w ell as content, and Indicates a local a tte n tio n to providing equal opportunity (Lautenberg, 1984). Another In d ic a to r of a school's commitment to providing stu­ dents with access and p a rtic ip a tio n o p portunities w ith microcomputers 1s the percentage of tim e during th e school day micros are a v a ila b le fo r use. Table 7 h ig h lig h ts the responses to the question: "What 117 percent of the tim e , do you estim ate, a ll your computers are used In s tru c tio n a lly during the school day?” Only 38% of the schools used t h e ir computers a t le a s t h a lf of the a v a ila b le tim e during the regular school day. N1nety-s1x percent of the ru r a l, suburban, and urban schools responded to the question. Table 7 . — Percentage of tim e computers are 1n use during school day (rounded to nearest percentage). A ll Percent of Time Used 0-25% 26-50 51-75 76-100 Note: Rural Suburban Urban N % 39 24 15 23 38% 24 15 23 N % N % N % 141 71 67 67 41% 21 19 19 60 17 24 18 51% 14 20 15 42 30 28 26 33% 24 22 21 N = number of schools reporting 1n each category. Because some computers were dedicated to special uses and special groups, 1 t was Im portant to In q u ire about the use of computers fo r general education students or a ll students. To the question "What percentage of your students use a computer approximately once a week?" respondents had the opportunity to express student use and access tim e 1n y e t another fashion. Table 8 In d ic a te s, In a general way, a sense of how much tim e 1s meant by use-tim e. 118 Table 8 .— Time a llo tte d to student use of computers each week. Time A llo tte d Each Week fo r Computing Number of Students and Percent of A ll Students Offered Computing Weekly 15 minutes but less than a h a lf hour per week 105 of 361 schools provided 50% of t h e ir students th is amount of In s tru c tio n a l computing tim e 30 minutes but less than one hour per week 62 of 361 schools reported o ffe rin g 50% of students th is amount of In s tru c tio n a l time One hour or more per week 14 of 361 schools reported providing 50% or more of t h e ir students th is amount of comput­ ing tim e The data presented 1n Table 8 In d ic a te only a sampling from an array of varied responses across the spectrum of possible configura­ tions. For example* some of the schools reported having only a few computers and providing them only fo r the " f i f t h grade a ll year." More than one p rin cipal reported assigning each classroom a l l the a v a ila b le computers fo r two weeks out of the school year. "In s tru c tio n a l comput­ ing tim e 1s done on a rationed basis* so a l l get some use and e xp eri­ ence." That 357 of 361 schools responded to th is question evidenced d e lib e ra te decision making about how* and to whom* In s tru c tio n a l com­ puting tim e was being allocated. The question "Are students 1n any of the fo llo w in g categories provided computing time?" allowed respondents to Id e n tify a c t iv it ie s fo r s p e c ia lly designated student groups, such as g ifte d and ta le n te d , 119 Chapter I students* special education students, or others. The re s u lts , as Indicated 1n Table 9, reveal th a t special groups o f stu­ dents were served. I t 1s Im portant to r e ite r a te th a t c e rta in computers 1n some schools were purchased w ith monies th a t re s tric te d t h e ir use s p e c ific a lly to these groups. Table 9 .— Number and percentage of schools, by community type, provid­ ing In s tru c tio n a l computing time to groups e ith e r as part of the general education curriculum or 1n addition to 1 t. Community Type G ifted and Talented Special Educ. Chapter I Other N % N % N % N % A11 schools 303/361=84% 170 56% 200 66% 193 64% 31 9% Rural 100/126=79% 51 52 63 63 73 73 9 9 Suburban 111/129=86% 68 61 84 76 60 54 8 7 Urban 91/106=86% 49 53 52 57 58 65 14 15 Related to access and use fo r students 1s a topic of frequent discussion 1n the re la te d lit e r a t u r e , the Issue of where microcomputers are located. Becker (1984a) observed th a t there are not enough com­ puters 1n most schools to help draw d is tin c tio n s between "best” loca­ tio n s or best groupings fo r a v a ila b le machines. In Michigan elementary schools surveyed, more than one p a rtic u la r s e ttin g was advantageous. 120 S tra te g ie s to po sition micros fo r maximum use and supervision were frequently reported 1n w ritte n commentaries. c a rts fo r m o b ility was a popular option. computers are reported 1n Table 10. Placing computers on The preferred locations of In the schools reporting# over h a lf (55%) housed th e ir computers 1n more than one lo ca tio n . Table 1 0 .— Placement of micros and term inals 1n elementary schools. A ll Schools Rural Suburban Urban Placement N % N % N % N % Reporti ng: 337 93% 120 95% 122 95% 95 90% Classrooms Carts Media centers Labs Other 219 175 99 91 29 65 52 29 27 9 81 66 40 31 3 66 5A 33 25 3 49 47 27 29 14 52 45 28 31 15 89 64 32 31 12 74 53 27 26 10 The th ir d major research question was: Research Question 3 : What educational applications of micro­ computers are most generally present fo r students? To provide an overview of educational applications# a general question 1n the survey Inquired: "Are computers used to teach In stru c ­ tio n a l o b jectives 1n several c u rric u la r/In s tru c tio n a l areas?" Table 11 suggests th a t 1n the 90% of schools reporting# a t le a s t 60% of them use computers to teach In s tru c tio n a l objectives 1n more than one content area. 121 Table 11.— Number and percentage of schools# by community type# reporting yes or no to th e use of computers to In s tru c t 1n several c u rric u la r areas (rounded to nearest percentage). Responding Yes No Community Type N A ll schools Rural Suburban Urban 328 113 121 94 % 91 90 94 89 N 209 69 84 57 % 64 61 69 61 N 119 44 37 37 % 36 39 31 39 The recent movement toward In te g ra tin g computing In to the curriculum followed an I n i t i a l th re e -y e a r th ru s t by many local schools to acquire computers and softw are (Association fo r Supervision & Cur­ riculum Development [ASCD], 1985). 'The highly structured and b rie f access to the computer th a t students and teachers commonly have c le a rly c u r ta ils or prevents the most promising applications.'' Becker (1n Ch1on-Kenney» 1985b) reported th a t researchers have had l i t t l e tim e to develop an In te lle c tu a l or em pirical ra tio n a le fo r the educational value of computers. Moursund (1984e) admonished educators to tr y to understand how computers "In te rfa c e " and a ffe c t the 3 R's. "The greater a v a ila b ilit y of computers a c tu a lly tends to broaden the scope and nature of each of the Basics and places an additional burden on the educational system" (p. 4 ). In s p ite of Inconclusive evidence regarding student computer use and the re s u ltin g effects# local e ffo r ts evidence a movement toward expansion of ap p licatio n s across the curriculum . T h 1rty-f1ve school 122 p rin c ip a ls took tim e to comment th a t t h e ir fa c u ltie s were In it ia t in g an In s tru c tio n a l plan 1n e a rly 1985; th is was 1n addition to 169 of 324 reporting schools th a t noted an In s tru c tio n a l plan 1n place. An extensive c h e c k lis t was provided so th a t p rin c ip a ls could note the various student educational uses of the a v a ila b le computers. A column was also Included fo r p rin cip a ls to 11st other uses not men­ tioned 1n the survey. The "other" column was used less than 2%. N in ety-fo u r percent of the responding p rin cip a ls marked m u ltip le cate­ gories fo r a to ta l of 2,228 re p lie s . (See Table 12.) Table 12.— Percentage of schools o ffe rin g students educational computing op portunities 1n various content areas (response ra te = 94%). Content Area Mathematics D r i ll Reading Language a rts T u to ria l BASIC language Problem solving Social studies Word processing Simulations LOGO language Science Decision making Mus1c/art L 1 b ra ry /re f. re trie v a l Other programming lang. Other educational uses A ll Schools (N=340) Rural ( N=119) Suburban (N=126) Urban (N=95) 91.2% 79.7 77.1 64.4 61.5 46.5 43.5 39.7 37.4 34.4 30.0 24.7 23.2 7.1 6.5 3 .5 1.8 93.3% 79.0 71.4 63.9 58.0 49.6 38.7 46.2 37.0 3 5.0 28.6 25.2 24.4 9 .2 2.5 6.7 3 .4 89.7% 84.9 79.4 77.8 66.7 46.0 46.8 42.1 45.2 39.7 34.9 28.6 21.4 7.1 8.7 1.6 1.6 89.5% 72.6 80.0 46.3 58.9 43.3 45.3 27.4 28.4 27.4 25.3 18.9 24.2 7.3 8.4 2.1 0.0 123 P rin c ip a ls were not provided an opportunity to separately check "computer lite r a c y " or "awareness" as an applicatio n . One prin cip al wrote 1t 1n. Although 1 t 1s apparent th a t the major uses of computers 1n elementary school continue to r e la te to content areas where d r i l l and practice can be used, such as reading and mathematics (Becker, 1984a), the trend toward applications such as word processing fo r language a rts , fo r example (Moursund, 1984e), are d isc e rn ib le 1n the data reported by p rin c ip a ls . These emerging trends caused one expert, quoted 1n ASCD Update (ASCD, 1985) to speculate th a t educational technology 1n schools might advance 1n s p ite of In s u ffic ie n t funds because people are too Invested 1n it s p o te n tia l" (p. 8) to relinq uish or shelve 1t» so e a rly 1n It s development. The ap p licatio n s of computers 1n In s tru c tio n a l areas demand adequate teacher proficiency with the machine and a knowledge of appropriate software, not to mention tim e and m otivation fo r the needed e ffo rts . Providing In s tru c tio n a l uses fo r students cannot be separated from those who are responsible fo r d e livery of In s tru c tio n . That ro le , 1n the elementary school, 1s most often f u l f i l l e d by the classroom teacher. Related li t e r a t u r e and studies have shown th a t others f r e ­ quently assume or support th is ro le , such as a teacher "b u ff," who might help both teachers and students, a media s p e c ia lis t, a paid or volunteer aide, a v is it in g consultant, or the p rin c ip a l. 124 But# In most cases# classroom teachers are responsible fo r teaching the Intended curriculum (Becker# 1984a). Assuming th is 1s tru e , 1t 1s Im portant to ascertain ju s t how teachers gain the approp­ r ia te computing technology. The survey Inquired# "For teaching w ith and about computers, what percentage of your In s tru c tio n a l s t a ff do you perceive as somewhat q u a lifie d or highly q u a lifie d ? " A ll p rin c ip a ls reporting perceived th a t about two-th1rds of th e ir teachers could teach the expected computer s p e c ific s prescribed fo r students 1n t h e ir school. (See Table 13.) The survey did not seek to discover how many teachers a c tu a lly did so# or how constrained those e ffo r ts were because of Inadequate numbers of computers or software# or the provision of minimal computing tim e. Table 1 3 .— P rin c ip a ls ' perceptions of teachers' q u a lific a tio n s to teach the schools' s p e c ifie d computing c u rric u la . A ll Schools Schools replying % of teachers perceived to be highly or some­ what q u al1fled Suburban Rural Urban N % N % N % N % 314 87% 117 93% 112 87% 85 80% 68 74 63 P rin c ip a ls acknowledged the ro le of the computer b u ff or enthusiast 1n generating local student and teacher Involvement 1n school computing a c t iv it ie s . Almost two-th1rds of the schools 68 125 Id e n tifie d such a person. Table 14 shows answers to the question: "Is there a bu ilding expert* e ith e r c e r t if ie d or n o n c e rtifie d , who volun­ teers or 1s paid to a s s is t teachers* s ta ff* or students w ith In stru c ­ tio n a l computing?" Table 1 4 .— Schools reporting the presence of an on-s1te computer enthusiast. Schools Reporting Community Type A ll schools Rural Suburban Urban N % 354 123 127 104 98% 98 98 98 Yes No 65% 60 74 61 35% 40 26 39 Another question re la te d to educational usage asked: "When students fo rm ally learn about the computer* are learning outcomes measured and/or recorded?" I f such a process 1s acknowledged* 1t tends to strengthen the local emphasis on student learning with computers. Only a few schools reported measuring such outcomes on a regular basis. (See Table 15.) Some teachers Interview ed fo r th is study said th a t a t present recording data and diagnosing student progress v ia the computer, using computer-managed In s tru c tio n , 1s time-consuming beyond I t s value 1n the pressing p r io r it ie s of an elementary classroom. Outcomes th a t do tend to get measured are the progress students make w ith Is o la te d concepts 126 1n reading or mathematics. The progress students make w h ile working In te ra c tiv e ly with computer courseware 1s d i f f i c u l t to measure 1n group settings. But experts say th a t more diagnostic and p re s c rip tiv e pro- gram software Is in the o ffin g (ASCD, 1985). Table 15.— Schools reporting learning outcomes fo r computing. Schools Reporting Community Type A ll schools Rural Suburban Urban N % 336 114 126 96 93% 90 98 91 Yes No Sometimes 16% 13 15 24 50% 54 50 46 34% 33 35 30 The fourth major research question concerned p o licy decisions and program Implementation: Research Question 4 ; What local policy decisions are being developed or are 1n place to assure students In s tru c tio n a l com­ puting (or technology) opportunities? Several of the "related" research questions lis t e d 1n Chapter I I I r e la te to both policy decisions and the Implementation of In struc­ tio n a l programs. In ad d itio n to s p e c ific policy Issues, th is subsec­ tio n contains those responses th a t r e la te both to local In s titu tio n a l mission and In s tru c tio n a l focus. Cory (1984) pointed out th a t 1f a d i s t r ic t has made a commit­ ment to the Implementation of In s tru c tio n a l computing, It s po licy decision w i ll be evidenced 1n It s long-range plans. Ninety percent of 127 a ll schools responded to the question: developed I t s own long-range plan?" "Has your d i s t r ic t or school Table 16 shows th a t* on average* h a lf the reporting schools were Involved In long-range planning. Table 16.— Percentage of schools* by community type* c itin g a longrange plan fo r In s tru c tio n a l computing (N = a ll schools re p o rtin g , 3 2 4 /3 6 1 ). A ll Schools Rural Suburban Urban 52.2% 47.8 38.7% 61.3 63.9% 36.1 52.0% 48.0 Yes No When a school board commits to long-range planning fo r In stru c ­ tio n a l computing, t h e ir p o lic ie s would be directed toward hardware a c q u is itio n , maintenance of technological equipment* procurement of software* and ongoing plans fo r teacher tra in in g and technological updating (Cory* 1984). Table 17 shows responses to the question: "Is there a d is t r ic t - le v e l commitment to ongoing purchases or fin a n c ia l support fo r hardware, maintenance, softw are, s t a ff and technological updating? (Please check a ll th a t apply)?" Some p rin cip a ls commented th a t although t h e ir d is t r ic t s had made a philosophical and o f f ic i a l commitment* the school board or adm inistratio n had not* 1n fa c t* pro­ vided fin a n c ia l support. A number of schools, fo r example* had proceeded In d iv id u a lly to provide machines and estab lish a local curriculum . A commitment of over 75% 1n most categories of fin a n c ia l support was reported. 128 Table 17.— D is tr ic t-le v e l commitment to funding p o lic ie s . % of response Hardware Maintenance Software S ta ff and tech. updating A ll Schools Rural Suburban Urban 92% 78 81 84 76 99% 82 77 91 73 85% 83 86 87 79 89% 67 78 71 75 With a 96% ra te across community types* p rin cip a ls perceived the various le v e ls of enthusiasm fo r In s tru c tio n a l computing 1n t h e ir schools. "Enthusiasm" was believed by the experts responding to the study’ s op1n1onna1re to be a c r it ic a l fa c to r 1n program Implementation and one contrib u tin g In f lu e n t ia lly to policy decisions. P rin c ip a ls were asked to Id e n tify sources of enthusiasm from the follow ing groups: d is t r ic t - le v e l personnel, teachers, parents, and students. Table 18 In dicates the various groups' enthusiasm fo r school-based In s tru c tio n a l computing, as perceived by the responding p rin c ip a ls . Enthusiasm across subsets of the school community appeared to be on the high side. I f a d is t r ic t commits to employing a computer consultant, a major policy decision has been put 1n motion, one th a t could fo s te r the fu tu re In te g ra tio n and Implementation of In s tru c tio n a l computing across the curriculum . tio n : Table 19 shows the p rin c ip a ls ' responses to the ques­ "Is there a d is t r ic t computer consultant?" 129 Table 18.— P rin c ip a ls ' perceptions of le v e l of enthusiasm fo r In stru c tio n a l computing evidenced by various subsets of the school community. Community Type Yes No D on't Know D is tric t-L e v e l Personnel A ll schools Rural Suburban Urban 84% 89 88 73 4% 3 4 5 12% 8 8 22 Teachers A ll schools Rural Suburban Urban 77 80 82 68 12 10 10 18 11 10 8 14 80 75 85 81 2 3 1 2 18 22 14 17 84 89 88 73 4 3 4 5 12 8 8 22 Parents All schools Rural Suburban Urban Students A ll schools Rural Suburban Urban 130 Table 19.— Michigan elementary schools surveyed th a t reported having a d i s t r ic t computing consultant. Community Type Total Responses: Reporting Schools Total "Yes" Responses: Schools With Consultant 353 124 126 103 146 27 55 64 A ll schools Rural Suburban Urban I t 1s im portant to remind readers th a t the present study may include more than one school In a d is t r ic t . Forty-one percent of a ll Michigan elementary schools reported a d is t r ic t consultant. Becker's (in Chlon-Kenney, 1985b) recent national survey of 2,336 public and nonpublic schools estim ated th a t perhaps 1 in 20 <5%) schools has retained a consultant. The mere presence of a d is t r ic t computing consultant does not guarantee an In s tru c tio n a l ro le . P olicy may d ic ta te an a c q u is itio n , evalu atio n , or maintenance ro le ; a staff-developm ent assignment; or r e s p o n s ib ilitie s as an It in e r a n t consultant fo r a ll school students and s ta ff . Several schools assigned a consultant only p art tim e to com­ p le te the assigned tasks. Of the 146 schools reporting a d i s t r ic t computing consultant, 33% of ru ra l, 23% of suburban, and 39% of urban elementary schools reported no on-s1te or d ire c t assistance from th e ir computing consultants. Funding fo r In s tru c tio n a l computing programs 1s acknowledged as a major policy consideration fo r both the local school and the 131 d is t r ic t . Adoption of an Innovation demands resources. In the public sector* a policy decision usually e n ta ils d iv e rtin g fix e d resources. Public schools 1n Michigan are no exception to th is r e a lit y . Some schools or d is t r ic t s are fin a n c ia lly strapped* others are not; some may have the fin a n c ia l means to Incorporate the technology but are cautious and reserved 1n th e ir actions. As a re s u lt* microcomputers 1n elementary schools have been acquired by a v a rie ty of means* both tra d itio n a l and entrepren eu rial* depending on the presence, absence* or strength of d is t r ic t policy. The elementary schools surveyed In it ia t e d th e ir computer programs sometimes with the d ire c t support of d is t r ic t funding and action plans. But schools also In it ia t e d programs "in s p ite of" d i s t r ic t p o lic ie s th a t focused on I n i t i a l Implementations a t other grade le v e ls or because of other p r io r it ie s or exigencies. Schools were requested to respond to the fo llo w in g survey question only 1f anv of t h e ir funds fo r developing the In stru c tio n a l computing programs were secured other than through t h e ir local school or d is t r ic t regular funding channels: "Does your building receive any com puter-related fin a n c ia l assistance from: (Please check any th a t apply)?" Of a possible 361 responses to th is special-funding 1nqu1 ry* 264 schools, or 73%, responded. resources used. Table 20 reviews major funding Some schools reported n eith er regular school funding nor external governmental funding fo r In s tru c tio n a l computing* but those were few 1n number. One school, fo r example* held a special one-tim e m llla g e fo r In s tru c tio n a l technology. Another mentioned a 132 one-tim e parent fu n d -ra is in g e f f o r t through which 1 t acquired six computers. Five computers In an urban school were purchased w ith proceeds from a submarlne-sandwlch sale. One school’s only computer had been donated by a local grocer who saved la b e ls. Parent and commu­ n ity organizations were found to be s ig n ific a n tly help ful 1n terms of te c h n o lo g ica l acquisitions. Table 2 0 .— Funding sources fo r educational-com puting-related expenditures representing d o lla rs beyond local school or d i s t r ic t a llo c a tio n s . A ll Schools Rural Suburban Urban Resource N Percent of those reportlng Chapter I Chapter I I P art B of Educ. Handicapped Act Community groups/ businesses PTA/parent orgs. Other % N N % 77% 73% % N % 67% 74% 116 108 44 42 44 54 45 58 32 38 33 40 40 16 56 22 14 5 3 3 8 8 2 4 95 24 76 36 9 29 38 3 24 39 3 25 42 9 34 kk 9 15 12 18 21 17 25 35 P olicy considerations also Include a d m in is tra tiv e decisions Implemented to update the tra in in g of teachers 1n com puter-related areas. P rin c ip a ls were asked to report on the various areas of d i s t r ic t -sponsored or funded 1nserv1ce tra in in g . To provide useful answers* the question was posed to help categorize types of tra in in g . Listed* 1n order of frequency reported* were: Introduction to 133 Computing. In s tru c tio n a l A pplications of Microcomputing, Evaluating In s tru c tio n a l Software, Classroom Computer-Managed In s tru c tio n , and Programming Languages. The frequency w ith which s p e c ific courses were offered Indicated which tra in in g categories were perceived by d is t r ic t adm inistration as most to le a s t crucial fo r a ll teachers. Of the 361 schools, 77% or 278 reported th a t 67% of t h e ir fa c u lty had p a rtic ip a te d 1n Introduction to Computing in service ses­ sions; 141 of those schools declared th a t 100% of t h e ir s ta ffs had been trained. Inservices on In s tru c tio n a l A pplications of Micros were reported by 178 schools, but only 62 of the schools provided the t r a in ­ ing fo r 90% or more of the s ta ff. Inservices on Evaluating Software were offered by 168 schools, with only 40 schools providing 1 t fo r 90% or more of the s ta ff. S ta ff tra in in g was o ffe red 1n Classroom-Managed Microcomputer In s tru c tio n by 146 schools, but only 39 schools reported reaching 90% or more of the s ta ff. While 120 schools reported o ffe rin g s t a f f tra in in g 1n Programming Languages, only nine s ite s Included 90% or more of the s ta ff. D is t r ic t Involvement 1n the support of 1nserv1ce tra in in g 1s a policy In d ic a to r. I t portrays the emphasis on student learn in g through teacher preparation and on a planned In te g ra tio n of computing through­ out the K-12 curriculum . I t 1s Im portant to note, as discussed 1n the Review of L ite ra tu re , th a t some schools, because of lack of d is t r ic t funds or unfocused d i s t r ic t leadership or because of a desire to get s ta rte d , have In it ia t e d t h e ir own 1nserv1ce tra in in g . One school 134 principal# fo r example# ensured th a t a ll teachers would be train e d by the resident "expert" computing teacher. Questions may be raised about how many teachers need computer tra in in g and ju s t what tra in in g 1s determined to be appropriate or s u ffic ie n t (Luehrmann# 1984; Moursund# 1984-85). Discussion aside# I t appears from the sampling th a t most school d is t r ic t s in Michigan believed Introduction to Computing was an e s sen tial course fo r teach­ ers. Also# more than h a lf the elementary schools surveyed offered several courses to a t le a s t some s t a f f members. To determine how fir m ly entrenched was th e d is t r ic t policy to provide In s tru c tio n a l computing fo r students# the fo llo w in g question provided y e t another way to gather evidence: "Is th e re an expectation by middle or ju n io r high school s t a f f th a t your students w ill have achieved a sp ecified range of in s tru c tio n a l computing experiences?" Table 21 shows that# as yet# only 36% of middle school s ta ffs expect students to a r riv e with s p e c ifie d computing s k i l l s . Table 2 1 .— Middle school expectation th a t a rriv in g elementary students have achieved a sp e c ifie d level of computer understanding (rounded to nearest percentage). Yes No A ll Schools Rural 36 % 32% 68% 64% Suburban 48% 52% Urban 25% 75% 135 An a n c illa ry question asked I f d is t r ic t p o lic ie s Included decisions to use computers a d m in is tra tiv e ly or fo r computer-managed In s tru c tio n . N inety-four percent of the surveyed schools responded* and 40% affirm ed such uses. About o n e-f1 fth of a ll schools used microcomputers fo r computer-managed In s tru c tio n . (See Table 2 2 .) Table 2 2 .— Percentage of 361 schools using micros fo r adm inistration and computer-managed In s tru c tio n . Community Type A dm inistrative Uses % Yes Computer-Managed In s tru c t. % Yes 22% 39 28 8% 19 28 Rural Suburban Urban Funding fo r the accumulation of software to match c u rric u la r needs 1s another Im portant policy decision. I f a d is t r ic t purchases hardware but not software* there 1s an absence of understanding about the scope of the commitment necessary to undertake an In s tru c tio n a l computing program a t a ll. On the survey form* many p rin c ip a ls noted th a t Im portant sources fo r software ac q u is itio n were parent* teacher, and/or student fu n d -ra isin g a c t iv it ie s . P rin c ip a ls were asked to report generally the number of pieces of educational softw are a v a ila b le . (See Table 23.) Nine schools reported no software, and 131 schools reported having 50 or more softw are packages. Two hundred schools reported more than one but fewer than 50 pieces. 136 Table 2 3 .— Elementary schools reporting number of pieces of In stru c ­ tio n a l software a t the school s it e (N = 351 of 361 schools) (rounded to nearest percentage). A ll Schools Pieces of Software N 0 1-25 26-49 50+ Don't know 9 104 96 131 11 % 3% 30 27 37 3 Rural N 2 43 38 36 1 Suburban % 2% 36 31 30 1 N 0 29 32 62 6 % 0% 22 25 48 5 Urban N 7 34 25 33 4 % 7% 33 24 32 4 A March 11 le t t e r to the S tate of Michigan Board of Education from the U n iversity of Michigan-Based Training Models fo r Trainers (TMT) p ro jec t (1985) reported re s u lts of a statew ide survey to ascertain what softw are was being used. The survey achieved a t th a t date only a 12% response ra te and was unable to Id e n tify numbers of pieces or s p e c ific usages. Two policy questions 1n the present study related to a school's external lia is o n s ; th a t 1s, those th a t might strengthen programs 1n educational computing by the pooling of resources or the sharing of Inform ation. These re la te d to assistance from the sta te 's In term ediate school d is t r ic t s (ISD's) or through formal or Informal networking w ith other schools or agencies. To fin d out about the technical or resource assistance a v a il­ able from ISD's, the fo llo w in g question was asked: "Is there an ISD computer consultant re g u la rly a v a ila b le to teachers?" Rural and urban 137 schools reported th a t only about one-fourth of t h e ir schools had access to an ISD consultant. (See T a b le 24.) Table 2 4 .— Elementary schools reporting access to an ISD consultant. Schools Reporting Community Type N A ll schools Rural Suburban Urban Yes No 32% 24 43 27 69% 76 57 78 % 337 122 121 94 93% 97 94 87 The fin a l p o lic y -re la te d question concerned a school's outreach to help and/or receive help w ith In s tru c tio n a l computing from other sources: "Other than In term ed iate School D is tric ts * 1s your school networking or sharing resources to enhance educational computing?" N1nety-e1ght percent of 361 possible schools responded. (See Table 2 5 .) Table 2 5 .— Percentage of schools networking educational computing resources. Community Type All schools reporting Rural Suburban Urban N Yes No 353 124 125 104 30% 19 40 31 70% 81 60 69 138 Although networking to share scarce resources was noted as an Im portant engagement fo r p u b lic schools (Elchner, 1984), 1 t has not yet been heavily used as a means of extending lo cal resources. Especially does th is appear to be tru e 1n ru ral s e ttin g s , where only 19% of schools reported developing such linkages. In summary, the data c o lle c te d 1n the statew ide survey do provide a ffirm a tio n fo r th e range of a c q u is itio n s and a c t iv it y present across a ll community types and also fo r a prevalent concern fo r doing something with educational computing deemed appropriate a t the elemen­ ta ry le v e l. Evidence of th is In te r e s t was provided by a w ritte n request from almost 80% o f th e p a rtic ip a tin g p rin c ip a ls fo r a summary of th is portion of the study. Also, about 50% of the returns contained v o lu n ta rily contributed explanatory w ritte n responses th a t p rin cip a ls appended to the q u a n tita tiv e survey data. One a n c illa ry question, Number 18, which deals with on-s1te c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t appear to f a c i l i t a t e a high access/high use microcomputing opportunity fo r most students, Is discussed In the context of the s ix s ite v is ita tio n s . Results are b r ie fly synthesized In Table 27 1n th a t subsection. Six S ite V is ita tio n s Conducted a fte r the statew ide survey and as a re s u lt of evalu­ ating those returns (see Chapter I I I fo r description of procedures), six schools were selected fo r study, two from each community type: ru ra l, suburban, and urban. I t was a n tic ip a te d th a t descriptions through In terview s with teachers, the p rin c ip a l, and a d is t r ic t 139 computing consultant or d is t r ic t adm inistrator might enrich aspects of the q u ite s p e c ific and Impersonal q u a n tifie d survey data. A fte r the data from the 361 contrib u tin g school p rin c ip a ls were analyzed# a method was devised to fin d schools th a t appeared to provide fo r a high degree of access and p a rtic ip a tio n opportunities fo r most students. First# a ll schools were ranked w ith in th e ir community type by the number of computers# on average# they had dedicated to In s tru c ­ tio n a l use of a ll students. c r ite ria # The schools were then evaluated by several described 1n Chapter I I I . A few examples Include: I f com­ puters were used most of the a v a ila b le tim e during the school day; 1f most grades and groups were afforded planned In s tru c tio n a l tim e; and 1f most students p a rtic ip a te d 1n computing education more than 15 minutes per week# these would be In dicators of a s ta ff's In ten tio n to provide a higher degree of computing opportunities. Tw en ty-five percent of a ll schools 1n each community type reporting the greatest number of computers 1n proportion to the student population were Id e n tifie d # for purposes of th is study# as hlghava1lab1l1ty schools; the middle 50%# m o d e ra te -a v a lla b ility schools; and the lower 25%# low -ava1lab1l1ty schools. A fte r arranging the schools by the a v a ila b ilit y ranking# a v a rie ty of use c r it e r i a were applied. For example# some schools might rep o rt one computer fo r every 25 students# which might In d ic a te approximately one fo r every class­ room# but when the other data were considered# 1t was discovered th a t the computers were Id le 75% of the tim e. These schools would not q u a lify as h1gh-ava1labil1ty/h1gh-use schools. For purposes of th is 140 study* schools were selected fo r v is ita tio n where machines and In s tru c ­ tio n a l uses seemed to Involve most of the students during most of the a v a ila b le school time. D escriptions of a c t iv it ie s a t these s ite s * 1t seemed* might reveal promising practices. Grouped by community type* Table 26 shows a range of high, moderate* and low computer a v a ila b ilit y . Such a method 1s one way of estab lish in g an estimated range of computer a v a ila b ilit y fo r students 1n Michigan elementary schools. While the fig u re s have lim ite d value, many national data sources re ly on s im ila r methods to Inform the public about student/computer ra tio s across states. Over tim e, the method provides a means to demonstrate annual progress. Market Data R etrieval (1984), fo r example, estim ated th a t across s ta te s there was one computer for every 92.5 students 1n a l l suburban schools. Table 2 6 .— A v a ila b ility of computers fo r a ll students when divided by number of microcomputers, using demarcations of 25/50/25% to group as high, moderate, and low a v a ila b ilit y (N = 361 school s ) . Computer A v a ila b ilit y Community Type Range Rural ( N=126) Suburban (N=129) Urban (N=106) Moderate High N 5—1/32—1a 31 19-1/29-1 32 7 -1 /4 4 -1 25 Range Low N 3 4 -1 /9 0 -1 64 3 0 -1 /7 2 -1 64 45-1/177-1 54 Range N 98-1/584-1 75-1/245-1 177-1/458-1 31 33 27 aTh1s denotes a range from 5 students fo r one computer to 32 students fo r one computer. 141 V ita l Inform ation about a v a ila b ilit y and use emerged When a p rin cip a l reported th a t the school's three computers fo r 300 students were not used because th e re were no com puter-proficient teachers. In the present study, th is urban school w ith a 100:1 r a tio would be placed 1n the m oderate-avallabU 1ty category. However, with the computers s it t in g Id le , the ranking would change to moderate a v a ila b 1 H ty /lo w use, 1n tr u th , no use because of no access. The present study focused on school settings and character­ is tic s th a t Indicated a w ell-im plem ented and Integrated microcomputer program. Such school s e ttin g s were discovered and described by researchers c ite d 1n Chapter I I , fo r example, Shelngold e t a l. (1983). The s ix schools selected fo r v is it a t io n and observation evidenced a p a rtic u la r resourcefulness and v i t a l i t y 1n In it ia t in g a s tu d e n t-In c lu s iv e and curriculu m -orien ted e ffo r t. In additio n , they displayed most of the c h a ra c te ris tic s described below as meeting th is study's basic c r it e r i a fo r fu rth e r study (see Chapter I I I fo r the d e riv a tio n of these c h a ra c te ris tic s ): 1. the presence of strong a d m in is tra tiv e leadership, p a rtic ip a tio n , and support; 2. basic funding; 3. adherence to needs and ongoing tra in in g of s t a f f ; 4. enthusiasm by leaders, s t a f f , and students; 5. a plan of action fo r In te g ra tin g computers In to the currlculurn; 142 6. the provision of appropriate and accessible settings and a v a ila b le tim es fo r use, 1n addition to an adequate number of computers and software to do the jo b ; 7. computer exp ertise w ith in the local or d is t r ic t s t a f f ; 8. school board commitment to the concept and funding; and 9. a broad range of v is ib le applications* with emphasis on appl1cat1ons. Through the process of sorting and s e le c tin g , the s ix schools emerged as In te re s tin g examples fo r an enriched discussion around the fin a l a n c illa ry research question: Research Question 18; In r e la tio n to In s tru c tio n a l computing op p o rtu n ities fo r students, are there distingu ishin g ch a rac te ris ­ tic s lo c a lly which appear to fo s te r a c lim a te of high access/ p a rtic ip a tio n o p p o rtu n itie s fo r most students? Several of these c h a ra c te ris tic s , when considered c o lle c tiv e ly , appeared to generate the force th a t lo c a lly supported and Implemented the Innovation of a new technology. In each of the s ix summaries, a few of these c h a ra c te ris tic s are described In the context of the school s e ttin g , with th e In te n tio n th a t a repository of useful Insights might evolve. A recent 1n-depth study undertaken to describe such school Im plementation and promising computer teaching practices 1s th a t of Shavelson e t a l . (1984). The framework fo r discussing each school s it e Includes a description o f: 143 1. The school s e ttin g or clim ate; 2. The status of the computing e f f o r t ; 3. 4. a. funding b. number of computers c. teacher 1nserv1ce d. student access and p a rtic ip a tio n e. range of applications f. o v e ra ll plan The context of the computing e f f o r t ; a. a d m in is tra tiv e leadership and Involvement b. assistance of an on-s1te computing expert c. examples of Involvement and enthusiasm d. school board commitment Summary and the perceived distinguishing c h a ra c te ris tic s of the educational computing program/process. A ll s ix p rin c ip a ls whose schools were v is ite d had responded to the statew ide computing survey of elementary schools. They were pleased to have t h e ir school be a study s ite and arranged fo r approp­ r ia t e tours and s t a f f re lease-t1 me. w ith a h a lf of one school day. Each v is ita tio n was accomplished I t Included observations and an In t e r ­ view w ith the p rin c ip a l* two teachers, and e ith e r a d is t r ic t computing coordinator or central o ffic e adm inistrator. For purposes of providing anonymity, the names of the schools have been changed. 144 Blue Barn Elementary School/ Rural S etting. Blue Barn Elementary, a consolidated school, 1s located w ith in a farming region. population of over 800. Forty teachers serve a K-4 student A middle school and high school adjoin. While the communities joined by consolidation are c h ie fly agrarian and low to middle Income, a substantial number of residents have t ie s w ith the un iversity community some 40 m iles d is ta n t. Funding. Funding fo r the computers follow ed the approval of a proposal submitted 1n Spring 1983 to the board and superintendent by a curriculum subcommittee composed of computer enthusiasts and spear­ headed by the p rin c ip a l. This grass-roots e f f o r t was In it ia t e d when resources were es p e cia lly scarce. The commitment was viewed lo c a lly as a major decision. Numbers of computers. Blue Barn has 12 computers and one computer fo r a d m in is tra tiv e use. The r a tio of students to computers 1s 68 to 1. Teacher 1nserv1ce. To prepare the teaching s t a f f , a general Introduction to Computing workshop was provided by a team from the ISD. The 1nserv1ce Implementation program Includes a requirement th a t fo r a t le a s t one year each teacher attend the computer laboratory weekly fo r one-half hour with h is /h e r class. That a c tiv ity consists of approp­ r ia t e In s tru c tio n and courseware review fo r both class and teacher. The lab experience 1s dlrected by an appointed computing consultant with the t i t l e of f u l l- t im e lab supervisor. Other stated goals fo r teachers Include special sessions to learn more about classroom 145 applications of software, v is it s to demonstration s ite s , and, u l t i ­ mately, tra in in g a core of teachers as helpers to other teachers. Access and p a rtic ip a tio n . The computers are 1n use nearly 100% of the school day, each student receiving a h alf-h o u r of curriculum re la te d computer tim e per week. Most of the a c t iv it y w ith computers revolves around the computer laboratory experiences; however, fiv e of the lab computers are on c a rts , which can be reserved fo r classroom use as w e ll. Range o f a p p lic a tio n s . a p p licatio n s of computers: Teachers reported using th e follow ing mathematics, reading, In te ra c tiv e f ic t io n , language a rts , t u t o r ia ls , d r i l l , problem solving, decision making, and s o d a ! studies. The computing consultant reported, "The th ru s t of computer education 1s to support In s tru c tio n ." Software and experi­ ences are focused on the theme: "The curriculum comes f i r s t . In addi­ tio n , teachers and students w i ll a tta in a le v e l of proficiency with the computer It s e lf ." The content area of science w ill soon be added to computer applications as the p rin cip al works toward a c o lla b o ra tiv e arrangement with a nearby u n iv ers ity to develop an e x p e rie n tia l K-4 science program. Plan. In 1984 a w ritte n program was Implemented w ith goals, o b jectives, tim e lin e s , and c u rric u lu m -re la te d s k ill strands fo r stu­ dents and desired outcomes across grades. The major goal was: "All students w ill become aware of computer applications and Im p lic a tio n s 1n the world around them and develop ski 11 s- necessary to communicate with 146 computers and recognize some of the computer's c a p a b ilitie s ." The K-4 program w ill eventually be w ritte n and extended to K-12. A dm inistrative leadership and Involvement. Teachers In te r ­ viewed cred ited the p rin cip a l with spearheading the aggressive plan to provide not only a computing program# which Included the aforementioned curriculum subcommittee# but also to obtain the services of a local computing expert. The expert 1s a resident who had previously volun­ teered tim e to help preview software# set up the laboratory# and tr a in both In terested students and teachers 1n the nuts and bolts of In stru c­ tio n a l computing. Based on th is s a tis fa c to ry volunteer arrangement# he was hired to supervise and coordinate the elementary program. The principal# as building leader# assures th a t teachers are always present w ith t h e ir class 1n the lab. I f teachers have previous computer training# they use lab tim e fo r previewing and evaluating new software fo r t h e ir classroom. The p rin cipal predicts th a t the elementary e f f o r t w i ll drive the Implementation of educational a c t iv it y a t both the middle and high school# esp ecially when computer-using elementary students m a tric u la te through the system. Computer expert Involvement. The computer e x p e rt/la b super­ v is o r presently previews and purchases a ll software# provides software for teachers to " f i t " the curriculum# and helps both students and teachers 1n the lab each week. He ju s t i f i e s his s p e c ifie d ro le with a b e lie f th a t teachers have " l i t t l e tim e fo r softw are preview" and th a t many teachers s t i l l need both tim e w ith computers and softw are In a 147 supportive environment to acclim ate themselves to using th e computer as a to o l fo r teaching. Each summer he provides four week-long computing sessions for students from a ll grades 1n the school system. h is t o r ic a lly . S1gn-ups exceed spaces# He hopes to q u a lify and be appointed the K-12 consultant. Examples of Involvement and enthusiasm. Teachers Interview ed were en thu siastic about t h e ir school and I t s po ten tial fo r Improving student achievement. Perhaps because of the K-4 context# more evidence was v is ib le and reported about In tervention s to assure both successful achievement and Improvement of self-concept of these very young c h lld re n . The teachers Interview ed had mixed fe e lin g s about the require­ ment to accompany t h e ir class to the computer lab. One who took sev­ eral courses a t a nearby college said# "I didn’t want to learn about t h is , or any other new thing from anyone else. I'd ra th e r teach 1 t to my colleagues than learn 1 t from them!11 She fe e ls knowledgeable enough to s e le c t softw are and manage classroom computer a c tiv it ie s . " I would p re fe r my own classroom computer.” One teacher# who was tra n s fe rrin g to another assignment# was Interview ed w h ile 1n the lab. He was using his tim e to preview s o ft­ ware fo r his new position# w h ile his present class worked with the lab consultant. Another en thu siastic computing teacher reported fru s tra tio n w ith the tim es when he could have a computer 1n his class. " I t never seems to coincide w ith the lessons where 1 t would be most applicable. 148 And the math softw are we have doesn’t necessarily cover the range of students’ needs." He said, " I ’ m sure the school w i ll fin d solutions to these problems 1n tim e ." A teacher of a developmental* mult1-age grade to ld of a personal d is lik e fo r computers. "Computers don’t turn me on. get good fe elin g s from the feedback they get. But the students They know rig h t away when they get something r ig h t; and my kids need to experience success." D is t r ic t and school board commitment. To emphasize the speed w ith which the elementary computing program has evolved* a t the end of the f i r s t 18 months* the p rin cip al requested 17 additional computers and f u lly expects the purchase to be approved. She believes th a t p o s itiv e program outcomes w i l l eventually lead to the appointment of a K-12 computing consultant. D istinguishing c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t appeared to promote high access and p a rtic ip a tio n , opportunities fo r students. The .p.,ri.nc1 p alls support* p a rtic ip a tio n * and leadership were noted as key factors 1n the evolving computing program a t Blue Barn; also the unique labo ratorytype teacher 1nserv1ce required as p a rt of the school day; the a v a ila ­ b i l i t y of an on-s1te computer-knowledgeable e x p ert: and the s t a f f ’ s enthusiasm fo r student success. Thus, w h ile there was some dissonance among s t a ff about the lab requirement, they seemed w illin g to make changes fo r the sake of providing more options fo r t h e ir students. teacher said, "We have to tr y to keep up with technology, even I f we are a rural community 1" One 149 Snow Skv. Elementary School# Rural In northern Michigan, 150 m iles from the nearest un iversity and an hour’s d riv e from the nearest regional ISD, Snow Sky Elementary serves 110 kindergarten through sixth-grade students. accommodates a ll grades K-12. One building The residents of the surrounding area Include both low - and m1ddle-1ncome groups. During the planting and harvest period, the school population swells by 30% as returning migrant fa m ilie s send c h ild ren th ere. The school 1s a v it a l hub of community education 1n the region. I t houses a th riv in g year-around a d u lt education program w ith It s own 1n-house d ire c to r. A new K-12 p rin c ip a l, appointed 1n September 1984, possesses a strong computer education background. Funding. Computers and computer a c tiv ity v is ib le a t Snow Sky might lead an observer to conclude th a t the school d is t r ic t spends a substantial amount of money fo r computers. Although the school board did, 1n 1982, give o f f ic i a l commitment to the concept and funding of an educational computing program, continuing budget cuts and fa ile d m111ages have a ll sharply c u rta ile d a ll but the sustenance spending. The good supply of computers 1s present because of an agreement fo r shared usage In fo rm a lly negotiated between the school adm inistration and th e community a d u lt education d1 rector and committee. The student population and s t a ff have access to these computers a ll day and a fte r school. Another few computers were purchased by dedicated funds fo r Chapter I students and the Education of the Handicapped. In addition, th e p rin cip a l and s t a f f scrupulously examine contingency funds fo r 150 unused balances. These monies have been used to purchase o ffic e com­ puters and In stru c tio n a l software. Number of computers. computers usually a v ailab le. For the 110 students, K-6, there are 12 Eight are housed In a laboratory and four* when not being used by sp ecified students* may be ro lle d on carts to classrooms fo r teacher/student use. fo r a d m in is tra tiv e use. Three computers are furnished One of these w i ll be assigned to the lib ra ry * where 1 t w ill be connected w ith a modem fo r research* data-base searches, and Inform ation storage and r e t r ie v a l. Teacher Inservice. Before the appointment of the current p rin cip al In 1984-85* equipment was In place but not w ell used. The p rin c ip a l's strong educational computing background and personal enthu­ siasm accelerated program e ffo r ts In it ia t e d by a special education teacher and the d ire c to r of community education. In 1983-84, these two educators helped get approval fo r program Implementation and then volunteered th e ir tim e to teach In te re s te d students and teachers essen­ t i a l computing s k ills fo r appropriate te a ch in g /learn in g s itu a tio n s . The school d is t r ic t financed an In tro duction to Computing and applications workshop a t Snow Sky during the summer of 1984. Taught by a u n iv e rs ity team, the one-week session represented a formal notice to elementary teachers th a t they were expected to become Involved with computers 1n th e ir teaching. Subsequently* the teachers were encouraged to borrow a computer and softw are fo r the re s t of the summer. 151 A th ird in te re s tin g and ongoing 1nserv1ce component fo r teachers and students is a volunteer e ffo r t* f u lly endorsed by the p rin cip a l and led by the special education teacher and two train ed aides. The teacher uses her nonscheduled teaching tim e to teach elementary students and to a s s is t teachers both 1n the lab and classroom w ith In s tru c tio n a l uses of computers. These three also m aintain an open lab a f t e r school th ree times per week. Comments from teachers Interviewed# e s p e c ia lly those with apprehensions about meeting th e p rin c ip a l’ s computing expectations# stated th a t the one-on-one help provided a t t h e ir request and a t t h e ir stage of readiness was s ig n ific a n t 1n t h e ir growing confidence to use the computer as a teaching to o l. Access and p a rtic ip a tio n . the school day. Computers are 1n use almost 100% of A ll elementary students# K-6# spend on e-half to one hour per week 1n guided in s tru c tio n . E ith e r the com puter-proficient aides or the special education/computing consultant teacher provides help. Cross-age groups sign up to work on t h e ir assignments or per­ sonal projects a fte r school. Peer c o llab o ratio n during lab tim e 1s prevalent. The p rin cip a l elected to I n i t i a t e the K-12 computing th ru s t w ith elementary students. And u n til the teaching s t a ff 1s v is ib ly more Involved and com fortable w ith computers and softw are, the p rin cip a l and consultant believe the supervised lab s e ttin g 1s p referab le to a classroom s e ttin g fo r assuring students an equitable d e liv ery of s k ills and understandings. Because Snow Sky 1s a small and 152 homey school/ the consultant 1s able to le a rn what classroom practices can be matched to appropriate software. She s elects softw are fo r the school/ shares 1 t with s t a f f / and uses 1 t with students. Range of applications. The fo llo w in g a p p lic a tio n s and languages are used by the consultant and teachers: word processing/ LOGO/ BASIC/ mathematics/ language a rts / reading/ science/ social studies/ problem solving/ decision making/ and graphics. ample softw are 1s on hand. Adequate to The volunteer consultant also tra v e ls to the d is ta n t ISD to preview and sometimes borrow software. Plan. A w ritte n plan/ d1str1ctw1 de/ has not y e t evolved/ " p a rtly /11 the p rin cipal noted/ "because the school 1s so small and communication 1s In form al; but we w ill get our plan 1n w ritin g ." Evidence of the plan Includes (a) th e d i s t r ic t commitment to a ll phases of computer Implementation/ (b) the reinforcem ent of s t a f f who a re c u rren tly a c tiv e providers of student computing op portunities/ (c) the h irin g of a computing enthusiast as the p rin c ip a l/ and (d) the Imminent promotion and s t a f f t1 m e -a llo c a tio n of the volunteer computing consultant/special education teacher. The p rin cipal noted th a t 1n such a small school/ and 1n a community w ith scarce fin a n c ia l resources/ ra is in g the le v e l of aware­ ness of s t a ff and community by a v is ib le e f f o r t to promote involvement was an essential planning step. A dm inistrative leadership and Involvement. The prin cip al during his f i r s t year t r ie d to get a global p ic tu re of the K-12 school; he redefined the short- and long-range goals. To emphasize the 153 Importance of educational computing* he moved a ll a v a ila b le computers to a lab s e ttin g and targeted the elementary students fo r the I n i t i a l tra in in g . He also recommended the promotion of the special education teacher to computing consultant. He advanced the expectation th a t a ll teachers would become p r o fic ie n t 1n using computers appropriately 1n t h e ir teaching; provided supportive environments# resource people# com fortable settings# and tim e to le a rn ; and collaborated to make best use of a ll resources. Noting th a t some community members continue to be "outspoken c r it ic s of the number of computers 1n the building# c a llin g 1 t ’ extravagant#1" he believes th a t the open lab 1n the a f t e r ­ noons and evenings# where community members are welcome# the community education th ru s t to help residents become computer p ro ficien t# and the open houses to show c itiz e n s what and how students are learning w ill diminish the negative commentary. Computer expert involvement. The volunteer consultant teaches four general and special education classes# one computing class* and uses her planning period and after-schoo l tim e fo r teaching# previewing software# and helping teachers match software to curriculum . Her I n i t i a l p o s itiv e Involvement w ith computing came from watching her special education students have new successes because of computers. She took coursework 1n LOGO# educational applications# and BASIC. She reported personal rewards from seeing students become Independent users# noting In divid ual progress of teachers# having th e support and encouragement of the principal# and experiencing the e n th u siastic and expert help of the two computing aides. "But an o f f ic i a l appointment 154 would give me more tim e to do the job rig h t." To m otivate teachers she has prepared a plan fo r the 1985-86 school year. I t Includes a community-education-sponsored In cen tive program and# 1n addition# a "fun course" fo r a ll s t a f f using the A pplew rlter I I . The distance from th e ISD resources and the absence of an ISD computing consultant Impede educational computing progress 1n ru ral schools# she noted. "Rural schools have nowhere else to tu r n ." Examples of Involvement and enthusiasm. made constant use of the computers with students. The Chapter I teacher "A common use of computer softw are fo r Chapter I students 1s#" he reported# "fo r reading and mathematics d r i l l and practice." option. Rather# He seldom made use of th a t he c a lle d th e computer "a great In centive" fo r his students# saying# "Students must read to use the computer c re a tiv e ly ; then they w ill make more natural and com fortable tra n s itio n s to the printed page." In mathematics he did "trouble shooting" by watching the screen as students worked through t h e ir story problems. A comput­ ing enthusiast# he tr ie d to promote sharing among his colleagues a t Snow Sky. "In the small school# teachers could genuinely support each other# but some are s t i l l not ready to jump 1n." While the Chapter I teacher found the summer 1nserv1ce very helpful# a primary teacher described 1 t as "too te c h n ic a l." She reported re ly in g on the lab tim e and the consultant to provide her students w ith th e ir computer experience. Several of her students she Id e n tifie d as hyperactive and unable to keep t h e ir hands o f f the computer. She could not supervise them and teach# too. Although she 155 had a computer a t home* she did not use I t . In response to the ques­ tio n* "Should elementary students be provided w ith computing experi­ ence?" she rep lied * " It 's essential fo r l i f e * and the sooner the b e tte rl" She personally needed tim e to develop f a m ilia r it y with the keyboard* "w ithout pressure to .de something." She thought* a t present* her students sensed her "unease." D is t r ic t and school. board_comm.1tment. The school board made a decision 1n 1982-83 to support In s tru c tio n a l computing. Because of severe budget problems* expenditures were lim ite d to supporting Inserv­ ic e and consolidating a ll a v a ila b le human and fin a n c ia l resources toward th a t goal. D istinguishing c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t appeared to promote high access and p a r t ic ipation opportunities, fo r students. combination of circumstances was present a t Snow Sky. An In te re s tin g I t s rural set­ tin g undoubtedly, by necessity, strengthened the community education/ a d u lt evening program. In turn, there was a c a ll fo r the school to be an educational provider of computing fo r students. The school 1s the only a v a ila b le agency 1n the region w ith the capacity to do so. These necessities created a shared enthusiasm among K-12 and community educators to move ahead* 1n s p ite of scarce resources. Maximum access and p a rtic ip a tio n op portunities fo r students were provided by th is sense of mission, c re a tiv e scheduling, and placement of a v a ila b le computers; 1n other words* turning "adequate" resources In to an "ample" p ro visio n . 156 In addition , th e re was strong p rin cip a l p a rtic ip a tio n , leader­ ship, e x p e rtise , and support coupled w ith high expectations fo r success. " I t w i l l take tim e and patience, but we w i ll move r ig h t along.” The volunteer computing consultant was an enthu siastic local expert. She had a special sense of how to Involve and then bring teachers along a t t h e ir own pace. Ongoing on-s1te s t a f f tra in in g was provided by the concerted work of the consultant, p rin c ip a l, and two p ro fic ie n t aides. Sunny Lane Elementary School,.Suburban S e ttin g . Sunny Lane School, In a neighborhood o f low er- and middle-lncome homes, serves a school population of 550 nonminority students 1n grades K-5. The d is t r ic t has f iv e elementary, three m iddle, and two high schools. The e n tir e d i s t r ic t edges upon an In d u s tria l and business area and has experienced d ra m atically decreasing school enrollm ents 1n recent years. Two f u ll- t im e resource teachers and four 60%-t1me resource teachers fo r music, a r t, speech, and media center jo in the ranks of 21 classroom teachers. Funding. In 1979, the school d i s t r ic t received a m1n1-grant to study the question, "Does our d is t r ic t need In s tru c tio n a l computing?" The a ffir m a tiv e answer led to a representative subcommittee th a t developed a lite r a c y program, and the beginning of a phased-1n plan fo r In te g ra tin g computing In to a ll areas of the K-12 curriculum . A s ig n ific a n t policy decision was the means chosen to a tta in th a t end: The teaching s t a f f were assigned to th e d elivery of In s tru c tio n ; th is choice rath er than tra in in g or adding a computing expert to each s ta ff. 157 The outcome of th a t decision was funding fo r basic equipment and softw are, but c h ie fly for a substantial and ongoing commitment to teacher 1nserv1ce, both tr a in in g and updating. Sunny Lane, I t s e l f , has, 1n a d d itio n , an a c tiv e parent group th a t has raised funds fo r needed software. Numbers o f computers. There are 12 computers a t Sunny Lane. The r a tio 1s 46 students to one computer. In a d d itio n , a single computer 1s used fo r both school adm inistratio n and, heavily, for computer-managed In s tru c tio n . Teacher 1nserv1ce. The prin cip al reported th a t 100% of the teachers had received d istrict-spon so red 1nserv1ce 1n Introduction to Computing and In s tru c tio n a l A pplications of Microcomputers; 90%, Managing Computers 1n the Classroom or Lab; and 50%, Evaluating In s tru c tio n a l Software. He believed th a t 100% of the fa c u lty were highly or somewhat q u a lifie d to teach the d is tr ic t-s p e c ifie d computerin teg rated curriculum . A d1str1ctw1de computing consultant 1s on c a ll and w i ll v i s i t to help I n i t i a t e use of new software and to re in fo rc e teachers’ e ffo r ts or respond to any questions. teachers as w e ll. The principal helps He 1s a computer "buff" and enthusiast, and one who w ith other p rin c ip a ls , parents, and s t a f f established a grass-roots e f f o r t 1n the d is t r ic t . M onitoring the scheduling and use of computers and a s sis tin g teachers are p a rt of his d a lly routine. combine to d e lin eate a comprehensive 1nserv1ce e ffo r t. These resources The local ISD continues to o ffe r resources, classes, and consultants, as needed. 158 Access and p a rtic ip a tio n . A ll students, K-5, are assured 15 minutes to o n e-h alf hour of computing tim e weekly. school population are Included. A ll subgroups of the F ifth graders have more tim e and use of the two more sophisticated school computers. Beyond the lab tim e , teachers may also schedule computers fo r th e ir classrooms or take classes or groups to the lab. Twelve com puter-proficient parents, tra in e d by the p rin c ip a l, o ffe r guidance to students w ith experiences assigned by the teacher. Range of a p p lic a tio n s . Throughout the grade and content areas the follo w in g applicatio n s of educational computing are used: word processing, tu to r ia ls , d r i l l , lib r a r y s k ill s , LOGO language, mathemat­ ic s , science, social studies, language a rts , reading, problem solving, and decision making. The softw are a v a ila b le to teachers and students a t Sunny Lane has been expanded beyond the d i s t r ic t software provision by an a c tiv e parent group. Computer-managed In s tru c tio n Involves both students, teachers, and parents. A data-managed reading program provides d a lly and weekly prin touts on student progress. The p rin c ip a l, several teachers, and the school secretary enter the data, which 1n p rin to u t form provides tim e ly feedback to teachers and students and serves as a communicating medium fo r parent Involvement. There 1s an expectation th a t a ll e le ­ mentary students w i ll have c e rta in computing s k ills and understandings when they reach the middle school. Plan. The d is t r ic t made a commitment to K-12 educational computing 1n 1979. With community and board support, a broad-based 159 subcommittee has provided 1nserv1ce and re la te d assistance to help teachers d e liv e r the sp ecified curriculum . They appointed t h e ir dis­ t r i c t In s tru c tio n a l media d ire c to r to the new po sition of coordinator of media services and computing education. The 1984-85 school year was the th ird year of the elementary school phase-1 n. In 1985- 86 the middle schools w i ll In te g ra te computing through the science program. While the science teachers w i ll be making t h e ir f i r s t teaching commit­ ment to In s tru c tio n a l computing 1n 1985-86, t h e ir students, coming from the elementary schools, w i ll be well-grounded 1n the uses of In s tru c ­ tio n a l software. Already the high school has computers 1n some t r a d i­ tio n a l areas, but the d i s t r ic t plan c a lls fo r a ll students to have a re o rie n ta tio n to computing and a t le a s t basic experiences w ith com­ puters. There 1s no graduation requirement fo r computing. A d m in istrative leadership and Involvement. The prin cip al Is a v is ib le and a c tiv e supporter of In s tru c tio n a l computing a t Sunny Lane. He assists teachers, c a re fu lly monitors the scheduling of computers 1n classrooms and the labs, tra in s parents to work as aides, promotes parental Involvement 1n purchasing softw are, features school wide a c t iv it ie s w ith students and computing, uses the services of the dis­ t r i c t computing consultant, and makes the data-based managed reading program an Im portant and Involving element of In s tru c tio n . He pio­ neered fo r In s tru c tio n a l computing 1n the d is t r ic t and has high expec­ ta tio n s th a t a ll teachers w i ll make the best use of computers as a teach in g /learn in g to o l. Sunny Lane 1s a leader among the d i s t r ic t ’ s 160 elementary schools 1n computing. Teachers Interview ed hope the p rin c i­ pal's re tire m e n t 1n June w i ll not slow the progress being made. Computer expert Involvement. The d is t r ic t coordinator of computing education acknowledged th a t she 1s spread too th in to give even adequate help and encouragement to the s iza b le s t a f f and a student body o f 6,000. The gradual program phase-1n has helped a lle v ia te some of th a t pressure, and as more teachers and adm inistrators become com­ puter p r o fic ie n t, a supportive cadre has developed. Her duties include providing fo r ongoing 1nserv1ce, assisting teachers, presenting new techniques and Inform ation, trouble shooting equipment, coordinating curriculum , and evaluating software. Her media background and networking s k ills have helped her p e rs is t with Introducing th is new technology to teachers. necessary. Many v is it s to schools and classrooms are "Teachers must make the tra n s itio n s a t t h e ir own tim e and on t h e ir own terms." She reported th a t most teachers are no longer re lu c ta n t to ask fo r help or c la r if ic a t io n of t h e ir ro le 1n the Im ple­ mentation e f f o r t . That, she believes, 1s her g re a tes t accomplishment. Examples of Involvement and enthusiasm. B elieving th a t one teacher would be representative of a ll s t a ff , the p rin cip a l arranged only one In terview a t Sunny Lane. The teacher, eager to learn about and use computer softw are with students, said, 'The sooner 1n t h e ir school l i f e the b e tte r, es p e cia lly 1n the area of word processing. Computers are changing th e ways students can learn; also 1n cooperative learning a c t iv it ie s and 1n ra is in g self-esteem ." a c t iv it ie s to gain experience. She entered In to s e lf-te a c h in g For example, she helped I n i t i a t e the 161 reading-management system. She r e lie d heavily on the help of a school parent# a corporate computing consultant# fo r help and advice. Her overall enthusiasm fo r educational computing and I t s b enefits fo r students were dampened by personal and professional frustrations# Including tim e. She believed th a t having to use the volunteer help provided meant more planning fo r her# and th a t teaching a ll objectives fo r a ll the grade le v e ls 1n her mult1-age class was overwhelming. She objected to ad m in is tra to rs ’ attending the major computing conferences# w h ile teachers are responsible fo r understanding and Implementing programs 1n the classroom. "Most often the d is t r ic t 1nserv1ces are o ff ta rg e t w ith what's needed. " It 's lik e 'teach the kids# but don't teach m e !"1 To help students explore computing and become sel f-m otivated users# she prepared many lessons and previewed softw are a t home. This necessity# she complained# In frin g e d on her personal and fa m ily tim e and caused more lim ite d preparation 1n other content areas. D is t r ic t and school board commitment. Since 1979 the board and a broadly representational d i s t r i c t In s tru c tio n a l planning committee have endorsed# helped revise# and monitored the Im plementation o f K-12 educational computing. Many decisions e n ta il negotiations between labor and management. D istinguishing c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t appear to promote high .access and p a rtic ip a tio n o p p o rtu n ities fo r students. Although funding for computers and p eriph erals 1s low# reducing th e number of computers fo r students to almost less than adequate# the continuing board and 162 adm inistratio n support fo r 1nserv1ce and I t s high expectation fo r K-12 In teg ra tio n p a r t ia lly overcame the lim ita tio n s . They have demonstrated six years of continuing fin a n c ia l support and have continued employment of an enthu siastic and Involved computing coordinator to assure th a t th e job gets done. The p rin c ip a l's Involvement and leadership help to make Sunny Lane School one w ith exemplary te a ch er/p u p H /p are n t Involvement. the only d is t r ic t school with a parent-alde cadre. I t 1s Another outstanding c h a ra c te ris tic 1s found 1n the board decision to Implement K-12 comput­ ing through a policy of ongoing teacher 1nserv1ce with the expectation th a t a ll teachers w ill become computer p ro fic ie n t 1n teaching the specified curriculum . Green V ista Elementary School. Suburban S e ttin g . Green V is ta Elementary School lie s 1n a peaceful suburban community near a large c ity and a u n iv e rs ity . I t 1s one of th re e elementary schools serving kindergarten through f i f t h grade and 1s part of a d i s t r ic t with one middle and one high school. Funding. Computing-related expenditures have been a d i s t r i c t - wide school board commitment since 1984. In a d d itio n . Green V is ta uses contingency fund ending balances and In it ia t e s fu n d -ra isin g a c t iv it ie s to purchase needed curriculum-matched software. An aggressive search fo r funds fo r equipment and softw are led the p rin cip a l to help w r ite a proposal fo r a possible S tate Department of Education a llo c a tio n . 163 Numbers o f computers. There are 14 computers fo r student use, making a r a tio of 25 students to one computer. fo r school adm inistratio n. One computer 1s used The computers, on c a rts fo r p o r ta b ility , are used p rim a rily 1n a laboratory s itu a tio n ; however, some are always a v a ila b le fo r classrooms. Teacher 1nserv1ce. A K-8 computing consultant plans and arranges varied 1nserv1ce a c t iv it ie s , designed eventually to t r a in a ll d is t r ic t s t a f f , beginning with elementary teachers. ing phase w ill include adm inistrators. from Introductory to s p e c ific . The second t r a in ­ Training is planned to progress In f a l l 1984, a massive tra in in g sched­ ule I n i t i a l l y fa m ilia riz e d a ll teachers w ith the newly purchased com­ puters and d istric t-a p p ro v e d courseware. O rientatio n tra in in g was followed w ith on-s1te, 1n-class assistance from the computing consultant during October and November. In December, Green V ista's com puting-proficient p rin c ip a l, the con­ s u lta n t, and two computing experts from the ISD o ffe red an 1nserv1ce workshop on evaluating grade-level courseware, which would be used Immediately by teachers w ith classes. The consultant worked d ire c tly over the next few months w ith a ll teachers, Including Chapter I and teachers of the g ifte d . Nine parents were train ed to help teachers and students 1n kindergarten and f i r s t grada over any vacation break. use on nonschool days. Computers may be checked out by teachers Seventy percent of computers are reported In 164 The goal of teacher Inservice 1s to In te g ra te the computer In to the overall curriculum* both through classroom use and use 1n the computer center or lab. The a n tic ip a te d outcome w ill* as a by-product* produce teacher and student computer users. Access and p a rtic ip a tio n . Computers a t Green V ista are used between 76% and 100% of the school day. A ll K-5 students* 1n addition to a pre-prim ary special education and EMI class* have computer tim e. Because the computing consultant shares tim e with a ll elementary schools, the p rin cip a l is an a c tiv e and ever-present source of help to teachers, who 1n most Instances are learning to use c e rta in pieces of courseware along w ith t h e ir students. during lunch break and a fte r school. Computers are a v a ila b le fo r use There 1s an expectation a t the middle school th a t a ll m a tric u la tin g elementary students w i ll have learned a s p e c ifie d range of computing experiences. Range o f a p p lic a tio n s . students throughout Green V is ta : The fo llo w in g applications are used by word processing* sim ulation, LOGO language and a p p lic a tio n s , mathematics, language a rts , music and a r t, social studies, problem solving, and decision making. Two decisions by the d is t r ic t w i l l have an e ffe c t on curriculum 1n 1985-86: A K-8 curriculum team has developed lessons and re la te d software fo r s o d a ! studies and language a rts ; also, a data-management system has been purchased fo r reading. Plan. Green V is ta 1s p a rt of a d is t r ic t w ith a d e ta ile d In s tru c tio n a l plan fo r In te g ra tin g computers In to the curriculum . There are tim e lin e s developed through 1989. Already the K-8 curriculum 165 team 1s "revising and re s tru c tu rin g " the I n i t i a l plan# based on progress made and new knowledge of b e tte r ways to proceed. Beyond the 1nserv1ce fo r teachers and classroom and lab work with students# the computing consultant reported progress 1n meeting those tim e lin e s. In s p ite of tig h t d i s t r ic t tim e lin e s and high expectations fo r meeting them# tim e and space are b u ilt 1n fo r teachers to acclim ate to computers# use software# and manage class In s tru c tio n . The consultant reported» "We seem to be making progress 1n g e ttin g teachers to use the computers both 1n t h e ir classroom and 1n the center. More names are appearing on the s1gn-up l i s t s ; 1f I had more tim e fo r helping them# 1t would move fa s te r ." A dm inistrative leadership and Involvement. The p rin cipal of Green V is ta School# new to the school but not to the d is tric t# 1s a former teacher who was Instrum ental 1n In it ia t in g in stru c tio n a l comput­ ing 1n the d is t r ic t . A computer user# fru s tra te d by the absence of computers fo r student use# he and others presented evidence to the superintendent and board to help explain the Importance of computers as teach in g /learn in g to o ls. Supportive of the need fo r and ro le of an on-s1te computing consultant whose only job 1s "helping students and teachers#” he said# "Her tim e should be protected# to th a t end; and lack of money 1s not necessarily a drawback. I t helps us work together to fin d c re a tiv e ways to help something Im portant happen fo r students.” Computer expert Involvement. The K-8 computer coordinator was appointed to consult and help teachers and students K-8 1n 1984-85. Her position# funded a t 60%# Includes tra in in g of d is t r ic t s ta ff# 166 review and purchase of a ll software# presentation of programs and m a te ria ls to classrooms# consulting w ith s t a f f on computer applica­ tions# and developing a comprehensive K-8 curriculum . Her monthly reports and progress log In d ic a te th a t the d is t r ic t goals and her In divid ual goals have proceeded w e ll. In the 1985-86 year# her posi­ tio n w i ll be f u l l tim e. Examples o f Involvement and enthusiasm. The prin cip al and computing consultant both expressed a commitment to helping teachers and students become computer users. By the same token# they stressed the need to allow fo r differen ces 1n tim e needed by In d iv id u a ls to adapt and to develop a m otivation fo r try in g something new. teachers to own the p ro je c t,” school and students. "I want The s t a f f evidenced enthusiasm fo r The atmosphere was positive# cheerful# yet academically o rie n te d . The two teachers In terview ed believed educational computing fo r elementary students was “highly Im portant.” One teacher had been a personal-computer user fo r four years# had taken classes and read computing jo urn als. Green Vista. She used computers as soon as they a rrived a t The former p rin c ip a l assigned her the task of reviewing and selecting software. The teacher c a lle d the 1nserv1ces and the consultan t's help " r ig h t on ta r g e t." The other teacher Interview ed said# " I would be helped more by 1nserv1ces a t a slower pace# and 1n layperson's language. Inservice sessions "are In tim id a tin g ." Massive She was looking forward to taking a computer home fo r the summer# so th a t she would be as 167 " p ro fic ie n t as her students.” computing. Both teachers were e n th u sias tic about One f e l t held back; the other# rushed. D is t r ic t and school board commitment. There is a long-term fin a n c ia l and philosophical commitment to educational computing 1n the system. Because funding 1s not ample and computing 1s only one p rio rity # the program w i ll be closely monitored and evaluated. "We recognize the need fo r ongoing s t a f f tra in in g and the value of o ffe rin g computer education fo r parents and community. We r e a liz e th a t the rapid advancement 1n computer technology requires planned evaluation and revision of curriculum# hardware and software#" the board and adm inistration stated . D istinguishing c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t appeared to promote high access and p a rtic ip a tio n op portunities fo r students. Green V ista school contained# 1n some degree# almost a ll the f a c i li t a t i n g charac­ t e r is t ic s th a t experts 1n th is study determined might f a c i l i t a t e a high degree of student access and p a rtic ip a tio n , Including an adequate number of computers and adequate funding. The most overarchlngly In flu e n tia l elements a t th e local school were the p rin cip a l and comput­ ing consultant's p a rtic ip a tio n # Involvement# and support# which helped generate an observable level of enthusiasm by both teachers and students. Important# too# was the school board's commitment to the d is t r ic t plan fo r computing. C lty s ld e Elementary School# Urban S e ttin g . 1n the system. City side Elementary 1s one of 50 elementary schools With 275 students and a large m inority population of 168 b ilin g u a l students* 1 t 1s located In a pleasant neighborhood of moderate-Income homes and 1s constructed 1n pod areas fo r team teaching. Funding. There 1s no computer a llo c a tio n fo r hardware. A ll computers were purchased w ith money derived from the sale of submarine sandwiches. The parent group has a c tiv e ly supported th is project* In it ia t e d by a com puter-enthusiastic teacher. A d i s t r ic t commitment to educational computing 1s under consideration, and during th e present study a computing coordinator po sition and a K-12 Implementation were being approved. I t 1s Im portant to note th a t C itysid e has proceeded as a school to Implement It s program and obtain software. Numbers of computers. The school has accumulated seven computers, which reside In a laboratory. The open pod arrangement makes the lab accessible to most classes. computers 1s 39:1. The r a tio of students to In the K-6 school* grades 2 through 6 receive formal In s tru c tio n and computing tim e. Teacher Inservice. The computers are on c a rts . A d1str1ctw1de 1nserv1ce 1n 1982-83 on the In tro duction to Computing, and fre e 1nserv1ces provided by d is t r ic t and area c o lla b o ra tin g educational agencies, have given teachers an opportunity to gain comput1ng-related knowledge on a voluntary basis. C1tys1de 1s an exception In having generated funds to obtain computers. Most of the other elementary schools do not have them. The seven computers are used fo r local 1nserv1ce and student applications. Most teachers 1n the building are a t a "comfort” level or higher w ith t h e ir use of computing w ith t h e ir students. A computer-enthuslast teacher, 169 because of the team teaching s itu a tio n , has been able to help many more teachers and students than 1f the school had a tr a d itio n a l classroom s e ttin g . A special education teachers' workshop Inspired another b u ilding teacher to enhance her students' learning through computing. These two teachers and a developing cadre of com puter-proficient students have constituted the 'Mnservlce" th ru s t. That 1s, local teachers and students have helped each other a tta in competency with the machine and f a m ilia r it y with software. The basis fo r th is lo c a lly generated e f f o r t to provide both computers and laboratory o p portunities fo r both students and teachers 1s ju s t i f ie d by the p rin cip a l as "the urgent need to provide 'hands-on experience' fo r a ll students, a t the very le a s t!" Access and p a rtic ip a tio n . While most of the a v a ila b le software has been purchased w ith fund ra is in g by parents, some was acquired through publ1c-doma1n sources. A central o ffic e adm inistrator with broad media re s p o n s ib ilitie s In it ia t e d use of th is resource. over 50 pieces of In s tru c tio n a l software. There are The computers are used between 76% and 100% of the school day, 1n addition to before school, during lunch break, and a f t e r school. weekends fo r home use. They may be checked out on They are used equally by a ll classes, grades 2 through 6, Including special education and the g ifte d , 1n a tim e range of between on e-h alf and one hour per week. supervise the labs. The p rin cipal helps The prin cip al c re d its each year's sixth-grade class with acting as the resident " tu to rs ." 170 Range of a p p lic a tio n s . C ity s id e ’s p rin cip al and s t a f f pressed fo r e arly accumulation of computers and software to assure th e ir students an awareness of and experience w ith e x is tin g technology. While they did not want to usurp d i s t r ic t re sp o n s ib ility# they knew th a t d is t r ic t Im plem entation might be some years away. Therefore# the range of a p p lic a tio n s 1s based on a v a ila b le and borrowed software. Appl 1cat1ons Include tu to ria ls # d r ill# mathematics# reading# problem solving# language arts# science# decision making# and s p e llin g . Plan. concludes. A d i s t r ic t plan 1s emerging as th is current study A d i s t r ic t supervisor fo r computer education was appointed 1n e arly 1985. Even with numerous other d is t r ic t re s p o n s ib ilitie s , the consultant has moved w ith a committee to d r a ft a K-8 curriculum and a K-12 plan# Including In tro d u c tio n to Computers fo r ninth or tenth graders who have m a tricu la ted through the system before the d is t r ic t purchase of computers fo r d is t r ic t schools. As p a rt of the plan# a s t a f f volunteer w i ll be appointed as computer resource person 1n each elementary school. The long-range goal 1s a computer 1n each class­ room; th is w i ll be preceded by a sem1-lab s itu a tio n . During the f i r s t year of Implementation# th ere w i l l be a lab 1n each middle school# two p ilo ts fo r special education rooms# and one p ilo t fo r b ilin g u a l educa­ tio n classes. C itysid e School w i l l receive softw are from the d is t r ic t under the new plan, but because of It s early successful e ffo r ts through local fund ra is in g to provide computers# 1t w i l l not be e lig ib le fo r district-p u rch ased computers. 171 A d m in istrative leadership and Involvement. The p rin cip al a t C lty s ld e School promoted In s tru c tio n a l computing by f a c ili t a t i n g the work of the local enthusiasts and experts and by fin ding ways to nurture fa c u lty acceptance and Involvement and student p a rtic ip a tio n . Parents are a c tiv e ly encouraged to p a rtic ip a te 1n a ll phases of the In s tru c tio n a l and s o d a ! programs of the school. The prin cip al set up an exchange program w ith another c ity school th a t has no computers. I t gave her students and s t a f f a chance to share t h e ir knowledge and fa c ilitie s , re in fo rc in g t h e ir e ffo r ts , w hile providing an encouraging model fo r eventual d i s t r ic t Implementation. Computer expert Involvement. The recent appointment of a central o ffic e a d m in is tra to r as coordinator of educational computing was follow ed by a series of v is ita tio n s to other school d is t r ic t s and national workshops by the coordinator and a d ls trlc tw id e committee. At the tim e of the s c h o o l-s lte study, C ltyslde Elementary School had only a resident expert to fo s te r educational computing. That teacher and another supportive central o ffic e a d m in istrato r were the In flu e n tia l and v is ib le components of the computer education program a t C lty s ld e . Examples.of Involvement and enthusiasm. The kindergarten teacher Interview ed was eager th a t addition al equipment and software be provided so th a t appropriate computing experiences could be extended to grade 1 and kindergarten. a p r io r ity Convinced th a t educational computing "is fo r elementary students,” she spoke of being "eager” to be Involved 1n tra in in g th a t would accelerate her p a rtic ip a tio n . 172 The teacher who In it ia t e d computing 1n the school and helped other teachers learn pointed to the Involvement of students 1n the teaching of others as s ig n ific a n t and a boost to school pride. She developed a plan fo r nonusers to be partners with users u n til a ll were com fortable w ith the machine. As a re su lt* even though almost 50% of C1tys1de's students are b ilin g u a l* a ll students 1n her team-teaching area are computer users* and those observed were en th u sias tic. D is t r ic t and school board commitment. The recent board decision to fund and Implement a K-12 computer program, Including 1nserv1ce, the a c q u is itio n and maintenance of hardware and softw are, and the appointment of a computing consultant* Indicates a long-term commitment to computer education fo r a ll students. D isting uishing c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t appeared to promote high access and p a rtic ip a tio n op portunities fo r students. The outstanding c h a ra c te ris tic s a t C ltysld e School were f u lly described 1n preceding sections and Include p rin c ip a l's Involvement* p a rtic ip a tio n * and support* a lo cal computer leader who d elivers lo c a lly based 1nserv1ce, and enthusiasm fo r computers by local leaders* teachers* and e s p e cia lly students. Students a t C ltysld e were es p e cia lly Involved. Their shar­ ing a ttitu d e * successes, and academic achievements were showcased 1n t h is school. Metro Lake Elementary School* Urban S e ttin g . Metro Lake Elementary School 1s one of ten elementary schools 1n an urban d i s t r i c t w ith two high schools and four middle 173 schools. Surrounded by the neighborhood's m iddle- and upper-m lddle- Income residences* 1 t borders on a business* high-technology, and In d u s tria l region. Funding. There are 175 students 1n grades K-5. In ad d itio n to strong funding support from the d is t r ic t , educational computing has been supported by lo cal community groups, by P art B of the Educational Handicapped Act, PL 42-142. The computer e f f o r t began w ith a grass-roots push from local teach er/ adm in istrato r computer enthusiasts and the demand from a computer-aware community. The d is t r ic t , e arly on, made a commitment to fund and support computer education K-12. Numbers of computers. 28:1. The r a tio of students to computers 1s There are s ix computers a t Metro Lake fo r student use. No computer 1s y e t a v a ila b le fo r computer-managed In s tru c tio n or school adm inistratio n. Teacher 1nserv1ce. 1nserv1ce a t Metro Lake: Two Im portant components Influence teacher a d1str1ctw1de teacher consultant fo r In stru c tio n a l computing and a tra in in g component th a t has prepared each school media s p e c ia lis t as the on-s1te resource person fo r s t a f f and students. The Implementation of educational computing depends on a combination of train e d personnel, networking out to tr a in others so th a t eventually every teacher w i ll be responsible fo r using the tech­ nology to complement a ll areas of the curriculum . The d i s t r ic t expec­ ta tio n 1s th a t the In s tru c tio n a l program w i ll In te g ra te computers as a tool of learn ers, ra th e r than as an appendage to the In s tru c tio n a l pi an. 174 The d is t r ic t computing consultant also tr a in s parents# who then act as guides 1n the elementary and middle school labs. With th is kind of reinforcement# the p rin cip al noted only one drawback— some teachers were not motivated or y e t w illin g to be computer users. While 100% of the students use computers once a week# only about 25% of the teachers da With the local media s p e c ia lis t always near the lab to a s sis t students and teachers and provide software# with trained parent aides# and a d is t r ic t computing consultant on call# teachers 1n a few Instances have not f e l t c a lle d on to become hands-on users. Because the d is t r ic t plan c a lls fo r a f u lly curricu lu m -in teg rated computing program# the next phase of 1nserv1ce w i ll be focused on helping teach­ ers develop a com fort le v e l with both machines and new software. The computing consultant w i ll take c u rric u lu m -re la te d softw are to schools and work w ith small groups of teachers on something d ire c tly re la ted to t h e ir lessons. year. This progression of 1nserv1ce protocol 1s 1n It s sixth The d1str1ctw1de o rie n ta tio n 1nserv1ces» so valuable 1n the e arly years# the consultant reported# are being replaced by a c t iv it ie s th a t accommodate local schools' and In d iv id u a l teachers' needs. Access and p a rtic ip a tio n . A ll students a t Metro Lake use the computer a t le a s t 15 minutes to o n e-h alf hour per week. The computers are 1n use 76% to 100% of the school day and are also a v a ila b le during lunch hour. Six computers are 1n a lab adjacent to the media center. special education classes have t h e ir own classroom computers. The Addi­ tio n a l software# to extend a c t iv it ie s fo r students# has been purchased 175 w ith money raised through fu n d -ra isin g a c t iv it ie s by both parents and local merchants. Range of applications. A ll students are experienced 1n the fo llo w in g applications by the tim e they complete grade 5: word processing, sim ulation, lib r a r y s k ills /d a ta -b a s e searches, LOGO, mathematics, reading, language a rts , science, music, a r t, s o d a ! studies, problem solving, and declslon-making s k ills . In a d d itio n , the e d itin g and publishing of s to rie s fo r book-making projects, data management fo r special education students’ progress, and e d itin g and publishing the school n ew sletter are uses of computing a t Metro Lake. A ll local uses are Influenced by the d is t r ic t 's expectation th a t computers w ill be In teg rated In to every area of the curriculum . Plan. The d is t r ic t plan was developed w ith encouragement and assistance from teachers, ad m in istrato rs, and community. planning and development phase began 1n 1981. A preadoption A d1str1ctw1de committee of parents, community, and business representatives, teachers, and adm inistrators set a tim e lin e and agenda 1n 1983. The K-12 curriculum , reviewed and adjusted on a planned cycle, autom atically accommodated the new technology plans. A K-12 In te g ra tio n was preferred to teaching computing as a separate subject; however, 1n the f i r s t years of the plan a com puter-literacy component was necessary to ensure a l l students acquired the basic s k ill and knowledge base to use and understand computers. A dm inistrative leadership and Involvement. The p rin c ip a l, 1n addition to the computing expert/m edia s p e c ia lis t, d i s t r ic t 176 Instructional-com puting coordinator* and a cadre of parent assistants, provides strong leadership 1n encouraging teachers to take hold of computing as a tool fo r teaching. She arranges fo r su b stitu tes and freq uently serves as a classroom s u b s titu te so th a t teachers may work w ith computers and courseware, v i s i t p ro jec t s ite s , or attend Inserv­ ices. She collaborates w ith the d is t r ic t computing consultant to fin d new ways to Involve teachers 1n the process. She asserted, ,rThe dis­ t r i c t Implementation plan 1s only ‘token’ u n til teachers commit them­ selves to educational computing.” Computer expert Involvement. The d is t r ic t teacher consultant fo r In s tru c tio n a l computing and Metro Lake's media s p e c ia lis t are a c tiv e and helpful computing enthusiasts. The d is t r ic t consultant’s job ta rg e ts Include a re s p o n s ib ility fo r the "planning, coordination, and u t iliz a t io n of computers 1n the K-12 In stru c tio n a l program." One of the major roles of the consultant 1s Introducing new courseware to teachers. I t 1s a t th a t level th a t an In terv e n tio n makes lo g ic a l sense to busy classroom teachers. They can see how the computer helps students "conceptualize" 1n ways th a t other teaching methods cannot. When a teacher can see, through demonstration, th a t the computer 1s not ju s t another "add-on," but 1s a c tu a lly helpful w ith in , fo r example, the context of a d a lly lesson on mathematics or c re a tiv e w ritin g , the teacher w ill put th e computer to use. Examples o f Involvement and enthusiasm. The two teachers Interview ed a t Metro Lake were representative of each end of the enthusiasm spectrum. One teacher doubted th a t 1 t was essential to Introduce computers 1n elementary school a t a l l , and 1f 11 was, "the consultant could do 1t." The other teacher helped both students and 177 other teachers to learn. Parent* adm inistrator# and student enthu­ siasm# 1n addition to d is t r ic t enthusiasm# was strong and evident. Broad applications were v is ib le . D is t r ic t and school board commitment. Not only was the long- range commitment made to educational computing but to a ll new technol­ ogy. The fiv e -y e a r curriculum cycle 1n the d is t r ic t revolves again to educational computing 1n 1985-86. monitored# evaluated# and adjusted. The program w i ll be thoroughly The d i s t r ic t 1s a leader 1n the development of a computing curriculum and has shared i t s exp ertise and findings with other d is t r ic t s (Bancroft# 1983a). A ll students are guaranteed by the d i s t r ic t a comprehensive education 1n new technology. Distinguishing charact e r is t ic s th a t appeared to_promote_hlQh access and p a rtic ip a tio n opportunities fo r students. Metro Lake School has an encouraging c lim a te fo r students and teachers a lik e . The p rin c ip a l's In s tru c tio n a l leadership and commitment to the students' f u l l opportunity to learn creates an Im perative fo r a ll teachers to use a ll possible to o ls to promote th is end. The d i s t r i c t and school board commitment to educational computing and t h e ir funding of 1 t are s ig n ific a n t. Promoting a high level of access and p a rtic ip a tio n fo r Metro Lake 1s the d i s t r ic t computing consultant* who v erb alized a commitment to help In d iv id u a ls and groups a t t h e ir own level of readiness# but always with the expectation th a t they w i ll move forward m eaningfully. In concert with the local computing expert/m edia s p e c ia lis t, the two provide a unique# ongoing 1nserv1ce component. 178 Summaries of In te re s t From the Results o f Interview s With Principals# Teachers, and Computing Consultants a t the Six School S ites V is ite d P rin c ip a ls . Three p rin c ip a ls were what Becker (1984a) c a lle d "cornputerists»” having been e arly computer users* and eagerly seeking ways to tra n s la te the p o ten tial of the tool in to classrooms. three used computers* but not as computer "buffs." The other However, a ll s ix were involved 1n e ffo r ts to Insure d is t r ic t - le v e l a tte n tio n to computer In te g ra tio n , had high expectations th a t teachers would a ll p a rtic ip a te 1n teaching th e Intended curriculum , monitored th e Implementation, and were v is ib le in assuring the Importance of the computer as a tool to incorporate 1n planned learnin g experiences. They In stig a ted or collaborated w ith local teacher "buffs" and parents to acquire the physical components needed to provide broad access and p a rtic ip a tio n op p o rtu n itie s . Teachers. Two teachers were Interview ed a t each s it e except a t one school, where the p rin cip a l believed one teacher would represent a l l points o f view. Time was lim ite d . Most In terview s were conducted w h ile the p rin cip al supervised the teachers’ classes or during t h e ir planning tim e. Although a structured in terv ie w form was used as a guide, 1 t proved more e f f ic ie n t to ask only the role-spec1f1c questions because answers to more general questions were e x tra c ta b le from other sources. A ll 11 teachers agreed th a t Incorporating educational computing a t the elementary le v e l 1s Im portant or essential and th a t middle or 179 high school 1s "too la t e .” Some were avid computer users; others had varying degrees of experience and comfort le v e ls with computers. None had been undergraduates when microcomputers were Introduced In to college education c u rric u la , but they were eager to recommend components fo r preservice teacher tra in in g In In s tru c tio n a l computing, such as hands-on computing experience, a t le a s t simple programming, courseware ap p licatio n s 1n undergraduate content-area classes and 1n a "computers 1n education" environment, and a requirement th a t a ll preservice teachers a c tu a lly work with c h ild re n , computers, and software 1n a simulated classroom environment. T heir recommendations fo r 1nserv1ce tra in in g Included fewer Immersion courses, such as In tro duction to Computing, and more on-s1te, one-on-one assistance with applications. I f 1nserv1ce could be offered in small-group s e ttin g s , they preferred th a t t h e ir co-learners be from s im ila r grade le v e ls or content-level groups and th a t they have about the same degree of computer proficiency. Masny characterized the la rg e r d i s t r ic t 1nserv1ces as " o ff ta rg e t." A Chapter I teacher believed th a t "teachers should share more with other teachers and w ith students and should not be a fra id to be uninformed on t h e ir way to becoming 1nformed about educational computing. Students need to see th e ir teachers Involved" (emphasis added). O ft-repeated suggestions fo r teacher Involvement and p a rtic ip a tio n were: (a) tim e to learn the keyboard, explore softw are, and match curriculum to courseware, with support when needed from a computer-educator s p e c ia lis t; and (b) an opportunity to develop a t 180 one's own stage of readiness. Many f e l t forced In to a ro le before they were technologically* In te lle c tu a lly * or em otionally prepared. Others complained of group tra in in g where those teachers who have some expe­ rience dominate the learn in g environment. puter as a tool* Some teachers saw the com­ others as "ju s t one more thing to do." A few teachers complained th a t too few computers made In teg ra tin g computers In to a c t iv it ie s n e ith e r fe a s ib le nor e f f ic ie n t . Computing consultants. consultant was acknowledged. In a ll six schools v is ite d * a d i s t r i c t To c la r if y * two were o f f ic ia l K-12 com­ puting consultants w ith backgrounds as media s p e c ia lis ts ; they were appointed when the d i s t r ic t Implemented a K-12 currlculu rn -Integrated program. Another was a K-8 consultant* former teacher* and computing enthusiast who was hired fo r s1x-tenths tim e but subsequently recom­ mended fo r f u ll tim e and K-12. The fourth was a special education/ general education teacher who taught a computer class and volunteered a ll extra tim e to helping teachers and students. Hoping fo r an o f f i ­ c ia l appointment* she was recognized by the d is t r ic t as the u n o ffic ia l consultant and spokesperson fo r a ll computing m atters. Another was a volunteer and computer expert who was hired to supervise the elementary laboratory. He hoped fo r an eventual K-12 assignment. The s ix th consultant Interview ed was appointed K-12 consultant a f t e r the local school 1n his d i s t r ic t was selected fo r study. That school's re sid en t consultant was a computer-using teacher enthusiast. The d is t r ic t consultant's new ro le was as an add-on with numerous other d1str1ctw1de responslbH 1t1es. 181 In years, consultancy assignments represented two w ith four or more years, three w ith about one and o n e-h alf years, and one w ith only a few months. Role-spec1f1c responses of In te re s t were the fo llo w in g : A ll s ix stated th a t teachers eventually must be a c tiv e p a rtic ip a n ts 1n the delivery of student In s tru c tio n 1n the context of appropriate software presented a t the appropriate content-and-1earners' "moment 1n tim e." They saw th is as a gradual process, and one 1n which the consultant's ro le was th a t of help, encouragement, and providing appropriate software, classroom-management techniques, and one-on-one help when needed. Two stated th a t they were spread too th in to do th is job adequately. Funding fo r ample machines, courseware, and es p e cia lly released tim e fo r teachers to explore the new technology was an essential requirement. A ll received t h e ir tra in in g 1n various ways: se lf-te ac h in g , keeping up w ith the lit e r a t u r e and research, taking classes of In te re s t, and attending educational-computing conferences and workshops. None was degreed s p e c ific a lly to teach computing. A veteran 1n the ro le of d i s t r ic t computing teacher/consultant summarized: " I t 1s Im portant to put computers 1n the context of what teachers are teaching and students are learning everyday." In c itin g the prevalence of teacher anxiety about using computers with students, she said, "Think of the elementary teachers who teach s ix subjects! How can computers help them do t h a t ? Then, show them software th a t w i l l , and give them time and space to make the tr a n s itio n ." 182 Her ra tio n a le fo r helping teachers learn to use computers with students was: "Students can learn by 'watching teachers be students.' The teacher and computer together can move students toward conceptual­ izin g . There are, as y e t, so few teachers who can help students to do th a t; and y e t, th a t's what teaching 1s a l l about." In summary, the s ix school s ite s v is ite d provided a rich base fo r study. To summarize th e demographics of these s ix schools b r ie f ly , Tables 27 and 28 are provided. The combination of c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t appeared to help drive th e progress of these schools 1n providing high access and p a rtic ip a tio n educational computing op portunities fo r stu­ dents have been restated 1n th e tables but are, 1n fa c t, most c le a rly apparent w ith in the sections containing the s it e summaries fo r each school. T a b le 2 7 . - - S e le c t e d summary d a ta fro m s i x sch oo l s ite s v i s i t e d . Hay 1 9 8 5 .a ACCOUNTABILITY S it e , S e t t in g . A p p ro x . P o p u la t io n B lu e B a rn R u ra l 8004- 1983 S ta t e R a n k in q P er P u p il/ ln s t . E x p e n d itu r e s *53 Snow Sky R u ra l 110 166 Sunny la n e S u b u rba n 550 23 G re en V is t a S u b u rb a n 350 79 C t iy s id e U rban 175 171 M e tro la k e U rba n 175 2 a D a ta r e la t e d L o c a lly I d e n t i f i e d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s T h a t Have H e lp e d F a c i l i t a t e I n n o v a t io n o f Comput in g (O th e r Than Fund in q ) P r i n c i p a l le a d e r s h ip , s u p p o r t , in v o lv e m e n t C o m p ute r e x p e r t o n s i t e and a s s ig n e d T e a c h e r in s e r v ic e on s i t e H ig h e n th u s ia s m w i t h i n s c h o o l P r i n c i p a l le a d e r s h ip , s u p p o r t , in v o lv e m e n t E n t h u s i a s t ic lo c a l e x p e r t / v o lu n t e e r c o n s u lt a n t O n g o in g te a c h e r in s e r v ic e , o n - s i te C r e a t iv e u s e / t im e s h a r in g " a m p le c o m p u te rs P r i n c i p a l le a d e r s h ip , s u p p o r t , in v o lv e m e n t B o a r d / a d m in is t r a t io n co m m itm en t O n q o in g t e a c h e r in s e r v ic e E n t h u s i a s t ic d i s t r i c t c o n s u lt a n t P r i n c i p a l le a d e r s h ip , s u p p o r t , in v o lv e m e n t B o a r d / a d m in is t r a t io n co m m itm en t L o c a lly e n t h u s i a s t i c c o m p u tin g c o n s u lt a n t H ig h e n th u s ia s m on s i t e P r i n c i p a l le a d e r s h ip , s u p p o r t , in v o lv e m e n t L o c a l c o m p u te r t e a c h e r L o c a l t e a c h e r in s e r v ic e L o c a l e n th u s ia s m P r i n c i p a l le a d e r s h ip , s u p p o r t , in v o lv e m e n t D i s t r i c t c o m p u tin g c o n s u lt a n t , e n t h u s ia s t L o c a lly e n t h u s i a s t i c c o m p u te r e x p e rt O i s t r i c t co m m itm en t t o c o n c e p t / p la n to a n c illa r y R e s e a rc h Q u e s tio n IR . D is t. P la n ? Wr i t t e n ? Local P la n ? W r it t e n ? FUNDING SOURCES D a te I m p le ­ m e n te d How H o s t C o m p u te rs A c q u ir e d (H * m o s t, S-som e) Local D is t . . C hi H S S S S No No Yes Yes 8 3 - 8* Ho No Yes No 8 3 - 8* Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 2 -8 3 H Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 *-8 5 H Yes '6 5 No Yes Yes 8 2 -8 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 2 -8 3 M H 5 Ch2 A rt3 SPED Comm./ P a r e n ts S S S S S S H s S T a b le 2 8 . — S e le c te d d a ta from s i x school s i t e v i s i t a t i o n s , Hay 1985. Si te L o c a tio n o f In n o v a tio n A dvocates E a rly L a te r In n o v a tio n H is to r y D = d is t r ic t L = lo c a l Number o f Computers R a tio Time H ic ro s Used/ School Day Used W eekly by Every S tu d e n t Grades in S c h o o l: Grades w / Access Used O u ts id e R e gu lar School Day? B lu e Barn P r in c ip a l A few te a c h e rs V o lu n te e r com puter c o n s u lta n t D is tr ic t D=low L=high 12 68:1 75-100% 1/2 to 1 hour K-4 K-4 Yes Snow Sky Comm. ed. d ir e c t o r Spec. ed. te a c h e r Ch. 1 te a c h e r P r in c ip a l D=low 10+ 10:1 75-100% 1/2 to 1 hour K-6 K-6 Yes Sunny Lane P r in c ip a l Cadre o f d i s t r i c t and community e a r ly a d o p te rs D is tr ic t D=mod. L=high 12 46:1 75-100% 15 to 30 m in . K-5 K-5 Yes Green V is ta Cadre o f d i s t r i c t e a r ly a d o p te rs D is tr ic t D=high L=h i gh 14 25:1 75-100% 1/2 to 1 h o u r; v a r ie s by grade K-5 K-5 Yes Ci t y s id e Local te a c h e r Local p r in c ip a l D is tr ic t •85 D=low L=high 7 39:1 75-100% 1/2 to 1 h o u r; v a r ie s K-6 2 -6 Yes M etro Lake Local school Communi t y e a r ly a d o p te rs D is tr ic t D=high L=low 6 28:1 75-100% 15 to 30 m in . K-5 K-5 Yes T able 2 8 . — Contin ued . I n s t r u c t io n and F u tu re Im p le m e n ta tio n P ro sp e cts Si te P ieces of S o ftw a re M id d le S c h o o l/ J u n io r High S t a f f Expects Elem. S tu d e n ts to Have Ski 1 Is Who I s R e sp o n sib le f o r I n s t r u c t io n ? a Broad Range o f A p p lic a t io ns I n t e n tio n to O b ta in in 85 - 8 6 : (H=hardware) (S = s o ftw a re ) ( l= in s e r v ic e ) H S I A d m in is . Use o f Computers CMI Computer L o c a tio n (^ P rim a ry ) B lue Barn 50+ No C o n s u lta n t Broad Y Y Y N L a b *+ c a rt Snow Sky 50+ No C o n s u lta n t Broad Y Y Y N L a b *+ c a rt Sunny Lane 50+ Yes Teacher Broad N Y Y Green V is ta 50+ Yes C o n s u lta n t Broad Y Y Y N L a b *+ c a rt Ci t y s id e 50+ No Teacher M oderate N Y Y N L a b *+ c a rt M etro Lake 50+ Yes Media s p e c ia lis t Broad Y Y Y N Media c e n te r+ c a rt oo aA l 1 s c h o o ls a re w o rk in g tow ard te a c h e r as c h ie f d e liv e r e r o f in s t r u c t i o n . Y '86 L a b *+ c a rt V Jl CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, AND REFLECTIONS Chapter V reviews selected findings from both the statew ide microcomputing survey of 600 elementary schools and the on-s1te s t a ff In terv ie w s and observations a t s ix h1gh-student-access and hlghstudent-part1c1pat1on school s ite s . manner: I t 1s arranged 1n the follow ing summaries, conclusions, recommendations fo r research and fo r p ra c tic e , and f i n a l l y , re fle c tio n s on the study. The purpose of the study was to c o lle c t, from a sample of Michigan ru r a l, suburban, and urban public elementary schools, data to help describe selected p o lic ie s and educational practices pertaining to local a v a ila b ilit y of microcomputers, t h e ir access to students, and the s p e c ific In s tru c tio n a l uses most prevalent. The data were fu rth e r analyzed to lo ca te and describe a few of the schools where a high degree of student educational computing a c t iv it y was reported. I t was a n tic ip a te d these selected schools, 1f v is ite d and observed, might reveal a number of c h a ra c te ris tic s 1n t h e ir p o lic ie s , practices, or c u ltu ra l context th a t appeared to contrib u te to a c lim a te of high access and p a rtic ip a tio n op portunities fo r a ll students. 186 187 I t 1s Im portant to reemphasize th a t the purpose of th is study was 1n a ll cases to provide an across-communlty-type representation of e ffo r t* to note the progress of the e ffo r t* and* through a few s ite reports* to ch aracterize I t . N either Id e n tify in g comparative wealth nor community type per se was a s p e c ific In te r e s t to the outcomes of th is study. As Howe (1984b) remarked* "Money makes a d iffe re n c e ; . . . stop studying th e obvious" (p. 14). Rather* 1t was of In te re s t to determine how Michigan elementary schools are addressing the educa­ tio n a l uses of a new technology and to ch a rac te rize the nature and substance of the local e ffo rts . Chapter I established the need fo r reviewing th e status of educational computing p o lic ie s and practices 1n Michigan public elementary schools, described the plan and form at, and defined the s p e c ific purpose of the study. Chapter I I reviewed selected re le va n t lit e r a t u r e 1n the fo llo w in g to p ic a l areas: (a) Society* Technology, and C alls fo r Change; (b) an Overview of the In te g ra tio n and Im plementation of In s tru c tio n a l Computing Programs; (c) a Discussion of Selected Topics Related to Microcomputers and Student Learning; (d) Policy Considera­ tions Confronted by Educational Planners; and (e) a B rie f Overview of the A rriv a l of Microcomputers and the Implementation of Educational Computing 1n Michigan Public Schools. Chapter I I I presented the methods and procedures fo r the study and described the population sampled and the Instruments used.to gather data statewide and a t elementary school s ite s . Chapter IV provided 188 analyses of selected data co lle cte d from both the statew ide survey re la te d to the status of educational computing 1n Michigan elementary schools and the descriptions of re la te d a c t iv it ie s a t s ix school s ite s . Summaries Selected findings from responses to the four major research questions contain, when appropriate, selected observations from the six s ite v is ita tio n s . The Statewide Survey Research Question 1; What 1s the representative le v e l of In te ­ gration of microcomputers dedicated to educational usage In a sample of Michigan public elementary schools? While the question c a lls fo r a q u a n tita tiv e answer, the aggre­ gate response to 1 t o ffe rs a current perspective on the p r io r it ie s Michigan educators have fo r the a c q u is itio n of microcomputers as one new technology. I f 361 elementary schools re p o rt 2,750 (on average, almost eight per school) micros fo r student use and microcomputers only began to be "kid proof" and adaptable fo r desk-top and school use 1n about 1980, then the data co llected fo r th is study 1n e a rly 1985 con­ firm a measurable school e f f o r t to provide hardware. In a d d itio n , 63% of a ll schools also reported 26 or more pieces of software. The data In d ic a te th a t across schools th e re was a r a tio of 81 students to every one computer. However, the range of students to one computer across a l l schools varied d ra m a tic a lly , from as few as fiv e students to one computer to as many as 584 students to one computer. 189 Research Question 2. What can be described as the le v e l of In s tru c tio n a l computing access and p a rtic ip a tio n opportunities fo r students across grades and groups? I t 1s a ll too apparent th a t student-to-com puter ra tio s mean l i t t l e w ithout inform ation to corroborate t h e ir f u ll use and d is trib u ­ tio n across subsets of th e population. Answers to th is question give some In d ic a tio n of how a local school, with e ith e r few or abundant human or m aterial resources, provides a planned experience on a regular basis fo r students. What could not be re a d ily depicted 1n ta b u la r form was the seemingly endless v a rie ty of grade combinations and wideranging student use-tim e allotm ents reported by Individual schools. For example, one of the schools v is ite d a llo tte d 30 minutes per week to second grade, 40 minutes to th ird , 60 minutes to fourth, and 45 minutes to f i f t h and s ixth . The study Indicates th a t 73% of a l l schools surveyed reported planned in s tru c tio n . And 97% of those w ith an In s tru c tio n a l plan fo r computing chose to emphasize and provide In stru c tio n a l computing 1n the th 1 r d -to -fifth -g ra d e range. Aside from whether or not schools offered "planned" In s tru c ­ tio n , p rin c ip a ls were asked how many students spent tim e on a computer once a week. F if ty percent or more of a l l students 1n 50% of the 361- school sample were provided w ith 15 minutes or more computing tim e per week; 60% of those schools assured th a t the use-tim e was equal across s im ila r grade sections. While only h a lf the schools surveyed offered a t le a s t 50% of t h e ir students 15 minutes or more computing tim e per week, many other schools did, 1n fa c t, report o ffe rin g assured 190 computing tim e on a predetermined schedule to a representative per­ centage of students. Again, the extreme v a rie ty of reported data did not lend I t s e l f to In fo rm a tiv e ta b u la tio n fo r presentation. A few examples from p rin c ip a ls ' comments w i l l help c la r if y student use-t1me: "Computer tim e 1s rationed so th a t each classroom can plan on having a ll the school computers a v a ila b le fo r two weeks each school year." Or "Our f i f t h graders have two months of planned com puter-related a c tiv ­ ity ." Or "Only Chapter I students 1n our school use computers, and they use them a t le a s t two hours per week." A number of schools reported th a t some of t h e ir computers were used only by c e rta in groups of students. Of 303 schools reporting (84% o f a ll schools), 66% reported th a t some of t h e ir computers served special education students, 64% th a t c e rta in of th e ir computers served Chapter I students, and 56% reported computers e s p e cia lly purchased and reserved fo r g ifte d classrooms. Only a small percentage of respondents made w ritte n comments to address ju s t how many of th e ir computers were designated s o lely fo r the use of these students. The data Indicated th a t 1n a l l 361 schools, 41% used t h e ir a v a ila b le computers less than one-fourth of the school day.Only 19% of the schools used t h e ir computers between 76% and 100% of the a v a ila b le time. Becker's (1 n Chion-Kenney, 1985) recent study of computers 1n schools acknowledged th is machlne-usage discrepancy but reported an Increase 1n o v e rall use from previous years. could be Id le fo r a number of reasons discussed elsewhere. Machines What 1s 191 Im portant fo r planners to note 1s th a t a capacity fo r greater use of present machines 1s possible. In regard to access, the placement of computers, regardless of th e ir abundance or s c a rc ity a t a p a rtic u la r school s ite , appeared to require a blend of a lte rn a tiv e s . F 1 fty -f1 v e percent of a ll schools located th e ir computers 1n more than one lo catio n . carts fo r m o b ility was also Im portant. Placing them on In the s ix school s ite s v is ite d , where high a c c e s s /p a rtlc lp a tlo n op portunities were one c r it e ­ rion , the computers were In a labo ratory, not a classroom s e ttin g , but some were on carts a v a ila b le fo r teacher checkout. supervised 1n the fo llo w in g ways: The labs were The teacher and class had a sched­ uled tim e; the students were taught and/or supervised by a computing aide, a media s p e c ia lis t, a tra in e d consultant, a com puter-proficient p rin c ip a l, a volunteer teacher, or sometimes a tra in e d volunteer. Not In fre q u e n tly , an adjunct to th is supervision was students helping other students, both spontaneously and through assignment. Additional access to computers was provided fo r students before school, a t lunch break, or a fte r school by54% of a ll ru r a l, 50% of a ll suburban, and 30% of a l l urban schools. Anumber of schools reported lending computers to fa m ilie s and teachers on the weekend and over vacation breaks. Equitable access to computing op portunities across s im ila r grade sections receiving planned In s tru c tio n was assured by 68% of the reporting schools. discernib le. Equity of access across groups was not as re a d ily Local decisions Influenced which grades were provided 192 with computing tim e and fo r how long. Twenty-four schools In fo rm a lly added the comment th a t t h e ir only computers had been purchased with designated funds and th e re fo re could be used only by designated user groups. Research Question 3 . What educational a p p licatio n s of microcomputers are most generally present fo r students? What ought to be going on In schools due to the fa c t th a t there is computer c a p a b ility has not been ascertained (ASCD, 1985). Yet, 94% of a ll schools surveyed appeared to have made some purposeful In stru c­ tio n a l decisions. reported. An average of almost seven applicatio n s were Most common usages, by more than h a lf the schools, were mathematics, d r i l l , tu to r ia ls (fo r a number of content areas), reading, and language arts. Forty percent of a ll schools offered students In s tru c tio n 1n problem solving, social studies, and word processing. When a question was posed about using computers and softw are to teach In s tru c tio n a l o b jectives 1n several curriculum content areas, over 90%, or 321 schools, re p lie d . About 60% of these schools reported th a t they were, 1n e ffe c t, In te g ra tin g computing In to the c u rric u la r areas. S pecific computing s k ill s and understandings were a formal expectation 1n only 36% of a ll reporting schools. Outcomes of computing s k ills were measured less than 16% of the tim e in a ll schools, but some outcomes were measured "sometimes” 1n an a d d itio n al 336 schools reporting. 193 Research Question 4. What local policy decisions are being developed or are 1n place to assure students In stru c tio n a l computing (or technology) opportunities? In th is policy subsection, the a n c illa ry questions w ith relevance to local and d i s t r ic t policy regarding computer a c q u is itio n , educational use, and access and p a rtic ip a tio n are discussed. Formal policy decisions a t the d i s t r ic t level th a t contribute to local school educational a c tiv ity were addressed 1n th is portion of the study. I t must be reemphasized th a t local schools make many of t h e ir own policy decisions. P rin c ip a ls 1n 324 of 361 schools reported th a t th e ir d is t r ic t s had already developed long-range In s tru c tio n a l comput­ ing plans. In th is study, th is kind of commitment was Indicated by responses to the categories of funding, maintenance, softw are, and w h o le -s ta ff I n i t i a l tra in in g and technological updating. A long-range d i s t r ic t In s tru c tio n a l computing plan was noted 1n an average o f 52% of the schools. Plans were v e r ifie d fo r 39% of ru ra l, 64% of suburban, and 52% of urban d is tr ic ts . With 92% of the d is tr ic ts rep o rtin g , about 75% reported funding commitments to hardware, software, tra in in g , and ma1ntenance. While these fig u re s are promising, 1t 1s possible th a t the In divid ual d i s t r ic t le v e l of commitment to each and across a ll of these categories would reveal broad v a ria tio n and, 1n addition , across high schools and middle schools and even among the elementary schools w ith in the same d is t r ic t . Policy decisions were reported shelved, or only p a r tia lly Implemented, because of fa ile d m llla g e s, staggered 194 Implementation processes# or such reasons as "We are proceeding w ith caution to avoid costly mistakes." Voluntary w ritte n comments drawn from the statew ide survey and the observations recorded during the s ix s c h o o l-s lte v is ita tio n s bore out the magnitude of v a ria tio n 1n p o lic ie s put In to actual practice. "Our d i s t r ic t has committed i t s e l f to K-12 computing# but so fa r th a t has meant the high school. A ll the elementary schools must fend fo r themselves." Each of the s ix schools experienced varying le v e ls of d is t r ic t commitment# even though school-board commitment had been made. For example# one school d is t r ic t recognized a volunteer teacher/consultant as the " d is tr ic t" consultant. set of circumstances. Another school encountered a d iffe r e n t I t found local means to provide on-s1te In service fo r s t a ff and to purchase computers and softw are th re e years before a d is t r ic t policy was formulated. I f students are to be provided w ith an Instructional-com puting curriculum# a d is t r ic t po licy, i t 1s assumed# would seek to Insure the proper d elivery of In s tru c tio n through an ongoing s t a f f 1nserv1ce and technologlcal-updatlng component. As a policy indicator# d is t r ic t commitment to s t a f f tra in in g varied# as did the range of o ffe rin g s. While 77% of 361 schools (278) reported th a t some tra in in g 1n Introduction to Computing was offered# only 141 schools provided 1 t to 100% of th e ir s ta ff. No mechanism was Included 1n the statew ide survey to determine the depth# the content# or the a tte n tio n to the ongoing nature or progression of 1nserv1ce tra in in g . Further evidence of the 195 v a ria tio n of opportunity fo r teacher-focused educational-computing tra in in g occurred 1n other course categories. Ninety percent of s t a f f 1n only (a) 17% of a ll schools were offered In s tru c tio n a l A pplications of Microcomputers; (b) 11% of a ll schools# Evaluation of In s tru c tio n a l Software; and (c) 11% of a ll schools, some s t a ff tra in in g in Managing Computers 1n the Classroom. As was reported 1n the te x t of the s ix s c h o o l-slte summaries, district-sp o n so red 1nserv1ces are only one means of providing teacher tra in in g . In divid ual teachers take personal courses, colleagues help colleagues, and local schools take re s p o n s ib ility fo r th e ir own s t a f f tr a in in g , generated through com puter-proficient enthusiasts on s t a f f or through e x te rn a lly provided e x p e rtise . A r e lia b le In d ic a to r of the local school's p o ten tial for teaching students with and about computers was the answer p rin c ip a ls gave to the question, "How many s t a f f members do you perceive to be somewhat or highly q u a lifie d to teach the Intended com puter-related curriculum?" so. They believed th a t 68% o f t h e ir s t a f f would be able to do At the s ix school s ite s v is ite d , p rin c ip a ls ' perceptions of s t a f f readiness varied from 10% to 100%. How, then, was 1 t possible fo r teachers to teach the Intended curriculum 1n these Instances? The measures taken by the s ix schools unearthed an In te re s tin g phenomenon. While these s ite s were 1n the process of tra in in g th e ir teachers, steps were taken to ensure th a t students were not deprived of ongoing computer education and consistent planned In s tru c tio n . This e ffo r t to compensate fo r the I n i t i a l 196 v a ria tio n 1n teacher capacity to teach the computing components was f u lly described 1n the s it e summaries. Local practices Included the use of on-s1te experts* teach er/stud ent laboratory settin g s supervised by consultants* large-group 1nserv1ces w ith on-s1te follow -up* and so on. These In terven tio n s were viewed lo c a lly as only temporary, with high expectations th a t teachers would even tually teach the Intended currlculurn. Th1rty-s1x percent of a ll schools reported having 50 pieces of In s tru c tio n a l softw are fo r an average-slze student population of 386 students. Although the number of pieces does not speak to appropriate content or grade le v e l, 1 t does a ffirm an In te n tio n to acquire software th a t 1s believed lo c a lly to be of educational Importance. This b r ie f review of p o licy Im p licatio n s based on survey data In dicates th a t school d is t r ic t s have, 1n the main, adopted and pro­ ceeded w ith in t h e ir own goal and fin a n c ia l s tru c tu re to commit to an Im plementation of computing 1n t h e ir schools. However, the v a ria tio n 1n provision of the basic elements of such an Implementation across school s ite s and d is t r ic t s 1s apparent. Also s ig n ific a n t 1s the reported recency of these school1mplementat1on e ffo r ts . A substantial number of schools and t h e ir d is tr ic ts were rep o rtin g , fo r example, " ju s t g ettin g under way 1n 1984." Others mentioned th e goal of the 1985-86 school year. S u ffi­ c ie n t feedback was co lle cte d to believe th a t school e ffo r ts , fo r the most p a rt, were reinforced by a t le a s t some amount of planning and a considered purpose. Various funding sources and means of achieving 197 ends have been used. tured. Most d i s t r ic t plans were long-range and struc­ Implementing computers In to the curriculum appeared to be a p r io r ity fo r most reporting schools. Just what th is Implementation and In te g ra tio n e f f o r t meant appeared to derive from a lo c a lly conceived "press” to prepare today's students fo r liv in g 1n a high-tech society. School Site.Summaries The s ix elementary school s it e v is ita tio n s provided an opportunity fo r observation and description of supportive environments In which high access/part1c1pat1on educational computing opportunities were a v a ila b le fo r students and fo r teachers. Many of these a ttrib u te s were discussed 1n connection w ith the statewide survey data 1n the preceding section of th is chapter. These schools varied 1n the type of community they represented, th e ir fin a n c ia l resources, the nature of the student body and fa c u lty , and so on. Their s im ila r it ie s centered on a d riv in g purpose to provide students with these opportunities. The combinations of demographics and c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t appeared to help drive th is focus were presented 1n Tables 27 and 28. I t Is notable th a t the p rin c ip a ls ' leadership, p a rtic ip a tio n , and Involvement emerged as th e sin g le recurrent mlcrocomputer-educattonfa c 1 H ta t1 n g program c h a ra c te ris tic across a ll s ix s ite s . When con­ sidered 1n the aggregate, elements th a t seemed to contribute most to the p re v a ilin g atmosphere of high access, p a rtic ip a tio n , and educational-use op portunities fo r students across the s ix school s ite s were (1 n rank order): (a) strong prin cip al leadership, support, and Involvement (the c h a ra c te ris tic was strongly evident a t a l l s ix s ite s ); 198 (b) on-s1te com puter-proficient helping expert (fiv e s ite s ); (c) ongoing 1nserv1ce (four s ite s ); and funding (three s ite s ); parents (three s ite s ); (d) d is t r ic t commitment to concept (e) lo cal enthusiasm by s t a f f , students, and ( f ) an Involved d is t r ic t computing consultant (two s ite s ); and (g) ample computers provided by c re a tiv e use of tim e, scheduling, and sharing (one s it e ) . The a ttr ib u te of c re a tiv e usage, outstanding 1n one school, was also highly v is ib le 1n a ll s ix schools studied and was noted 1n other com puter-active schools reporting, probably because funding alone, 1n most cases, did not ensure "adequate-to-ample" computers fo r students. These seven elements, when clustered by th e ir content, In d ic a te also the sign ificance of those p ractices th a t promote the strengthening of s t a ff educational-computing p ro ficien c y, such as on-s1te computerp ro fic ie n t helping expert, coupled w ith an Involved d is t r ic t computing consultant and ongoing and targ eted 1nserv1ce. Summaries of selected re s u lts from Interviews with p rin c ip a ls , teachers, and computing consultants a t s ix school s it e s . 1. P rin cip als. Three p rin c ip a ls were what Becker (1984a) c a lle d "computerlsts," e a rly computer users who eagerly seek ways to tra n s la te computer p o te n tia l In to classrooms. computers, but not as computer "buffs." The other three used However, a ll s ix were Involved 1n e ffo r ts to Insure d is t r ic t - le v e l a tte n tio n to computer In te g ra tio n , had high expectations th a t a ll teachers would p a rtic ip a te 1n teaching the Intended curriculum , monitored th e Implementation, and were v is ib le 1n assuring the Importance of the computer as a tool to Incorporate 1n 199 planned learning experiences. They In stig a ted or collaborated w ith local teacher ''buffs1' and parents to acquire the physical components needed to provide broad access and p a rtic ip a tio n op portunities. 2. Teachers. Two teachers were Interview ed a t each s ite except one school/ where the p rin cip a l believed one teacher would represent a ll points of view. Time was lim ite d . Most Interview s were conducted w h ile the p rin cip al took a class period or during the teachers' planning tim e. Although a structured In terview form was used as a guide, 1t proved more e f f ic ie n t to ask only the role-spec1f1c questions because answers to more general questions were e x tractab le from other sources. A ll 11 teachers agreed th a t Incorporating educational computing a t the elementary le v e l 1s Im portant or essential and th a t middle or high school 1s "too la te ." Some were avid computer users; others had varying degrees of experience and comfort le v e ls with computers. None had been undergraduates when microcomputers were Introduced In to col­ lege education c u rric u la , but they were eager to recommend components for preservice teacher tra in in g 1n In s tru c tio n a l computing, Including hands-on computing experience, a t le a s t simple programming, courseware a pplications 1n undergraduate content-area classes and In a "computers1n-education environment," and a requirement th a t a ll preservice teach­ ers a c tu a lly work w ith c h ild ren , computers, and softw are 1n a simulated classroom environment. Teachers' recommendations fo r 1nserv1ce tra in in g Included fewer Immersion courses, such as In tro duction to Computing, and more on-s1te, 200 one-on-one assistance w ith applications. I f 1nserv1ce could be offered 1n small-group settings* they preferred th a t t h e ir co-learners be from s im ila r grade-level or c o n te n t-le v e l groups and th a t they possess about the same degree of computer proficien cy. d is t r ic t inservlces as " o ff ta rg e t." Many characterized the la rg e r A Chapter I teacher believed th a t "teachers should share more w ith other teachers and with students and should not be a fra id to be uninformed on t h e ir way to becoming informed about educational computing. Students need to see th e ir teachers 1nvolved." O ft-repeated suggestions fo r teacher Involvement and p a r t ic i­ pation were (a) tim e to le a rn the keyboard* explore software* and match curriculum to courseware, with support when needed from a computereducator s p e c ia lis t; and (b) an opportunity to develop a t one's own stage of readiness. Many f e l t forced In to a ro le before they were technologically* In t e lle c t u a lly * or em otionally prepared. Others com­ plained of group tra in in g where those teachers who have some experience dominate the learnin g environment. to o l* Some teachers saw the computer as a others as " ju s t one more thing to do." A few teachers complained th a t too few computers made In te g ra tin g computers In to a c t iv it ie s neither fe a s ib le nor e f f ic ie n t . 3. Computing consultants. In a l l s ix schools v is ite d * a position of computing consultant was acknowledged. To c la r ify * two were o f f ic ia l K-12 computing consultants with backgrounds as media s p e c ia lis ts ; they were appointed when the d i s t r ic t Implemented a K-12 cu rriculu m -integrated program. One was a K-8 consultant, former 201 teacher, and computing enthusiast who was hired fo r s1x-tenths tim e but subsequently recommended fo r f u ll- t im e and K-12. The fourth was a special education/general education teacher who taught a computer class and volunteered a ll extra tim e to helping teachers and students. Hoping fo r an o f f ic i a l appointment, she was recognized by the d is t r ic t as the u n o ffic ia l consultant and spokesperson fo r a ll computing m atters. Another was a volunteer and computer expert who was hired to supervise the elementary laboratory. assignment. He hoped fo r an eventual K-12 The sixth consultant Interview ed was appointed K-12 consultant a fte r the local school 1n his d i s t r ic t was selected fo r study. That local school's actual resident consultant was a computer-using teacher enthusiast. The recently appointed d is t r ic t consultant's ro le was an addition to numerous other d1str1ctw1de re s p o n s ib ilitie s . In years, consultancy assignments represented two w ith four or more years, three with about one and on e-h alf years, and one w ith only a few months. Role-spec1f1c responses of In te re s t were the fo llo w in g : All s ix computing consultants stated th a t teachers eventually must be a c tiv e p a rtic ip a n ts 1n th e d elivery of student In s tru c tio n 1n the context of appropriate software presented a t the appropriate content and learn ers' "moment in tim e." They saw th is as a gradual process, and one 1n which the consultant's ro le was th a t of help, encouragement, and providing appropriate softw are, classroom-management techniques, and one-on-one help when needed. to do th is job adequately. Two stated they were spread too th in Funding fo r ample machines, courseware, and 202 e s p e c ia lly released tim e fo r teachers to explore the new technology was an essential requirement. s e lf-te a c h in g , keeping up A ll received t h e ir tra in in g In various ways: w ith the li t e r a t u r e and research, taking classes o f In te re s t* and attending educational-computing conferences and workshops. None was degreed s p e c ific a lly to teach computing. A veteran 1n the ro le of d is t r ic t computing teach er/co nsultant summarized: " I t 1s Im portant to put computers 1n the context of what teachers are teaching and students are learnin g everyday." In c itin g the prevalence of teacher anxiety about using computers w ith students* she said* "Think of the elementary teachers who teach s ix subjects! How can computers help them do t h a t ? Then, show them softw are th a t w i l l * and give them tim e and space to make the tra n s itio n ." Her ra tio n a le fo r helping teachers learn to use computers w ith students was: "Students can learn by 'watching teachers be students.' The teacher and computer together can move students toward conceptualizing; there are as yet so few teachers who can help students to do th a t, and yet* th a t's what teaching 1s a ll about." Concl u s i ons 1. Michigan elementary school s ta ffs and t h e ir school communities have found both tr a d itio n a l and entrepren eu rial ways to develop educational computing programs. a lte r n a tiv e funding sources.) (See Table 9 fo r specified For example, one school obtained It s computers through a one-tim e d is t r ic t a llo c a tio n , another by a series of lo cal fu n d -raisin g a c t iv it ie s . Thus* resources can be described as 203 varied and often dependent on recurring local In it ia t iv e . Some schools have f u ll d i s t r ic t funding and commitment* whereas others have acquired computers from external funding sources, such as Chapter I or Chapter II. This type of a c q u is itio n causes an unevenness of provision and a dubious a b ilit y to f u l f i l l a long-range, educationally meaningful com­ mitment across school s ite s . 2. The extreme range 1n the r a tio of students to one computer across a ll community types predicts a developing pattern of lim ite d access and p a rtic ip a tio n op portunities fo r some students who must depend on the public schools fo r t h e ir I n i t i a l encounters with new technologies. This research fin ding corroborates the serious Issue of in eq u ita b le access to educational technology fo r Michigan students described by Salas (1983). 3. Computers were used only 50% or more of the tim e 1n 38% of the reporting schools. Some of th is may be due to the fa c t th a t computers had been purchased w ith funds th a t s tip u la te d use by s p e c la lneeds groups. Other reasons might Involve computer scheduling, loca­ tio n , absence of train e d and a v a ila b le personnel, or softw are th a t does not match classroom needs. 4. In 321 of 361 schools, 62% reported o ffe rin g a range of c u rric u la r applications. An average of seven applicatio n s was checked, which tends to In d ic a te an in te n tio n to t r e a t computers more as a tool than as "add-ons" to the school curriculum . Only a few of the more promising uses noted by Brophy and Hannon (1984) are beginning to be 204 reported 1n s ig n ific a n t numbers by Michigan elementary schools; fo r example# 34% fo r sim ulations and 44% fo r problem solving. Essential s k ill bu ild in g using d r i l l and practice software# reported to be b e n e fic ial fo r some educationally disadvantaged students# occupies much of the present use-t1me of designated Chapter I computers. 5. Schools p a rtic ip a tin g 1n on-s1te In terview s reported th a t w hile K-12 Im plementation 1s t h e ir direction# the elementary students were the f i r s t ta rg e t group fo r to ta l Immersion 1n a computing c u rric u ­ lum# even though some programs were offered to m id d le /ju n io r high school and high school students. This could In d ic a te th a t other schools# as well# may be moving toward a "bottom up" In teg ra tio n and Im plementation of computing through the curriculum. 6. W hile educational-computing user groups develop and flourish# the opportunity offered by networking to enhance local knowl­ edge and o ffe rin g s among and across school s ite s 1s as yet underused. For example# only 19% of rural schools reported networking# th a t 1s» sharing In form atio n on successful practice, research# and technological updatlng. 7. Teachers In terview ed on s ite reported the best and most personally h e lp fu l source of 1nserv1ce tra in in g 1s the d elivery of such technology a t the s ite . In terv e n tio n s from computer teacher consult­ ants# they suggested# should be timed to meet local needs and In d i­ vidual teacher readiness. Software presentation should be re levan t to what th e ir students are a c tiv e ly doing 1n content areas. 205 While most schools th a t offered w h o le -s ta ff 1nserv1ce chose as a p r io r ity Introduction to Computing* there was no way to In te rp re t the depth* consistency of follow -through* content of* or ta rg e t audience selected fo r 1nserv1ce presentations. Since teachers 1n elementary schools are more lik e ly to be the deliverers of classroom computing In s tru c tio n , the disparate nature of 1nserv1ce o fferin g s across a ll school s ite s points to a s ig n ific a n t v a ria tio n 1n what students* as a consequence, experience 1n t h e ir m1crocomputer-educat1on opportunity. 8. While funding 1s b a s ic a lly Important to the Implementation of an Innovation, 1 t was possible fo r some elementary schools to develop a h1gh-access computer education program fo r most students by evidencing a combination of c h a ra c te ris tic s , which energized the school and surrounding community to acquire computers, software* and tra in in g and to Implement an In s tru c tio n a l plan. S im ila r kinds of supporting environments as those described by experts such as Hunter* Dearborn* and Snyder (1983) and the experts queried before th is study (see Chap­ t e r I I I ) seem to produce* a t le a s t fo r a few years, h1gh-access and h1gh-part1c1pat1on op po rtu n ities fo r students. Whether a local school, without assured and continuous funding and continuous external support* could sustain such an en erg etic local e f f o r t 1s questionable. However* 1n the w ritte n comments accompanying returned surveys and through observations a t the six schools, 1 t was c le a r th a t local leadership* enthusiasm* an a v a ila b le computer "buff'Vexpert* commitment and sup­ port, and targeted 1nserv1ce opportunities could combine to provide 206 a v ia b le local In s tru c tio n a l computing program* even when fin a n c ia l resources were scarce. On th e other hand* opposite s itu a tio n s were reported* 1n which schools did Indeed have the m a te ria l resources but had fa ile d to provide high access/part1c1pat1on op portunities fo r students. One p rin cipal whose school had a 12:1 student-computer r a tio commented 1n part* " I would enjoy sending you a b r ie f description of our successes. I f you're In tere s ted 1n our fa ilu re s (I.e .* s t a f f enthusiasm* 1nserv1ce, CMI)* I am a t your d isp o s a l." A substantial number of schools th a t possessed the machines and peripherals to be able to provide a range of op p o rtu n ities fo r most students did not. Evidently 1n these cases a combination of f a c i l i ­ ta tin g c h a ra c te ris tic s was absent. 9. Policy and p ra c tic e Issues are Inherent 1n the character­ is t ic s ju s t delineated. F ifty -tw o percent of local schools or t h e ir d is tr ic ts have developed a long-range policy commitment to both an educational computing plan and It s Implementation. When local schools In d iv id u a lly make policy decisions about educational computing* I t may be because of a lack of* In s p ite of* or sometimes 1n addition to a d i s t r ic t decision. Whether w ritte n or less form ally a rtic u la te d * th e re freq u en tly are goals developed and proce­ dures embraced by the lo cal school as a u n it. Deal's (1985) perspec­ tiv e th a t a local school c u ltu re has Inherent r it u a ls and tr a d itio n s th a t help ch aracterize I t s e n tir e a c t iv it y was borne out 1n th is study. Some school communities appeared to forge ahead to obtain what they 207 believed was needed. This phenomenon of grass-roots e f f o r t was no tice­ able 1n the comments offered 1n w ritin g by 24 schools (nine suburban, e ig h t ru ra l, and seven urban) th a t In it ia t e d computing programs and obtained computers on t h e ir own with the help of parent, student, teacher, and/or community groups. Two other schools stated th a t th e ir to ta l computer "program” depended on micros brought to school by s t a f f fo r student use. Follow-through on d i s t r ic t and local p o lic ie s was not re a d ily measurable In a one-time survey. I t appears, however, th a t there are Inconsistencies across th e range of stated and actual commitments to funding, teacher tra in in g , equipment, softw are, and maintenance and updating, probably caused by local In a b ilit y to fund a t consistent le v e ls , lack of use of or absence of external support stru ctu res, and uncertainty about what 1t 1s best to do. Summary The amount of computer a c t iv it y present fo r students 1n a sample of Michigan elementary schools In d ic a te s, a t the very le a s t, an a c tiv e ra th e r than passive concern about providing In s tru c tio n a l comput­ ing op portunities. School responses could be characterized by the comment of Koetke (1984): "C ertain ly there 1s much research to be done . . . , but th e r e 1s much to be gained and minds to be lo s t by using th a t as an excuse fo r doing nothing today" (p. 163). One computing expert believed th a t educational computing might advance 1n schools 1n s p ite of In s u ffic ie n t funds because "people are too Invested 1n 1t" to relin q u ish or shelve 1t so e a rly 1n it s development (ASCD, 1985, p. 8). 208 Recommendations fo r P ra ctice 1. There 1s a d is p a rity of d o lla rs spent per pupil on In s tru c ­ tio n 1n Michigan public schools (Michigan S ta te Board of Education* 1983)* and because of a tr a d itio n of local autonomy 1n schools, there are differences also 1n the way local policy makers choose to designate funds fo r selected purposes. (Microcomputers 1n schools, fo r example, may or may not be an o f f i c i a l l y sanctioned expenditure.) This study reported a v a rie ty of ways 1n which funds were acquired and/or a llo ­ cated to Implement an Innovation, s p e c ific a lly microcomputers In edu­ cation. Consistency 1s needed. The annual 2% of the local In s tru c ­ tio n a l budget as a commitment to the Im plem entation, suggested by Moursund (1984c), 1s recommended as a s ta r t. While some schools and d is t r ic ts may not be convinced th a t any such e f f o r t 1s warranted, 1t makes more sense to provide and fund an enabling plan than to deal sporadically w ith Innovations 1n the curriculum when change 1s In e v i­ ta b le . Short-term or one-tim e local funding precludes the opportunity to t i e computers and softw are In to ongoing curriculum planning. School s ta ffs need to evaluate what computers w i l l do best a t present, so th a t computers, softw are, and funds are not misused, but used w e ll. They can then earmark or re a llo c a te funds to those areas where s u ffic ie n t computers are predicted to do th a t job best. 2. Even 1f such fin a n c ia l and philosophic commitments have been made lo c a lly , educators and p o licy makers, statew ide, must help estab lish a course of action th a t Includes funding to assure students 209 in Michigan public schools access to essential In s tru c tio n a l computing op portunities. Local and s ta te professional organizations need to derive and a ffirm which curren t applications w i l l lik e ly make a d iffe re n c e fo r students. Then concerned In d ivid u als and groups must c o lla b o ra te to advance appropriate le g is la tiv e and educational agendas. I f 52% of the reporting elementary schools do already have a long-range plan, surely enough 1s known about the value of computing and technological education to move toward providing funding and recommendations fo r "adequate to ample" and appropriate op p o rtu n ities fo r today's Michigan school students. 3. By the 1985 school year, each school, agency, and concerned professional organization should have assigned a t le a s t one person as the In structio nal-technology lia is o n . Whether or not a school has y e t to own a single computer, or whether or not an educational or business organization has y e t to make an o f f ic ia l commitment to th e concept of educational computing o p portunities fo r Michigan students, each has a stake in the outcome and must p a rtic ip a te 1n Insuring and providing what 1s necessary. "Everyone," said Pea (1984), 'Ms a shareholder 1n th is reform ative e n terp rise: teachers, parents, researchers, Industry, business, and policymakers" (p. 13). 4. Networking Is a natural next step fo r each school u n it or concerned organization th a t has assigned an on-s1te computer-technology representative. This In d ivid u al would assume the ro le of local advocate and Inform ation s p e c ia lis t and would help Id e n tify both lo cal needs and resources to share w ith a la rg e r network of schools, 210 organizations, and businesses. Networking 1s a v it a l and necessary pra c tic e to assure the promotion of the best th a t 1s c u rre n tly known about In s tru c tio n a l computing fo r students. Elchner (1984) said, "Schools simply cannot continue to function w ithout sharing t h e ir resources" (p. 1 ). What does networking mean 1n a s ta te where a school may be one block or many m iles from another, or hours of tra v e l away from I t s designated In term ediate school d is t r ic t (ISD) resource center or higher education contact point? The representative mentioned would Inform , draw from, and f u lly p a rtic ip a te In a statew ide network th a t shares research and practice In form atio n, as w ell as ways and means of Imple­ mentation. A ll the stakeholders form the network. The focus of the stakeholders 1s on the equitable d elivery of appropriate In s tru c tio n to Michigan public school students. 5. Local schools must be able to expect t h e ir ISDs to a n tic i­ pate and help serve the In s tru c tio n a l needs, which go beyond the scope and c a p a citie s of a s in g le school or d is t r ic t . I f th is expectation 1s not r e a lis t ic , p o lit ic a lly c o rrect, or p o lit ic a lly expedient, 1 t 1s nonetheless an assumption th a t 1s w idely held by local educators. A ll teachers Interview ed a t the s ix school s ite s commented about service from t h e ir local ISD. Some reported a v a rie ty of com puter-related services, whereas others reported no options a v aila b le . But they a ll expected th a t 1t was t h e ir ISD's re s p o n s ib ility to provide some kinds of technical and/or resource services th a t area schools might not be fe a s ib ly equipped to generate. 211 At present* the services and technology offered by ISDs to th e ir constituencies are varied. Some o ffe r consultants* service to schools* demonstration centers, resource/m aterials preview centers* and so on, whereas others may o ffe r only a single resource. For example, 69% of the reporting schools reported "no" re g u la rly a v a ila b le comput­ ing consultant from an ISD. I t 1s essential th a t the ISDs and t h e ir regional educational media centers (REMCs) be a c tiv e p a rtic ip a n ts 1n the promotion and d e liv ery of eq u itab le opportunities to t h e ir constituencies. Local ISD boards and REMC advisory councils must develop action plans to provide technological updating fo r t h e ir c lie n t schools. Such an action may Imply seme re s tru c tu rin g of the ISD’ s present agenda. 6. A most Im portant task fo r the State Board of Education must be to evaluate the present p o lic ie s and practices of ISDs and th e ir REMCs* e s p e c ia lly 1n re la tio n to the equitable d elivery of educational computing and other new technologies. Any com puter-related Department of Education s t a f f positions should be evaluated and adjusted to enhance the p o te n tia l outreach of a ll a v aila b le s t a f f . An addition al suggestion e n ta ils the appointment of an In terim * f u l l- t im e action researcher to help define and es tab lis h a baseline of what c o n stitu tes an essential In stru c tio n a l computing program. The researcher would also Id e n tify those schools and d is t r ic t s th a t are apparently technologically unserved or underserved. O ffers of approp­ r ia t e assistance and s p e c ific targeted Interventions would ensue. An e ffe c tiv e way must be found rath er expeditiously to determine* monitor* 212 and assure some measure of equity 1n the provision of essential educa­ tio n a l computing o p p o rtu n ities fo r Michigan students. 7. In B e tte r Education fo r Michigan C itizen s (1984), the Michigan S ta te Board of Education stated th a t recommendations w i ll be made to the Governor and le g is la tu r e fo r funding. With each passing day, the gaps between served and underserved students widen (Salas, 1983). The block-grant funds, m1n1-grants fo r special projects, and some funding of hardware and softw are fo r science and mathematics Improvement are a few ways Michigan public schools may now access s ta te funds fo r m icrocom puter-related purposes. In the second h a lf of the 1980s, the le g is la tu r e , guided by local and national research, must begin to a llo c a te funds to help a lle v ia te the Inequity 1n unserved schools and to promote equity 1n schools where, fo r various reasons, students appear to be underserved. There 1s no s u b s titu te fo r students and teachers having hands-on, meaningful experiences. Stasz and W inkler (1985) found the best way fo r d is t r ic t s to fo s te r Improved microcomputer use 1n classrooms 1s to build a stock of microcomputers and hardware backed w ith c e n tra lize d technical a s s is t­ ance, Including curriculu m -app ro priate softw are selectio n and evalua­ tio n . Other teacher In cen tives, they predicted, w ill be needed to s tim u la te and sustain teachers’ m otivation and In te re s t 1n s t a ff devel­ opment. Whatever funding In terven tio n s the le g is la tu r e makes, the decisions must contain long- and short-range expectations and goals so 213 th a t schools w ill be led to make only the broadest and most e ffe c tiv e educational uses of t h e ir technology. This Im p lie s not only s e lf - reporting of progress* but external help w ith monitoring* evaluating, and adjusting re s u lts to complement a w ell-researched y e t f le x ib le plan th a t takes In to account new research, changing technologies* and the changing knowledge base of students learning with technology. 8. Professional organizations such as the Michigan Association of Computer Users 1n Learning* the Michigan Reading Association, the Michigan Council fo r Teachers of Mathematics* the Middle C itie s Education Association, and Michigan colleges and u n iv e rs itie s should engage 1n c o lla b o ra tiv e e ffo r ts to Inform the f i e l d and advocate the advancement of new technology fo r a ll students. 9. I f educational computing 1s to reach I t s f u ll p o te n tia l* educators w i ll need to keep t h e ir schools' computers out of the c lo s e t and m aintain a visio nary sense of the program* 1n s p ite of few means. Software w i ll Improve. Perkins (1985) said* 'There w i ll be plenty of m ediocrity* but also plenty of enlightened applications." To assure th a t the f u l l value of computing fo r students 1s not diminished* prin­ c ip a ls must be responsible leaders 1n fin d in g and promoting the best school uses of computers. P rin c ip a ls and other school adm inistrators* In d iv id u a lly and w ith in t h e ir professional groups* need to study t h e ir ro le 1n the development of technology. The leadership of the prin cip al was the sing le most im portant fa c to r 1n promoting high a c c e s s /p a rtic i­ pation opportunities a t each of the s ix school s ite s studied. 214 10. Educators must ask, What are the unique educational roles fo r computers 1n public education? What p o lic ie s and practices seem to promote h1gh-access and high-use experiences fo r students? What educational s k ills w i ll be required to handle the Inform ation glut? What can technology do best? enhanced by computers? usages? How can the ty p ic a l classroom a c tiv ity be How can teachers be helped to accommodate these How can teachers help provide the supporting environments needed fo r students to have meaningful experiences? 11. I t 1s v it a l th a t teachers 1n Michigan schools have the assistance, o p p o rtu n itie s , resources, and tim e to develop the s k ills they need to make classroom experiences fo r students optim al. But there 1s only so much tim e 1n a day, too many "add-ons” and "p u ll-o u ts " already, and scarce resources, a t best. I f an essential curriculum 1s agreed on, computers can be Infused wherever 1n th a t curriculum they w ill have the greatest e ffe c t. What 1s e s s e n tia l, then, 1s th a t teachers be Included 1n a l l planning. Outstanding during the on-s1te v is ita tio n s was the rich Inform ational and e x p e rie n tia l data provided by teachers. Teachers must be In v ite d to p a rtic ip a te 1n s ta te and local planning fo r educa­ tio n a l computing. teachers. Perhaps t h e ir ric h e s t c o n trib u tio n w i l l be to other Many s e lf-ta u g h t computer-using teachers have Ideas and s k ills to share, but no opportunity e ith e r lo c a lly or re g io n a lly to showcase successful practices. Blue-ribbon planning committees frequently Include a d m in istrato rs, consultants, u n iv e rs ity and educatlonal-agency representatives, and le g is la to r s , but they exclude 215 teachers. The reason 1s usually th a t teachers need to be 1n t h e ir classrooms when such committees meet. Some c re a tiv e re s tru c tu rin g 1s needed to perm it teachers to be Included 1n ongoing planning and p a rtic ip a tio n 1n the development of educational computing/technology 1n Michigan schools. Recommendations fo r Research Those who are responsible fo r public education or who are stakeholders 1n the outcomes of student learning 1n Michigan must cooperate to estab lish and perpetuate a knowledge base fo r the everchanging f ie ld of educational computing. 1. I t 1s recommended th a t a re p lic a tio n of the present study be conducted so th a t what 1s happening 1n the schools may be recorded and comparisons or changes over time can be noted. 2. The present survey yielded data tio n e rs and researchers 1n Michigan. and sim ple to adm inister. of In te re s t to p ra c ti­ I t was found to be cost e ffe c tiv e Therefore* a s im ila r survey of m id d le /ju n io r high schools and senior high schools Is recommended. There would be value 1n re p lic a tin g these studies over tim e to gain In s ig h t In to e ith e r progress or problems revealed w hile Implementing an Innovation. 3. A statew ide research network 1s needed to estab lish a knowledge base of curren t lo cal and best practices. Informed about best local and national practices. Schools need to be Michigan researchers need to abstract* synthesize* and disseminate research In a c lear* tim ely* and focused manner. 216 4. Michigan u n iv e rs itie s and colleges must fin d and aggres­ s iv e ly adopt ways of sharing th e ir projects and fin d in g s with each other. Funded studies, d is s e rta tio n s , s ta te -le v e l surveys, and so on, should be feeding In to school practices. U niversity c o lla b o ra tio n w i ll not only help promise the best use of current research, 1t w i ll encour­ age the Id e n tific a tio n of needed research. 5. Local schools need external guidance 1n documenting t h e ir successful practices. These summarized findings w ill be useful 1n classrooms, university-based la b o ra to rie s , and special regional demon­ s tra tio n centers, as w ell as to Inform planners, producers, and national networks. 6. C o llab o rativ e research between schools and u n iv e rs itie s needs expansion and strengthening. In Michigan, there are obvious advantages fo r those public schools th a t are geographically near u n iv e rs ity settin g s. However, doing c o lla b o ra tiv e research p rim a rily with schools 1n proxim ity to the In s titu tio n has serious lim ita tio n s . F ir s t, schools a t a distance may sorely need to be Involved 1n developing an educational computing program but may not be aware of the Importance of doing so; th e re fo re , they do not I n i t i a t e the e ffo r t. Second, the great distance between most u n iv e rs itie s and many of the sta te 's public schools 1s a very real challenge. Perhaps i t w i ll be the c re a tiv e use of computers th a t w i l l begin to bridge the unreached or underserved schools. Third, u n iv e rs itie s need the p a rtic ip a tio n of public schools th a t represent a broad range of demographics and 217 community types 1f the research 1s to be useful to a representation of Michigan’ s public schools. 7. In Michigan# research 1s needed on the roles various segments of the school professional population represent. School leaders# fo r example# need to know what ro le to play# as do teachers# computing consultants# school boards# and governmental-agency computing personnel. 8. S tate professional organizations# such as the Michigan Association of Computer Users 1n Learning, are rich resources of computer-educatlon research and practice. own journal# b u lle tin # or new sletter. these references separately. Each organization has I t s But schools presently must tap Few local schools have the fin a n c ia l wherewithal to subscribe to the a v a ila b le pu blicatio ns, even 1f aware o f t h e ir usefulness. And yet# these publications represent the research and practice of curren t In te re s t to schools. Professional organizations need to fin d e f f ic ie n t ways to synthesize research fo r In divid ual schools. 9. Research 1s underway th a t encompasses the many s p e c ific subjects re la te d to the major topics of children learn in g w ith computers and teachers teaching w ith computers. Overall# researchers have Id e n tifie d the many c ru c ia l and In trig u in g topics surrounding the ro le of computers 1n schools. These a c t iv it ie s were extensively reviewed 1n the review of lit e r a t u r e section. The recommendations 1n th is section focus on some of the current needs 1n Michigan fo r b e tte r use of e x is tin g research# es p e cia lly local research# and fo r the 218 In it ia t io n of c o lla b o ra tiv e e ffo r ts to extend research In to needed areas. Even though there are curren t d is p a ritie s 1n the d is trib u tio n o f a v a ila b le educational computing resources and In e q u itie s 1n access and p a rtic ip a tio n o p portunities fo r teachers and students, 1t 1s essen­ t i a l th a t "what is " helps Inform "what happens next." 10. Driven by the s p i r i t of an Innovation, schools have an opportunity to refocus on an overall school-lmprovement e ffo r t. Local research on and planning fo r In s tru c tio n a l computing provide a meaning­ fu l context fo r looking a t teaching, learn in g , q u a lity , and equity. R eflections This d is s e rta tio n 1s b r ie f ly t i t l e d "The c h ild 's present In a fu tu re -o rie n te d society." The focus of the study was on how schools are responding to technology 1n behalf of the students 1n Michigan's public elementary schools. A ll th e words Incorporated to discuss the to p ic of microcomputers— eq u ity, funding, p o lic ie s , applications, 1nserv1ce, p eriph erals— were not meant to d etract from the major focus of the study, to d ay's student, the " c h ild ." Elementary educators are only 1n business because o f, and fo r, children. Whatever co n stitu tes an e s s e n tia l, appropriate, and adequate public education fo r one c h ild must accrue to a ll children 1n Michigan pu blic schools. The researcher concluded th a t there 1s much and varied In structional-com puting a c t iv it y prevalent 1n Michigan elementary schools. The concern remains th a t what has been found to be "good" or "useful" fo r c h ild re n to know and be able to do with computers be transm itted across school s ite s by those responsible. 219 Some schools and t h e ir communities have found c re a tiv e ways to provide an educational-computing curriculum , 1n s p ite of scarce resources. Local enthusiasm, leadership, commitment, a c q u is itio n of expertise to do the jo b , and a good plan c a rrie d t h e ir e ffo r ts forward. But, o v e ra ll, Michigan c h ild ren are very dependent on an extrem ely uneven provision of whatever has been deemed " e s s e n tia l.” We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach a ll children whose schooling 1s of In te re s t to us. We already know more than we need to do th a t. Whether or not we do I t must f in a lly depend on how we fe e l about the fa c t th a t we haven’t so fa r. (Edmonds, 1983, p. 35) APPENDICES APPENDIX A COMMUNITY TYPES 221 222 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM May 10, 1978 TO: S te p h an ie Zimmermann FROM: June Oise SUBJECT: L i s t s o f S c h o o ls .fo r Drawing Samples c n This y ea r we w i l l - b e drawing our own samples o f schools f o r th e v a r io u s types o f e x p e rim e n ta l t e s t i n g . In o rde r to do t h a t , we need to have the schools s t r a t i f i e d and l i s t e d a ccording to our s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . I would l i k e you to r e l a y our request to Rod concerning the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . F i r s t o f a l l , th e r e should be 3 complete l i s t s — 1 f o r grade 4 , 1 f o r grade 7 and 1 f o r grade 10. There w i l l be 6 s t r a t a o f d i s t r i c t s . The t a b l e below shows the community type and region f o r each s tr a tu m . 43 ^ C v /VS JL'H ibr1 ib I i Srf .'ISo S-s i, i, h i , h i , V II, II II IV IV in ; v g ra d e, th e n , th e r e w i l l be 6 l i s t s . the a t t a c h e d . l a y o u t s h ee t. The main d i f f e r e n c e stra tu m should l i s t d i f f e r e n c e is t h a t major d i f f e r e n c e is d is tr ic t lis te d . Region Io l 2 1 2 23, The form at o f each l i s t is in the p r i n t e d l i s t s t h i s year i s t h a t th e e n t i r e the d i s t r i c t s in c o u n t v - d i s t r i c t o r d e r . Another th e r e w i l l be no i n d i v i d u a l d i s t r i c t t o t a l . The f i n a l , t h a t the community type should be p r i n t e d f o r each The a tta c h e d la y o u t s h e e t, h o p e f u l l y , p o r tr a y s what we have in mind. I have a tte m p te d to show what s tra tu m 3 fo r grade 4 might look like. At the end of each stra tu m th e re should be a grand total of students and the number of b u i l d i n g s included in the stra tu m . One l a s t t h in g i s t h a t , o b v io u s ly , only those schools w i t h enrollment in the a p p r o p r i a t e grade should be l i s t e d . Please l e t me know if you or Rod have any q u e s tio n s . 223 I hope to be sending you the tape w i t h 1977-78 e n r o llm e n t on i t by the end o f t h i s week. A f t e r you r e c e iv e i t , t h e r e w i l l have to be some c o r r e c t i o n s made f o r a few o f the schools i n the grade e n r o llm e n t a r e a . The problem i s t h a t i n a few schools the e n r o llm e n t d id not get keypunched so th e f i e l d s show O 's . In 1 cases, the f i g u r e s t h a t appear on the tape a r e i n c o r r e c t and should be re p la c e d w i t h those we a r e p r o v id in g you. I f I were to w a i t f o r the Department to c o r r e c t the ta p e , we would not be a b le to have i t b e fo r e the f i r s t o f June and we need :o have th e l i s t s f o r drawing samples by May 22nd. The c o r r e c t i o n s to be made a r e e nclosed. JO:cc atta c h m en ts cc: Ed Roeber S h a r i f Shakrani 22k LISTING OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS CLASSIFIED BY MAJOR COMMUNITY TYPE SERVED This list contains 604 school districts that were in existence as o£ December 31, 1972, classified by community type. ized to operate K-12 programs. Of these, 529 were organ­ The remaining 75, which are denoted by an asterisk. (*), were not organized to o p e ra te a K-12 program in 1972-73. DEFINITIONS 1. Metropolitan Core Cities: Communities a re c l a s s i f i e d as M e t r o p o l i t a n Core C i t i e s l e a s t one o f the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : if they meet a t (a ) the community is the c e n t r a l c i t y o f a Michigan Standard M e t r o p o l i t a n S t a t i s t i c a l Area; or (b) the community is an enclave w i t h i n the c e n t r a l c i t y of a M ichigan Standard M e t r o p o l i t a n S t a t i s t i c a l A rea. (c) the community was p r e v io u s ly classified as a Metropolitan Core C i t y . Note: The U.S. Census Bureau defines the central city of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area as those cities named in the titles of the Standard Metropolitan S t a t i s t i c a l Area. (See U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical A b s tr a c t of t h e U n ite d S ta te s (Washington: Bureau of the Census, 1968], p.2.) 2. Cities: Communities are classified as C i t i e s if they have a population of 10,000 or more and have not been c l a s s i f i e d as a Metropolitan Core City or Urban Fringe. 3. Towns: Communities are c l a s s i f i e d as Town_s i f they have a population of 2,500 to 9,999. Rural communities impacted by l a r g e military installations nearby are also c l a s s i f i e d as Towns. 225 4. Urban Fringe: Communities are classified as Urban Fringe, regardless of their size, if they meet at least one of the following criteria: 5. (a) the mailing address of the community is a Metropolitan Core City or a City unless it is on a RFD Route; or (b) the community is within ten miles of the center of a Metropolitan Core City; or (c) the community is within five miles of the center of a city. Rural: Communities are classified as Rural if they have a population of less than 2,500, or if their address is an RFD Route of a Town, City, Urban Fringe, or Metropolitan Core, and they lie outside the perimeter defined above under Urban Fringe. NOTE: No communities in Wayne County are classified rural. These definitions of community types were established in the fall of 1971. They have been developed to make the classification as oojective and consls** tent as possible without altering the basic principles of classification. All classifications have been made using 1970 census data and the most recent address available for each district. The numbers preceding school district names are Department of Education county and school district code numbers. The first two digits refer to the county, and the remaining three digits refer to the school district within the county. A key to the county code numbers follows the lists. 226 REGION AND COMMUNITY TYPE CATEGORIES Oi ' j i i - n I • * *• " i - t ’< •' !» C o i H ' l M* 7 • A l l ( o . m l i r t i n J . > u l l > t - n M i i h t f - v i |H ^ , v e » o u »h o f A n d i n c l u d i n g M u * * C f o n . K e n t . M o n t c a l m , G r a n d . M t rl ' . v ' r t a n d B a y c o u n i i t * . T h i * e x c l u d e s R e g io n I. 3 • A H t p u n i ' i s t*«at . ui - • •n' t*' c l O'C a h u v c m e n t i o n e d l i n e a n d t h a t a r c i n t h e Lo*ci I’ e n i P a . 4 • A m c o jn ti'A t**at ,\i e >n in * L'im'C* P e n in s u la .’ 227 DESIGNATION OF COMMUNITY TYPES* for purposes of this study STRATUM =263 "Urban" COMMUNITY TYPES REGION Metro Core (I) Tri-County Detroit (I) City (II) "Urban" (TOTAL URBAN "Suburban" II =304 = 567) 111=411 Metro Core (I) City (II) Town (III) Urban Fringe "Suburban" IV =393 (TOTAL SUBURBAN =804) Town V "Rural" (TOTAL RURAL VI =283 =521) TOTAL: =238 Tri-County Detroit (I) (IV) (III) Urban Fringe "Rural" Out-State, School Dist. of Mt. Pleasant (II) Out-State, School Dist. of Mt. Pleasant (IV) Rural Communities Below a line in MidMichigan with a popuation less than 2,500 or if address is R7D route of a town, city or urban fringe or metr area Rural Communities Out-state communities with a population less than 2,500, or if add­ ress is an R7D route of of a town, city or urbs fringe = 1892 *provided by Michigan Department of Education, Office of the State Dept, of Michigan. APPENDIX B CORRESPONDENCE AND SURVEY INSTRUMENTS 228 229 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Lansing. Michigan 48909 NORMAN OTTO STOCKMEYER SR President BARBARA DUMOUCHELLE Vice President BARBARA ROBERTS MASON PHILLIP E Rl'.NKEL Superintendent of Public Instruction Secretary March 29, 1985 DOROTHY BEARDMORE Treasurer DR EDMUND F. VANDETTE N A S B E Delegate Dear Principal: CARROLL M HUTTON CHERRY JACOBUS ANNETTA MILLER GOV. JAMES J BLANCHARD SUBJECT: SURVEY OF LEVEL OF USE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTING IN MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS E x -O ffic io Enclosed is a questionnaire which has been prepared for distribution to a random sample of Michigan public elementary schools. The survey is part of a two-tiered dissertation, which is investigating the level of integration of microcomputers and the educational uses of computers by instructional staff in Michigan elementary schools. The questionnaire is the first phase: eight case studies will subsequently be developed in varied school settings to help establish helpful alternative models. Characteristics which seem to facilitate a high participation atmosphere for both students and teachers will be identified. The study is of interest to the State Department of Education for a number of reasons. The Blueprint for Action, for example, has encouraged the gathering of data on educational computing in our schools. Local school leaders and agency planners need more of this kind of information to make policy decisions about approaches and best uses of computers to enhance student learning. The Office of Technical Assistance and Evaluation is also interested in gathering information on effective practices and effective teaching emanating from creative uses of computer-assisted and computer-managed instruction. We believe this data and the information from the case studies can be utilized to assist schools with short and long-range planning. The survey is both an inventory and a means of determining any trends, emphases, problems, or as yet unexplored possibilities. It has been piloted with computer educators and principals, so that appropriateness and ease of completion will encourage your participation. (Still, not all questions will fit your local situation, but please respond as completely as is possible.) The dissertation is being completed within the Department of Education Administration at Michigan State University where there is active interest in investigating the preservice and inservice needs of educators. Therefore, the information you as principal, or your designate, takes time to provide, will enrich our knowledge base. All responses will be held in confidence. Data will be used only in the aggregate; no school name or individual's names will be included. When the dissertation is completed, the general findings of this survey will be summarized. If a copy would be helpful to you, please check "yes" on the survey and Beverly will forward the summary to you through our office. 230 Principal March 29, 1985 Page 2 Please complete the questionnaire and mail in the enclosed stamped and addressed envelope by April 18, 1985. Thank you for your assistance and participation. Davi(f_L. Donovan Assistant Superlntedent Office of Technical Assistance And Evaluation Ottawa Street Office Building Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 373-8374 Pg Enclosures Research Assistant and Student Department of Educational Administration 418 Erickson Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 353-9024 231 May, 1985 To the p rin c ip a ls , teachers and computing coordinators fo r s ix e le ­ mentary public schools in Michigan involved in an informal interview process as part of the second t i e r o f a doctoral d is s e rta tio n study being conducted through Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , Department of Educational A dm inistration , and the State Department of Education, O ffice of Technical Assistance and Evaluation. School Date STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY "ALL INFORMATION WHICH WOULD PERMIT IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS OR THEIR SCHOOLS WILL BE REGARDED AS STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL, WILL BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE STUDY, AND WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED OR RELEASED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT, EXCEPT AS REQUIRED BY LAW." The data gathered on s ite today w ill be used only in the aggregate. Taped portions w ill be erased as soon as data are recorded on o f f i ­ c ia l questionnaire. I am most ap preciative of your time and w illingn ess to share the important a c t iv it ie s th a t have resulted in your school's being selected as high a v a ila b ilit y /p a r t ic ip a t io n fo r a ll children in your school, in regard to in s tru c tio n a l computing. Beverly A. Bancroft 1*18 Erickson (517) 353-902A Research assistan t and student 232 THE RANKED RESPONSES OF 17 EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING EXPERTS WHEN ASKED TO LIST FROM FIVE TO SEVEN CHARACTERISTICS WHICH THEY BELIEVED WOULD BE PRESENT IN A SCHOOL OR DISTRICT WHERE A HIGH DEGREE OF EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING ACCESS AND PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES WERE ASSURED FOR MOST STUDENTS 1. A dm inistrative or p rin cip al support, involvement and encouragement................................... 93% 2. Adequate funding................................................................................... 64% 3. Continuing and appropriate q u a lity in s e rv ic e ......................... 50% 4. Enthusiasm fo r computers and computing by le ad ers.............. teachers and students............................................. 50% 5. W e ll-d e ta ile d plan fo r in teg ra tio n o f computers in t o ___ curriculum ....................................................................43% 6. Adequate to ample number o f computers fo r students.......... and open access to them.........................................43% 7. A computer consultant or leader on local or d i s t r ic t s t a f f .............................................................................. 36% 8. High expectations fo r educational computing and commit­ ment to concept and funding by Board..............36% 9. Broad range o f applications v is ib le ; emphasis on.............. a p p lic a tio n s ................................................................29% 233 Department of Educational Administration 418 Erickson Ball Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Dear________________________* Will you, as an elementary principal, serve as my expert for completing this survey, which will go to a large sampling of elementary principals in Michigan, as I study the level of access and integration of educational computing for students in our elementary schools. It will have useable data for educational planners and local districts, and will be the data portion of my dissertation. I want it to be easy to understand, to complete, and appropriate for the elementary setting. Please circle in RED any statements or questions which caused you too much deliberation time. Mot ALL questions will be applicable to your site. There are a wide range of LEVELS, so I am trying to hit the broadest spectrum. Make any comment^ as tersely as you like, which will help your colleagues fill out the "finished product." The survey will be revised to accommodate your comments. Please return in the enclosed envelope within five mailing days. I have asked only five principals to serve as experts. I do thank you. My telephone number afternoons is 517/353/9024. I am research assistant in School Improvement/ with Dr. Larry Lezotte while on canpus. Thanks for your time and expertise. Sincerely, Beverly Bancroft 234 M IC H IG A N STATE U N IV E R S IT Y EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 4 U 2 4 1 0 M COLLEGE OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION October 17, 1984 ERICKSON HALL LETTER SENT WITH STATEWIDE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INPUT FROM FIVE EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING EXPERTS. QUESTIONNAIRE WAS THEN REVISED AND SENT TO FIVE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS FOR INPUT - Dear Colleague: The attached list of characteristics have been rank ordered by frequency of occurrence. They are the responses of seventeen instructional computing experts to an opinionnaire prepared to precede the development of a questionnaire to be distributed to a random sampling of 600 elementary principals. The subject of the study, generally, is the status of the implementation and integration of instructional computing into Michigan public elementary schools. The computing experts were asked to list characteristics they believed would be present "in a school (or school district) where students are provided with high degrees of access to computers and high degrees of participation (or use) opportunities with computers and instructional computing activities. (Example: funding cokmltment). They were asked to list and rank at least five, but no more than seven. Using their input, and the knowledge you have gathered from research and practice, I am asking you to review the questions which I have created to be put in a questionnaire for elementary principals. The questions need to reflect not only the access and use time which elementary school students now have with computers, but what educational uses are prevalent. Also the policies and practices of schools in acquiring computers and peripherals, staff training and technological updating, software present at the site, and present and ongoing plans are of interest, both to local educators, and Michigan educational agencies, as well. Even though I have used many sources to obtain good questions and have reduced the number of questions from 60 to 29, I know that the content may still be unclear or of questionable value. I will use all your suggestions to improve the overall content and effectiveness of the instrument. My dissertation is in twoparts. You are helping me with Part One, which is, in fact, an inventory of "what really is happening in educational computing in 600 rural, suburban and urban Michigan public elementary schools." The second part of the study will focus on six school sites which evidence high access and participation opportunities for most students, and show a combination of facilitating characteristics from the attached listing. Many such studies of base-line data are needed. I appreciate your willingness to critique the enclosed survey questionnaire. You work with students, teachers, and administrators in the context of microcomputer education on a daily basis, so your insights and contributions are highly valued. I will put you in touch with the results of this study. Thank you. Sincerely, / / '• . Beverly’V . 'Bancroft ' Graduate As sis tant /Lezot te Attachments; A /firm n tiv * A c iio m /E p u n l O p p o rtu n ity In ilitu lto n Results of opinionnaire to obtain charac. teristics , __- and a stamped return envelope. Questionnaire for principals to be edited 235 A BRIEF SURVEY OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL USES OF COMPUTERS IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, 1984-1985 Nam^__________________ ___________________________ (If not Principal) TITLE;_____________________________ School Name_______________________________________ District Name______________________________________ Address___________________________________________ _______________________ Zip______ Phone______ / ________ I YES, SEND SUMMARY] 11_________ Total number of students enrolled in your school. 21_________ Total number of full-time teachers in your school. 3]_________ Total No. instruc. support staff (i.e media ). 4]_________ Total number of elementary schools in district. 5] Total number of computers for students' instructional use in your school. What is the ratio of students to (educationally dedicated) computers in your school?............... 6]___________(students) to 1 (computer) 7] Does your building receive any computer-related financial assistance from: (Please check Any that apply) ______ Chapter I ECIA; CH.II ECIA; _______ Bart B of the Ed. Handic. Act. P.L.42-142; ______ Community groups or local businesses; ______ .Other sources outside regular school allocation? 8] Please check grades included in your school: 236 9] Please check any grades which participate in planned instruction with microcomputers. E 1 ___ 2 ___ 1 4 5 ___ 6. If more than one section per grader do all grade sections receive similar computer time allotment and instruction?_____ Yes_____ No _____ NA 10] What percent of the time do you estimate all your computers are used instructionally during the official school day? ____ 0-25% ____ 26-50% 51-75%____ 76-100% 11] Does your school provide computers which students can access other than during regular classroom time? _____ Yes No (If "yesr" please check all that apply):____Before school Lunch After school? _______ Total no. available for general access. 12] What are the locations of the computer terminals/ micros in your school? Classrooms Permanentlystationed? Yes___ No Wedia Cntr/Lib. Permanentlystationed? Yes___ No Carts (on call) Always available? Yes No Yes No .Computer Lab. Permanently stationed? .Other___________________________________ _ 13] Is there an expectation by middle or junior high school staff that your students will have achieved a specified range of instructional computing experiences? Yes No_____ 237 14] What percentage of your students use a computer at least ______ % 15 Min.? but less than 30 min.? per week? ______ % A half hour/ but less than one hour/ per wk.? ______ % one hour or more per week? 15] When students formally leam about the computers? are learning outcomes measured and/or recorded? _____ Yes No Sometimes 16] Are students in any of the following categories pro­ vided computing time? (Check any that apply.) _________Gifted/talented_____ Special education _________Chapter I ? Other? 17] Are computers used to teach instructional objectives in several curricular/instructional areas? Yes No 18] Which of the following instructional uses of computers and which computer languages are evidenced in your school? (Please check all that apply.) Word processing/applications Tutorials Prill Simulation Library Skills/Data base search? etc. LOGO BASIC Math. Language Arts ____ Music? Art Reading Science _____Social Studies Prob.Sol. Decision Making __________ Other... Other programming languages 191 In addition to student instructional uses of computers? are any computers dedicated to other purposes in your school? Yes No. If "yes?" _________ total number so dedicated. And? if "yes?" are computers used for: Computer-managed instruction? School administration? Yes Yes No. No. 238 201 How many pieces of instructional software are in your school's collection? 0 _____ 1-25____26-50 50 or more diskettes or tapes. Don't know. 21] Is there a district-level commitment to ongoing purchases or financial support for: (Please check all that apply). _______ Computer hardware? _______ Computer maintenance? _______ Instructional software for students and teachers? _______ Teacher training and technological updating. 221 Has your school either developed its own* or does it follow a district-developed long-range plan encom­ passing educational objectives for instructional computing? _____ .Yes No 23] Since September of 1981> what percentage of your teachers have received district-sponsored or funded inservice training in: % Introduction to computing? % Evaluating instructional software? % Managing computers in the classroom or lab.? % Instructional applications of microcomputers? % Any programming languages? 24] For teaching about and with computers» what percentage of your instructional staff do you perceive as: ________ % Highly or somewhat qualified? ________% As yet# not qualified? 239 251 Is there a district-wide computer consultant? yes ______ No. If "Yes*" Does Hie Consultant do any consulting with your staff and/or students? ________ Yes ________ No 261 Is there a building 'expert' either certifed or non certified who volunteers or is paid to assist teachers* staff* or students with instructional computing? ________Yes No 27] Is there an ISD computer consultant regularly available to teachers? _____ Yes No 28] Do you perceive that there is a general enthusiasm and/or support for learning with and about conputers exhibited by Students? Yes Teachers? Yes Parents? Dist.Adm? No_____ Don't know No Don't know Yes No Don't know Yes No Don't know . 29] Other than Intermediate School Districts* is your school networking or sharing resources to enhance educational computing? Yes No Don't know. Please note : Additional comments are appreciated. For example: Is your school developing an instructional plan* or hiring a computing consultant? Ilf the enclosed envelope is misplaced* please mail the completed questionnaire by April 18* 1985* to: Bancroft/Lezotte* Dept. Ed. Adm.* 418 Erickson* Michigan State University* East Lansing* MI 48824 Phone 517-353-9024] 2^*0 SAMPLE OF OPINIONNAIRE SENT TO EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING EXPERTS JULY, 19S4 TO: Dear Colleague: I am asking for your assistance as one who 1 b an expert In the area of Instructional or educational computing. Your responses will be utilized as Items on a short questionnaire to be distributed to all Michigan public school districts. There are three stages of study to be included In my dissertation. The first phase will seek to identify schools where there.is present the attribute of high access and participation provided for students to engage,.- In instructional computing activities. Please use your personally derived definitions for the terms "high access and participation" and for "instructional computing activities". As you think of a school which might evidence these components, please list at least .5 (five), but no more than 1_ (seven) characteristics (those which come quickly to your mind) which you believe would be present in a school, or in a school district, where students experience high access and participation in instructional computing activities. If you wish to rank the items, please use "1" (one) to represent the most essential characteristic. Thank you for your assistance. If you are interested in an abstract or summary of the study in progress, please initial above. Your name will not appear in relation to the items which you provide below. Your assistance will be acknowledged. Please complete this rapidly and return in the envelope provided. Your first thoughts are desired. +++++++ CHARACTERISTICS PRESENT IN A SCH00l ( 0R SCHOOL DISTRICT) WHERE STUDENTS ARE PROVIDED WITH HIGH DEGRtES UF ACCESS TO COMPUTERS AND HIGH DEGREES OF PARTICIPATION (OR USE) OPPORTUNITIES WITH COMPUTERS AND INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTING ACTIVITIES. ( EXAMPLE: funding commitment). .. £ ' SITE SURVEY INSTRUMENT TEACHER INTERVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NAME_______________________________ _____ SCHOOL NAME___________ . . ________ TEACHER INTERVIEWED_______________ _________ _______ _ GRADE______ GRADES SCHOOL SERVES DATE_____ _________________ _ K 1 2 3 4 5 6 GRADES WHICH HAVE MICROCOMPUTING INSTRUCTION K 1 2 3 4 SPECIAL GROUPS SCHOOL SERVES 5 6 RATIO OF ALL STUDENTS IN SCHOOL TO ONE (1) COMPUTER CONTEXT AND SUPPORT How would you characterize your attitude toward microcomputers? 1=_____ negative 2=______ slightly negative 3=______ mixed 4= . slightly positive 5=________ positive. Do you have a personal computer at home? Yes _ _________ No How did you get started using microcomputers in instruction? (Please check one) ___ 1. ,___ 2 . ___3 . 4. __ 5. Impetus fromdistrict administration or school board. Impetus from schooladministration e.g. principal Own initiative Other Don11 know (Please explain) In your estimation, how would you characterize the level of enthusiasm fro instructional computing in your school community by: (Please circle one for each category). 1= JNegative 2* Slightly negative 3=__mixed 4= Quite poisitive 5= Actively positive 6=__Don't know. Teachers 1 Students 1 Principal 1 Other school staff 1 Dist. Administration 1 Parents 1 Other (e.g.counsellor)! 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 242 As far as continuing support for using computers in teaching, What support for your microcomputer use is routinely provided? Please circle one only. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. None Technical support Technical support and financial support Financial support only Don't know. IF SUPPORT IS PROVIDED: How adequate is the level of support provided? 1=__not at all 2= minimally adequate 3=___ adequate extremely adequate 4=__more than adequate 5= 6=__not applicable IF SUPPORT IS PROVIDED: Describe nature of support, (e.g. computing consultant, time to plan). IF SUPPORT IS PROVIDED: Does it derive more from the local school district or the district? (Please check only one.) What kinds of technical or financial support service would the respondent like to see? Staff Development Is staff development or training provided by the district? Yes No Don't know. IF SUPPORT IS PROVIDED: Check any topics below that apply to staff training with instructional computing: Introduction to computing? . Evaluating instructional software? _____ Managing computers in the classroom or lab? _____ Instructional applications of microcomputers? _____ Any programming languages? Other, please describe. 243 IF STAFF DEVELOPMENT IS PROVIDED: Did the respondent participate in any of the staff development opportunities above: Yes _____ No Not applicable. (If YES, please circle any of topics above in which the respondent participated.) IF TEACHER PARTICIPATED: 1. 2 3. List the topics most helpful. . least helpful. 1. 2. 3. IF SUPPORT IS PROVIDED RFOR MICROCOMPUTING STAFF DEVELOPMENT, Is it ongoing? — Yes No . Don't know. IF STAFF DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT IS NOT OR IS ONLY PARTIALLY PROVIDED BY THE DISTRICT OR SCHOOL, Please describe what training you obtained and where you were able to obtain training. Ideal inservice training programs a. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Should the following content areas be covered in inservice training programs? 1= Yes 2= No 9= not mentioned by respondent. Programming Operation of the microcomputer Selection/evaluation of courseware Instructional uses of microcomputers Administrative uses of microcomputers Integration of microcomputers w/instruction Computer literacy Others 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 b. What other features should be included in the ideal inservice training? Location: Length: Organizational incentives: Leadership: Parents and Community: Other Should the content of preservice training programs differ from the inservice training programs? 1= Jfes 2= No 9= JDon't know. IF YES, Please describe: Student and classroom and related usage. Users: Who are the computer users in your school? that apply. _____ Teachers. _____ ^Students. If so, what percnet of F.T. Staff ___ % If so, what percent of all students ___ % ______ Secretary. ______ Principal Parents ______ Support staff Other Please check any - Name: Student characteristics: Average number of students in your class. . ______ % Approximate percentage of minority students. Approximate percentage of males Ability level of students. ________ Z Low Socio economic level of class. Mixed Low High Mixed High _____ % Please estimate the percentage of students in your class who have a computer at home. Applications: Which of the following instructional applications are used by the teacher with the students? (Please check all that apply): Work processing/applications Simulation LOGO Drill Library skills/Data base search, etc. __ BASIC Math. w Tutorials Reading Other programming lang. Lang. Arts. Music, Art Science ^Social Studies . Problem Sol. _ __ Die. making — (e.g. microworlds, games, please list). Other, Hoes the respondent mention any goals for microcomputers in its own right? (e.g. literacy or enrichment.? Yes No . ____ NA Local or district goals and objectives: Does your district or school have a written policy and /or an instructional plan for educational microcomputing which is curriculum related , as well as use related? yes No Don't know. Please name the major content areas you cover w ith your class: How extensively is the microcomputer used with the curriculum content you have just named? 1= 4= Not at all 2= Extremely often very little 3= often 9= Not applicable. In your classroom, for what major topics IS. the computer used? To what extent do you perceive that the computer instruction is COORDINATED with other instructional activities? (e.g. texts, labs, dittoes). 1 3 ___ 4 2 In the respondent's judgement how well INTEGRATED are microcomputer activities and "regular" instruction? ..In the classroom? 1 2 3___ 4 ..In the school? 1 2 3 9 5 5 __ 4 9 5 9 How much does the respondent stress or emphasize these goals and objectives for his/her students in the subject matter? 1= not at all 2= extremely___ 9=_.__not applicable __ 2 1. Mastery of essntial skills __ 1 2. Acquisition of higher cognitive skills? 1 2 __ 1 2 3 3 3 _ 4 __ 5 9 4 5 9 5 9 4 3. Motivation? 4. Classroom management? (i.e. orderly work environment, student cooperation or teamwork.) 1 2 3 4 5 9 247 How successful has microcomputer use acutually turned out to be with respect to the goals and objectives established for its use? 1=, Not successful; J 4=, 1 Highly successful; 9= 2 3 NA & 9 Allocation of time How many minutes per week does the respondent use the microcomputer as a teaching aid? __________ m inutes per week. How many minutes per week does the respondent use the microcomputer in all school related tasks? __________ minutes per week. How many minutes per week does each student typically spend working with the microcomputer for instruction and enrichment? ________ minutes per week. Locations Where are the microcomputers located in yor school? . Classrooms permanently stationed? Yes _______ Media Center permanently stationed? Carts (on call). Computer lab. Always available? Permanently stationed? Yes _ Yes Yes No No No No Does the arrangement, location, and access to the available computers seem to be the most effective possible? Yes No Don't Know. If, "NO" what changes have you made or would you make to provide greater access or efficient use by more students? Hardware What computer hardware, besides a monitor and computer keyboard is available to you for teaching purposes? 248 Are any outcomes measured which are concerned with students learning with and/or about computers? Yes No If "Yes," NA Please describe how it is done. How are students grouped for computer activities, primarily? 1= individually; 2= pairs; 3= in groups of three or more; 5= varies with activity; 9= Not applicable. 1 2 3 ____ 5 9 Are all students within your class allocated just about equal time with computers? Yes _____ No Don *t Know. If, "No," Please describe how time is allotted. Are there constraints put on the use of certain computers in your school because of dedicated use caused by funding? _ Yes No Don't know. If "Yes." Please describe what funds or designations limit the use. (For example, Chapter I, or School Administrative uses only.) Courseware Does the respondent select the courseware s/he uses in instruction? Yes No NA What is the primary source from which the teacher obtains courseware? District or school On own or from teacher/computing journals Authors or writes it. NA zks IF TEACHER SELECTS COURSEWARE What features does the teacher look for? What features does the teacher avoid? Does the district/school have standard criteria for evaluating courseware? Yes No NA Briefly, how could courseware be improved? Does the respondent make use of the microcomputer for any of the following non-instructional purposes? a. b. c. Student record keeping? Testing students? Other? Yes Yes Yes No ___No No Miscellaneous Opinionnaire What personal or professional resources or assistance would be most valuable to the respondent in enhancing the instructional uses of computers of his/her students? (Consider help that might be arranged by the Intermediate School District, State Department of Education, a local university or colloge, or the community) 1 2 . . 3. 4 5. . What characteristics do you believe need to be present if students in a school are to be assured a high degree of availability of microcomputers and a high degree of access and participation? 1 2 . . 3. 4. 5. 250 Does the respondent perceive that microcomputers have changed the way teachers teach? Yes _ No Don't know. Explain, if you wish. Does the respondent feel that microcomputers have changes the way students learn? Yes No Don11 know What person (please give role) has been most helpful and motivating to you in the positive and enlarged uses of instructional computing? If you are a local school computer "buff" or "expert," what challenges, pressures, or pleasures does that create for you as you fulfill other instructional duties? List any advice you have for getting the school district more involved with computers. List any advice you would have for getting teachers more involved with computers. Please list any instructional or networking (sharing with other schools, etc.) ideas that have been successful in improving isntruction or varying alternaitves for learning aB a result of you microcomputer use? What essential skills do you believe have a priority for students in your class? or school? Prom you experience and personal definition of the term "computer equity," what characterizes your specific effort to assure for students equitable instructional computing opportunities? How do you rank the importance of introducing and using computers with elementary 6tudents? .Not 1 _____ 2 5=_____ Very 3 4 5 Prepared for teacher interviews at selected school sites. Beverly A. Bancroft, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,(c) 1985. 251 SURVEY FOR DISTRICT COMPUTER CONSULTANT OR ADMINISTRATOR Name _________________________________________________ School Diet. Name. _____________________________ Date ______________________ Phone ( )___________________ 1 .____________ Number of schools in district 2 .___________ Elementary___________ Middle/JH 3 ._______ Number of students in district. _____ SH Number of teachers in district.__________________ 4 ._______ Approximately how many computers in district are dedicated to educational computing? _____ In Elem. Schools? 5 .______ Approximately how many computers in district are dedicated only to teacher inservice? __________ to computer managed instruction? 6 ._______ Approximately how many microcomputrers in the district are dedicated to school administration? (Exclude central office;) 7. Is there a district level commitment to ongoing purchases or financial support for: (Please check any that apply.) ______ Computer hardware? __________Instructional software for students and teachers? _________ Computer maintenance? _________ Teacher training and technological updating? _________ Full-time computing constultant? _________ Part-time computing consultant? 252 8. What funding sources are there for your computing needs district vide? (Please check all that apply.) ___________ District contingency fund?__________ School individual discretionary fund? ___________ Bond issue for equipment, etc? __________ Special millage proposal? Board/District funding commitment long-range? _________ Board/District funding commitment short range. _________ Individual school fund raising activity. _________ Grants from private foundations or business or community effort. (Please describe, if applicable.) __________ PTA/O or other parent organization. __________ Chapter II funds. Article III Funds. f __________ Chapter I funding. ________ Part B of the Education Handicap. Act P.L. 42 142. Other. Student/Community Characteristics 9 .____ %Approx-, percentage of minority students in district? 10. Estimated ability level of students. Low ______ Mixed High- 11. Estimated socio economic level of students. _____ Low _______Medium___ _____ High- 12._______% percentage of students you estimate would have access to a computer at home. 13. Are any computers dedicated to special uses only? Yes No If Yes, please explain 14. What iB the official title of the consultant? 15. Is there a position description? Yes 1 5. 16. No (Please attach). (a ) P le a s e l i s t any coursew ork w hich p re p a re d you f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n , (b ) P le a s e name a n y !coursew prk s u b seq u en tly ta k e n which, im proved y o u r u n d e rs ta n d in g ox t h i s p o s it io n . • Are district goals established for instructional uses of computing K-12. Yes 17. No Are district policies in place for distribution and use of microcomputers across grades and across groups? Yes 18. No Is there a district computer advisory committee representing the program and planning development? Yes- 19. No. If Yes, please comment. Does each school have a computing advisory committee? ________ Yes ________ No Please discuss, if helpful 20. Does each school or do some schools have a school plan for instructional computing which is designed for the school alone? Yes No. 21. Please discuss how you view the similarity of approach across school sites in the development of training, software, hardware, use, and participation by students and teachers. Please include: Elementary , Middle, Secondary 22. Since 1981 what percentage of your teachers have received school district sponsored or funded inservice training in: ____________ % Introduction to computing .____________ % Evaluating instructional software? % Managing computers in the classroom or lab.? ____________ % Instructional applications of microcomputers? ____________ % Any programming languages? 23. For of te a c h in g your w it h a n d /o r in s tr u c t io n a l about B ta ff c o m p u te rs , do yo u w h a t p e rc e n ta g e p e r c e iv e as: ____________ % Highly or somewhat qualified ____________ % Not qualified as yet. 24. If teachers are at various stages of using microcomputers in instruction, and were not district trained, how did they obtain the expertise they have? 255 25. What do you as consultant spend most of your time doing? 26. What are your personal priorities for this position— your vision? i.e. What do you believe you need to do to reach the goal you believe is most important for students with instructional computing at the Elementary Middle High School 27. What are the impedences you perceive in a more fully* developed instructional computing opportunity for students and teachers? [ 1.______________________ [ 2 ._________________ [3.__________________ , 28. What characteristics do you believe have to be present in a school or system to facilitate the maximum availabilty and participation of students and teachers with microcomputers? [ 1. [2 . [3 . [4. [5. 29. Please rank the above in importance with: 1, 2, 3. 4, or 5. 256 30. How do you believe instructional computing got its start in your school system?.... At the elementary level? At the middle school level?0 At the high school level? 31. How important do you believe computer awareness, access and appropriate use is to elementary students? I®___________ Not important __ 1 ____2 32. 3 to 5* very important. 4 _____ 5 From the first survey conducted, it was noted that many school staffs are very concerned about providing and assuring access and participation of students and teachers with instructional computing opportunities............ How might the following agencies be of assistance, in your view, with advancing this cause?— The Michigan Department of Education — The Local Intermediate School District? — Your district or in concert with others?...... — Other? 32. What do you believe is appropriate content for elementary students, when the number of computers and the amount of software for a given school is severely limited? 33. Are you sharing resources or ideas with any other school or district or computer user or user group? ___________ Yes ____________ No Please explain, if yes. 34. Other schools are interested in ideas for adding to their computing resources, or innovative ways to use computers to stretch their use to more students and groups? Please describe any grass roots efforts which have helped you. 35. Describe the microcomputing staff development process. 36. Do all your schools seem to have an on-site computer expert? __________ Yes No 37. Please describe this person°s (s') impact or influence. 38. What is your viewpoint of how computers should be ultimately used in schools by students? by teachers? by administrators? by parents? 258 39. Do parents or does community support influence the depth you instructional computing program effort? __________ Yes No __________ Somewhat Please describe, if Yes. Time precludes an indepth discussion. Some of your comments have answered the inquiries at other points during this interview. However, a few items need to be addressed so that you may comment for the help it might be to other consultants, and to professionals who develop a program without the assistance of a consultant. Please comment on the following: I 40. What level of implementation do you believe your district is experiencing in the change process? Cory, (Computing Teacher. November, 1983, p. 11-16) names the following._________ Getting on the bandwagon _________ Stage of confusion _________ Stage of pulling it all together _________ Stage of full implementation _________ Stage of still considering whether to get started. Cory Hardware, Software, describes these stages, as well, by focus: Staff Development, Learning; Computer Literacy and terms, where is your district? Computer-Assisted Attitude; but in general SURVEY FOR A MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL, INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTING SURVEY II, 1985 « The interview questions include the following topics: l) Access and availability of computer related resources; as well as student and school demographics not collected on initial survey; and staff; 2) Applications and utilzation for students 3) Policy and funding decisions - for example - 6chool level, vs. district level; involvement; resources; innovation; parent/community priorities such as consultant; distribution of 4)Level of integration and implementation of the 5) Teacher training and staff development; identification of "experts” or "buffs;" and, 6) Attitudes and opinions. Name______________________________ __________________ School and Dist. Name______________________________ _ /______________________ Phone_______ /_______________ Number of Schools in Dist? No. Elem? _ Number of computers in school? ______ Number dedicated to educational computing? ______ Number dedicated to school administration? ______ Number dedicated to computer managed instruction? 260 1. ______ % Aproximately what percentage of your students use the microcomputer once a week? 2. ______ % Approximately what percentage of the teachers in your school use the microcomputer once a week? 3. ______ At what grade level do your students receive their first formal instruction with microcomputer usage? 4. What grades does the school serve? K 5. 3 4 5 6 What grades receive instruction in all grades served? K 6. ____1 ____2 ____1 ___ 2 3 4 5 6 During the regular school year, or in the summer, are there any clubs or groups of students who have access to school computers? __________ Yes 7. ___________ No, If yes, please describe Are there any computers limited in use to certain groups of students or teachers because of dedicated funds? ____________ Yes 8. _____________ No, Please check any of the funding sources below which are utilized by your school. ______ Chapter I _____ Article III ______ P.L. 42-142 Chapter II _______ Other, (if other, please describe:^ _______ Computer mangaged instruction teachers only. _______ School administration, _______ Gifted/Talented staff only Other 261 9. Other than computers dedicated because of outside funding, are any groups of students given more computer time than others? __________ Yes ____________ No, If Yes, please explain. 10. ______________ ZWhat percent of your students would you estimate have access to a computer at home? 11. Low Mixed High Please indicate the ability/achievement level of students in your school? 12. ^ Low Medium High Please estimate the socio economic level, generally, of your students. 13. Z Please estimate the percentage of minority students in your school? 14. Z_Please estimate percent of teachers in your school who have a computer at home? 15. Have you used the physical location of microcomputers to encourage computer use by teachers? _________ Yes No If Yes, please describe: 16. Where are the computers located at present? 17. Are any computers stationed in general education classrooms permanently? Special education or other If Yes, please describe Yes No ______ Yes No 262 18. Which of the following instructional uses of computers and which computer languages are evidenced in your school? (Please check all that apply.) _____ Word Processing/applications Simulation LOGO Drill Library Skills/Data Base Searches ____BASIC Math Tutorials Other programming languages. _____ Lang .Arts____ Music, Art. Reading ____ Science Problem Solving _____ Microworlds _____ Social Studies Decision Making __________ Literacy Other, please describe 19. ____ % Percent of time all computers are used for instructional purposes. 20. In the respondent's judgement, how well integrated are microcomputer activities with regular, ongoing instruction? 1" Not integrated; 4= Highly integrated; 9®= Don't know 1 2 3 4 9 21. How much experience has the respondent had with computers? l=Not at all; 2*= a little 3= some 4“ a great deal. 1 2 22. 3 4 How would you characterize your attitudes towards computers in education? lKNegative; 4“ 2s slightly negative; Slightly positive; 5“ 3s Mi zed or neutral Positive 1 2 3 4 5 263 23. Which individuals in your school teach others about or how to use computers? (Please check any that apply.) ______ Administrators; ______ Media Specialist Teachers ______ Paid Volunteers Aides ____ Students ______ Other School Staff Other Please describe "other." 24. Do you have a computer expert in your school, or a "buff?" _________ Yes ______ No. If yes, have they been influential in promoting a high degree of participation beyond their own classroom? Describe 25. _______ Yes ________ No postive or problematical aspects, please, if Yes. Are there expectations at the middle/junior high school that your students will have achieved a specified range of instructional computing experiences? _________ Yes 26. _________ No Do you perceive that there is a planned instructional transition for elementary students, which builds on their instructional computing understanding and experience? _____________ Yes ______________ No Don't know. 27.Doe8 your school have specific timetables for imp lementing computer based systems and/or curricula? ___________ Y e s No _____ Don't know. 28.Do you have a catalog of available computer software in your school? Yes ________ No ______ Don't know. 26k 29. Who uses the computer in your school? (Please check all that apply.) Principal Teachers personnel Counselors Students Special computer /Secretaries, clerks; Other 30.What training have you had as an administrator in using computers? Please list and describe. ________ . _____ School or District sponsored Self-initiated 31. At the beginning, how did microcomputers come to be used in your district? (Please check one). a. Administrative decision in the district b. Administrative decision in the school. c. Combination of administrative & grass roots. d. grass roots or bottom from teachers. 3. Other, if other, please describe. 32. To what degree did each of the following support or resist the Introduction and Implementation of microcomputers? Is resisted strongly; mixed 4s 2= resisted somewhat; supported somewhat; 3- neutral or 5* supported strongly 9s no information. a. District administrator 1 2 b. Principal 1 c. Teachers d. Parents e. Other(s). Please describe 3 4 5 9 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 33. What reasons vere given for supporting the implementation of student computer use in your school? 34.How influential are the following persons or groups in terms of deciding what computer-related courses are to be offered to students? Very influential Group Influential Not Supt./Board o o o Principals o o o Computer cons./spec. o o o Teachers o o o Parents o o o Supervisors o o o Local business o o 0 Students o 0 0 Other o o o 35. What mechanics have been put into operation for parents to become knowledgeable about computers and to be informed about what their children are doing? (Check any that apply.) Parent/teacher meetings and demonstrations Parent/student workshops Other, if other, please list. 266 36. For which of the following ite*\s are there budgets established in your school or district. School District Hardware , etc, o o Software o o Teacher training o o Ongoing staff dev,j o o o o tech. change Maintenance, repl. 37. Has there been any resistance to the introduction of microcomputers in your school? If Yes No. Yes, please describe roles of those involved, or events. 38.If you have a computer consultant in your district, what is your understanding of the role? 1 ._______________________ 2 ._________ 3 .____________________ 4._NA 39. Please rank your perceptions of which roles are most to least important. 40. Do you have a local and ongoing computer planning committee? 41. ________ Yes No Does your district have an ongoing computer planning committee? yes (Composition?) no. 267 42. Describe any efforts to attain computer equity both in your school and across the district. Use your interpretation of equity to speak to this issue. Optional 43. Does your school and do you as principal have any discretionary funds for computer related purposes? 44. Does your school yes no have written goals for students' learning outcomes with instructional computing? district? ______ yes 45. no Is there a strategy for procurement of resources and attainment of instructional goals? ______ Yes If Yes, No. has progress been made? _____ Yes _____ No Somewhatless than anticipated. 46 .________ During what school year did your district make its first policy decisions about acquisition of microcomputers, implementing goals and objectives for instruction? 47.At the present time, what are your school's major goals for microcomputers in instruction? Time precludes an indepth disscusion. Some of your comments have already answered inquiries in previous sections of this interview. However, a few items need to be addressed so that you may comment for the help it might be to other schools and districts. 268 Please comment on the following: 48. What level of implementation do you believe your district and school are experiencing in the change process? Cory, (Computing Teacher. November, 1983, p. 11-16) names the following: (Cory applies them to these areas: Hardware, Software, Staff Development, Computer-Assisted Learning; Computer Literacy and Attitude). Where do you perceive your school and district now to be in these stages of implementation, across the spectrum? SCHOOL (Please check only one in each column) DISTRICT ________ Getting on the bandwagon. _________ ________ Stage of confusion _________ ________ Stage of pulling it all together _________ ________ Stage of full implementation _________ ________ Stage of considering whether to get started ______ 49. How do you view the need for developing and maintaining an attitude about CHANGE for yourself and your staff and students in view of the new technologies. 50. Gene E. Hall (The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. Winter, 1981, page 14-29) describes the typical expressions of concern about an innovation such as microcomputing. Please check the one which fits your school. Please check the one which you believe fits your district. 269 School District _________________ 0=1 am not concerned about it. _________________ l=I'd like to know more about it _________________ 2=How will using it affect me? _________________ 3*1 seem to spend all my time getting materials ready. _________________ _____ 4=How _______ is it affecting students? 5=1'm concerned about relating what I'm doing with what other instructors are doing. _________________ 6=1 have some ideas about something that would work even better. 0= Awareness; 1= Informational; 4= Consequence; 51. Have you 2= Personal; 5= Collaboration; 6= 3= Management; Refocusing. found it necessary to employ efforts or strategies to redefine your preparation in light of technological or organizational change.? ________ Yes 52. _________ No . If yes, please describe. From your experience with using computers in teaching and learning, which of the following have you found to be a disadvantage. (Please check any that apply.) _________ Lack of access to terminals or microcomputers. _________ Lack of 6tudent interest. _________ Low quality of educational software. 270 ________ Reallocation of funds to computers from more pressing needs. ________ Difficulty with integrating computer taught skills with the remainder of the curriculum. ________ Lack of teacher or staff training ________ Lack of teacher or staff interest ________ Lack of administrative support ________ Other, please describe. 54. ____________ Z What percent of your computer using teachers/staff would you estimate have obtained most of their computer knowledge because of personal interest and investment of personal time. 55. Is professional assistance or are resources routinely provided to your school by the district to support computer using teachers? Yes No. (Please discuss). ____________ Technical? __________ Funding? ____________ Continuing Inservice? ____________ Material Resources ____________ Please check any that apply. 56. How satisfied is the respondent with district staff development training? satisfied; 9B (l*not satisfied; 4* extremely no training provided, not applicable. 1 2 3 4 9 1 57. 271 2 3 4 9 How satisfied is the respondent with on-site teacher training? 1 2 3 4 9 Please describe in either case, which were satisfying and might transfer to other sites. 58. Since September of 1981, what percentage of your teachers have received district-sponsored or funded inservice training in _______ {Introduction to computing? _______ {Evaluating instructional software? _______ {Managing computers in the clasroom or lab.? _______ {Instructional applications of microcomputers? _______ {Any programming languages? The respondent the above question on Survey I. It is repeated here, so that comments may be made on other means by which these offerings might have been obtained. In addition, _______ {Computer literacy and societal implications _______ {Student learning-re: the technologies ______ {Others - (such as special education 59._____ { etc.) What percentage of your teacher, who are expected to be involved with instructional computing in your school appear to be "somewhat" or "highly qualified" to do so? ( Please estimate). 272 What are the instructional priorities in your school? 60. 1. . 2 3. Please describe how instructional computing fits into them. 61. To what extent have microcomputers affected the way students learn, in l“Not at all; 62. What, the respondent's judgment? 4= A great deal; 9■ 1 2 if anything, do No information. 3 4 you believe impedes a 9 fuller degree of instructional computing use across grades, instruc­ tional groupings, among boys and girls, or among students at varying achievement levels. 1. 2 . 3. 4. Not applicable. 63. What, if anything, do you believe impedes a fuller degree availability of microcomputers and computer-related resources? 1. 2 . 3. 4. Not applicable.. 64. Ill What, if anything do you believe impedes more use by all teachers, of instructional computing opportunities for students? . 2. 1 3. 4. Not applicable. 65. Given the many issues in education today, and a principal's responsibility to "take advantage of the opportunities presented by this new technology without disrupting organizational stability," what importance do you assign to offering elementary students what you and your staff and local school community deem to be appropriate instructional computing experiences? 1” not important; 4s important 2s minor importance; 5* major importance. 1 66. 3s somewhat important 2 3 4 5 List 3 suggestions which, if offered and accepted by the district Board and administration would lead to a fuller, richer, and more integrated learning experience for students and teachers. 1. 2 . 3. 67. 4. Not applicable In a like manner, the Intermediate School District. 1 2 3 4. Not applicable 68. 21k In a like manner, the State Department of Education. 1 2 . 3. 69.Do you have any advice for getting teachers more involved with instructional computing? 70.Based upon your experiences and observations with educational computing, what recommendations would you make about how courseware could be improved and more useful to teachers. 71.Do you believe that computers have affected the way students learn? Yes No Don't know. 72 Have you observed that computers affect the way teachers teach? Yes No Don't know. 73. Do you have any suggestions of how universities, colleges, community colleges or community education could assist with computer education in public schools? 74. Does your curriculum have a cycle of review, evaluation, monitor and adjust which adapts to change? That is, throwing out what isn't working or is obsolete, and implementing more promising practices? Yes 75. _____ No _______ Don't know. What characteristics would be present, in your view, in a school or district which provides a high degree of availability of microcomputers and high participation opportunities for its staff and students? (Please list 5-7). SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Acker, Stephen R ., and K le in , E lisa L. "V is u a lizin g S patial Tasks: A Comparison of Computer Graphic and Ful1-Band Video D isplays." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association# Chicago# A pril 1985. Action Research Roundup. Classroom Computer News 1 (September/ October 1981): 18-20. Agresto# John. "Technology and the American Dream." Paper presented a t the North Carolina Educational Association# 1981. Alnsley# Lucy E. "Educational Technology and Basic S k ills ." School Board Journal 29 (A p ril 1983): 10-12. Michigan A lle n , Anthony James. Computer Courses l o r Adults: Anxious Human Meats Computer: A Resource Book lo r In s tru c to rs . Eugene, OR: In te r ­ national Council for Computers 1n Education, 1984. A lle n , Cam ille Ann. "An Analysis of the Social In tera c tio n s Among a Teacher and a Small Group of Students Working With Microcomputers." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , U niversity of Connecticut, 1984. Alvarado, Anthony J. "Computer Education fo r A ll Students." Computing Teacher 11 (A p ril 1984): 14-15. The American Association of U niversity Women. "Computer Education: Terminal Inequity?" Graduate Woman 79 (A p ril 1985): 10. Anderson, John J. "P rediction and P re d ile c tio n : C reative Computing and the Future of the Micro In d u s try ." C reative Computing 11 (November 1984): 52. Anderson, Ronald E .; Welch, Wayne W.; and H a rris , Linda J. " In e q u itie s 1n Opportunities fo r Computer L ite ra c y ." The Computing Teacher 11 (A p ril 1984): 10-12. Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development. "Computer In te g ra tio n In to In s tru c tio n Is Stuck; Experts Blame Unclear Optimal Uses and Three Implementation Problems." ASCD Update 27 (Summer 1985): 1# 6 -7 . 276 277 Bancroft, Beverly A. "How Three Public School Systems 1n Southeastern Michigan In teg rated Microcomputers In to Their In s tru c tio n a l Pro­ grams." Unpublished fie ld -b a se d research fo r the Ed.S, Eastern Michigan U n iv e rs ity , A pril 1983. ________ . "The Microcomputer: One V e rs a tile Tool fo r the Middle School Learner." Michigan Middle School Journal 8 (F a ll 1983): 7 -8 . Becker, Henry Jay. "Computers 1n Schools Today: Some Basic Considera­ tio n s ." American Journal of Education 93 (November 1984): 22-39. (b) ________ . "Cost vs. E ffectiven ess: Roles of Microcomputers 1n Educa­ t io n ." NASSP B u lle tin 6 (September 1982): 50. (b) ________ . Microcomputers i n ±hs Clas s room; Dreams -and R e a lit ie s . B altim ore, MD: Center fo r Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins U n iv e rs ity , 1982. (a) ________ . School .Uses a f Mi c rocomputers; Reports from a National Survey. Survey Issue Nos. 1 -6 . Baltim ore, MD: Center fo r Soda! Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins U n iv e rs ity , A pril 1983-November 1984. (a) Berman, Louise. "Educating Children fo r Lifelong Learning and a Learning S o c ie ty ." Childhood Education 61 (November/December 1984): 99-106. B illin g s , Roll and G. "Videodisc Technology 1n Education." School Board Journal 29 (A p ril 1983): 13. Michigan Boger, Robert P .; Bloom, Buston E .; and Lezotte, Lawrence W. (e d s .). Child Nurturance: An Agenda fo r the 1980*3. New York: Plenum Press, 1984. Bork, A lfred . "Computer Futures fo r Education." 11 (November 1984): 178-80. (a) C reative Computing. ________ . "Computers 1n Education Today— and Some Possible Futures." Ph1 D elta Kappan 6 (December 1984): 239-44. (b) Boyer, Ernest. " E ffe c tiv e Schools and How They Work." Cited 1n News From the O ffic e o f Congressman Augustus F. Hawkins. C a lifo rn ia 29th D is t r ic t , F a ll 1984. • High School: Report on Secondary Education I d America. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation fo r the Advancement of Teach­ ing, 1983. 278 Brookover, Wilbur B ., and Lezotte, Lawrence W. "Educational Equity: A Democratic P rin c ip le a t the Crossroads." The Urban Review 13(21) (1981): 65-71. Brophy, Jere, and Hannon, P a tric k . The Future o f Microcomputers 1n the Classroom. Occasional Paper No. 76. East Lansing: In s t it u t e of Research on Teaching, Michigan S tate U n iv e rsity, 1984. Brumbaugh, Kenneth. "R eflections on Educational Computing." Computing 10 (November 1984): 172-73. B u ffle , Edward G. "A ccountability: The Key to Excellence." Education 61 (November/December 1984): 107-14. C reative Childhood B urleigh, Joan. "For Microcomputers: E ffe c tiv e In service T ra in in g ." Michigan ic h o g j Board Jo u rn al 29 (A p ril 1983): 19, 27. ________ . "Scheduling fo r In s tru c tio n a l Computing 1n an Elementary School Environment: A Planning Model." S ta ff presentation, Birmingham, Michigan, Public Schools, A p ril 1985. Burns, P. K ., and Bozeman, W. C. "Computer Assisted In s tru c tio n and Mathematics Achievement: Is There a Relationship?" Educational Technology 21 (1981): 32-39. C aldw ell, Janet. "Computers and Achievement Directed Leadership." In s tru c tio n a l Improvement News 4 (W inter 1983/4): 6. C alfee, Robert. "Computer Literacy and Book L ite ra c y : P a ra lle ls and C ontrasts." Educational Researcher 14 (May 1985): 8-13. Cardenas, Jose A. "High Tech and Equality of O pportunity." In te r c u ltu ra l Development m d Research Assoclatlon New sletter (February 1983): 1-2; (August 1983): 1 -3 , 6 -7 . Carnlne, Douglas. "Mainstreaming Computers." 41 (May 1984): 77-82. Educational Leadership C arte r, Todd W. "City Schools Ahead of S tate Reform." The State News (Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity ), January 21, 1985, p. 12. Checkpoint. Join t New sletter of the Michigan Association of Com­ puter Users 1n Learning and the Michigan Association of Educa­ tio n a l Data Systems, January 1984, p. 2 . Chlon-Kenney, Linda. "The 'Hidden' Cost of Computers." Week, February 27, 1985, p. 1. Education ________ . "State O ffic ia ls Report Their In te n tio n to Expand Role 1n Computer P o lic y ." Education Week, October 24, 1984, p. 10. 279 ________ . "Third of Students Have Access to Computers. Schools Entering 2nd Phase o f Computer H is to ry , New National Survey Reports." Education Week, August 28, 1985, p. 5 . C h ris tie , B ette J . , and Dolan, Don. "Montana's Task Force on Computer Education." T.H .E. Journal 11 (November 1982): 92. The Computing Teacher. Journal of the In te rn a tio n a l Council fo r Computers 1n Education. (Theme Issue: Computer Equity) 11 (A p ril 1984). Cory, S h eila. "A 4-Stage Model of Development fo r F u ll Implementa­ tio n of Computers fo r In s tru c tio n In a School System." The Computing Teacher 11 (November 1983): 1 -4 . Council of Chief S tate School O ffic e rs Resource Center on Sex Equity. "A Concern About Computer E q u ity ." Concerns 12 (June 1984): 1-4. Cuban, Larry. "Transforming the Frog In to a Prince: E ffe c tiv e Schools Research Policy and P ra ctice a t the D is t r ic t L e v e l." Harvard Educational Review 52 (May 1984): 129-51. . Cupertino, C a lifo rn ia , Union School D is t r ic t . "K-8 Computer Literacy Curriculum ." The Computing Teacher 10 (March 1983): 7-10. Deal, Terrence E. "The Symbolism of E ffe c tiv e Schools." mentary School Journal 85 (May 1985). The Ele­ Dede, Christopher. "The L ik e ly Evolution of Computer Use 1n Schools." Educational Leadership 41 (September 1983): 22-24. Dickson, W. P a tric k . "Thought-Provoking Software: Juxtaposing Symbol Systems." Educational Researcher 14 (May 1985): 30-37. D o lla r, Bruce. "What Is R eally Going on In Schools?" 14 (F a ll 1983): 7 -1 9. Soda! Pol 1cv Downle, R. "Re-entry Experiences and Id e n tity Formation of Third Culture Experienced Dependent American Youth: An Exploratory Study." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity , 1976. Dwyer, T. "Humanistic S tra te g ie s fo r Using Computers 1n Education." In te rn a tio n a l i c y r n a i o i .Mao -M achine .S tu dies (1974): 6. ________ . "Some Thoughts on Computers and Greatness 1n Teaching." In Ih e Computer I d ±he School: T u to r, Tool, Tutee, p. 87. Edited by R. Taylor. New York: Teachers College Press, 1980. 280 Edmonds, Ronald W. A Discussion o f the L ite ra tu re and Issues Related to E ffe c tiv e Schooling. S t. Louis, MO: CEMREL, 1983. ________ . " E ffe c tiv e Schools fo r the Urban Poor." Leadership (October 1979): 15-23. Educational ________ . "Programs of School Improvement: An Overview." Leadership 40 (December 1982): 4-11. Educational Education D a lly . "States Pressured to Set Computer L ite ra c y Standards. January 19, 1984. Education USA. "Computer Use: The Beginning of a Revolution— Those L e ft Behind." 43 (January 1982). Education Week. "Computer L ite ra c y : A Survey of In it ia t iv e s fo r Teachers and Students Across the S ta te s ." October 24, 1984, p. 11. Elchner, C h a rlie . "Computer Network W ill Link West V ir g in ia Schools by 1986." Education Week, March 14, 1984, p. 14. Ely, Margot. Ad Evaluation M Hue PAL/Consortium Sompet e r .Center Summer Computer Camp Equity P ro je c t. Technical Report No. 2 . New York: Study of In te ra c tiv e Technologies 1n Education, New York U n iv e rs ity , November 1984. ETS Developments. "Major Impact Expected 1n Classroom." NJ: Educational Testing Service, Spring 1984. Evans, Christopher. Press, 1979. Mlcrom lllenlum . New York: Princeton, Washington Square F e r r e ll, Barbara G. "Computer Immersion P ro je c t: Evaluating the Impact of Computers on Learning." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, A pril 1985. Ferres, Graham W. "Training and Implementation S tra te g ie s Appropriate to the Introduction of Logo In to Teacher’ s Curriculum and In stru c­ tio n ." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , U niversity of Oregon, 1983. FU llm an, Paula K. "Guidelines fo r Introducing Microcomputers 1n the Schools." A rithm etic Teacher 30 (February 1983): 16-17. F1re Dog, Pete. "E xcitin g E ffects o f Logo 1n an Urban P ublic School System." Educational Leadership 43 (September 1985): 1. Foster, T. E. Ih e E ffe c t .of Computer Programming .E x p e riences sm .Student Problem Solving Techniques Id Eighth Grade Mathematics. Madison: U niversity of Wisconsin, 1973. 281 Fullan# Michael. The Meaning of Educational Change. Toronto: Ontario In s t it u t e fo r Studies 1n Education Press# 1982. The Giroux# Henry A. "Public Philosophy and the C ris is 1n Education." Harvard ,Educational Review 54 (May 1984): 186-94. Goldberg# Stan. "Computer Technology: Greatest Impact on America Since the In d u s tria l R evolution." C reative Computing 10 (November 1984): 280-84. Good, C arter V ic to r. I h j Methods!ogy a f Educational Research. Edited by A. S. Varr and D. E. Scates. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts# 1954. Goodlad, John I . £ Place Called School: Prospects Xar ±he Future. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983. Gourgey# Annell F. "Coordination of In s tru c tio n as Reinforcement Enhancers of the Effectiveness of Computer Assisted In s tru c tio n ." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association# Chicago# A p ril 1985. Grant# Michael. 15-17. "The Anatomy of Change." Thrust 13 (May-June 1983): Gray# Peter J. "The Use of Policy Analysis 1n S etting D is t r ic t Pol1cy on Microcomputers." Educational Leadership 42 (October 1984): 72. Grayson, Lawrence P. "New Technologies." In In s tru c tio n a l Leadership Handbook, p. 27. Edited by James W. Keefe and John M. Jenkins. Reston# VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals# 1984. Greenberg# Selma. "The Pre-K1ndergarten Child 1n a P o s t-In d u s tria l W orld." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association# Chicago# A pril 1985. Greenes# C. "The Computer 1n Mathematics Education." Teacher 74(8) (1981): 88-89. Mathematics Griswold# P h ilip A. "Elementary Students' A ttitu d es During Two Years of Computer Assisted In s tru c tio n ." American Educational Research Journal 21 (W inter 1984): 737-54. Guertln# Jeanne. "S trateg ies fo r Change: Dealing With the Inform ation S o c ie ty ." Thrust 13 (May-June 1983): 30-31. 282 H a ll* Gene E. "Issues Related to the Implementation of Computers 1n Classrooms." Journal of Computers 1n Mathematics and Science Teaching 1 (W inter 1981): 14-19. ________ ; Loucks, Susan F . ; Rutherford* W illiam L . ; and Newlove, Beulah W. "Levels of Innovation: A Framework fo r Analyzing Inno­ vation Adoption." Journal of Teacher Education 26 (Spring 1975): 52-56. H a ll* Keith A .* and Tlsone, J. M. "Computer-Based Education." In In s tru c tio n a l Leadership Handbook* p. 25. Edited by James W. Keefe and John M. Jenkins. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School P rin cip als* 1984. Hayes* Robert. "The Child* the Computer and L ite r a tu r e ." the News 23 (A p ril 1967): 257-64. Hechlnger* Fred M. Education Agenda fo r the 1980*5. Ph1 Delta Kappa, 1981. Top of Bloomington, IN: Hofmelster* Alan M. Microcomputer Applications I d ±bje S l asSEflBfll. New York: H o lt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984. ________ . "The Special Educator 1n the Inform ation Age." Journal of Education 62 (F a ll 1984): 5 -2 1 . Peabodv H o lH f le ld , John H. "In R e a lity , High Tech Means Low S k ills , Poor Pay. " R & D Report (1984): 3. Howe, Harold. "Education Moves to Center Stage: An Overview of Recent Studies." Ph1 D elta Kappan 65 (November 1983): 167-72. ________ . "Giving Equity 1n the Excellence Game." Paper presented to the Education W riters of America: The 1984 M artin Buskin Memorial Lecture National Seminar, P hiladelp hia, A pril 1984. (b) ________ . "Symposium of the Year of the Reports: Responses From the Educational Community." Harvard Educational Review 54 (February 1984): 1-5. Humphries, James T. Designing and U t iliz in g Mall Questionnaires 1n Educational Research. Carbondale: P ub lication and Research O ffic e fo r Vocational Educational Studies, Southern I l l i n o i s U n iv e rs ity , May 1983. Hunt, James B. "Action fo r Excellence." (September 1983): 14-18. Educational Leadership 41 283 Hunter, Beverly; Dearborn* Donald; and Snyder* Bruce. "Computer Literacy 1n the K-8 Curriculum ." Ph1 D elta Kappan 65 (October 1983): 115-18. In te rn a tio n a l Reading Association Computer Technology and Reading Com­ m itte e . "Guidelines fo r Educators on Using Computers 1n Schools." Reading Research Q uarterly 20 ( n .d .): 120-23. Johnson, Robert. An Educat o r 's £uldfi ±S Microcomputers. MI: Oakland Schools, 1983. Pontiac, Jorde, Paula, and Ford, M artin. "Microcomputers in Early Childhood Education." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, A pril 1985. Judd, Dorothy H. "The Status of Microcomputer C u rric u la r Use 1n Selected I l l i n o i s Schools." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Northern I l l i n o i s U n iv e rs ity , 1982. Jullussen, Eg1l. "Personal Computers 1n the 1990s." ing 11(19) (1984): 258-67. C reative Comput­ J u s tlz , Manuel J . , and Mason, Wart S. "A Changing NIE: F a c ilita tin g New P artnerships." Ph1 D elta Kappan 66 (December 1984): 277-80. K le in , EUsa L. "Computer Graphics, Visual Imagery, and Spatial Thought." In Children .and Computers: itew D1r e c tlo ns IfiT X M ld Development, no. 28. Edited by E. K lein . San Francisco: JosseyBass, June 1985. K le in , Karen, and S tro th e r, Deborah. "Executive Summary." Planning fo r Microcomputers 1n the Curriculum. Bloomington, IN: Ph1 Delta Kappa, 1984. Koerner, Thomas F. "Explosive Changes 1n Technology Create S k ills Gap." NASSP B u lle tin 66 (September 1982): 158. Koetke, W alter. "Computers, Children and Learning: One Complete It e r a t io n ." C reative Computing 10 (November 1984): 163-69. Komoskl, Ken. "Educational Computing: The Burden of Insuring Q u a lity ." Ph1 D elta Kappan 66 (December 1984): 244-48. ________ . 5 -6 . "Guest E d it o r ia l." The Computing Teacher 11 (A p ril 1984): K re id le r, W illiam J. "Teaching Computer E th ic s ." Journal (1984): 54-57. Early Learning 284 K ullck, James; Bangert, Robert L . ; and W illiam s, George W. "E ffe c ts of Computer-Based Teaching on Secondary School Students." Journal H f Educational Psychology 75 (February 1983): 19-26. K u llk, James A. "Synthesis of Research on Computer-Based In s tru c tio n ." Educational Leadership 41 (September 1983): 19-21. Lautenberg, Senator Frank R. "Equity 1n Computer Education." Computing Teacher 11 (A p ril 1984): 13-14. The Lee, Helen. "Training Teachers to Use Microcomputers." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the ADCIS Convention, Parma, OH, December 10, 1983. Leonard, George. "The Great School Reform Hoax: What’ s R eally Needed to Improve Public Education." Esqulre (A p ril 1984): 47-56. Lesgold, Alan M. " C r itic a l Research on Issues 1n the Implementation of Educational Technology." Paper presented a t the annual meet­ ing of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, A pril 1985. Lewis, Arthur J . "Education fo r the 21st Century." Leadership 41 (September 1983). ________ . "Teachers, Pupils and Microcomputers." 10 (February 1983): 87. Educational T.H .E . Journal Lezotte, Lawrence W. "Equality of Educational Programs W ithin a School D is t r ic t . Three C r ite r ia of Equity— Access, P a rtic ip a tio n and Outcomes A pplied." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, A pril 1984. ________ . School Mission and Goals. An occasional paper. East Lansing: Department of Educational A dm inistration, Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , 1985. ________ , and B ancroft, Beverly A. "Growing Use of the E ffe c tiv e School Model fo r School Improvement." Educational Leadership 42 (March 1985): 23-30. Light, Richard J . , and P llle m e r, David B. Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U niversity Press, 1984. Llndelow, John. A dm inistrator’ s Guide to Computers 1n the Classroom. Eugene, OR: ERIC/CEM P ub licatio n s, 1983. 285 ________ . Microcomputers ± q ±hs School Of f i c e; Prim e r i e r Admi n i s­ tr a to r s . Eugene: U niversity of Oregon, ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 1984. L1nn, Marcia. "The Cognitive Consequences of Programming In s tru c tio n 1n the Classrooms." Educational Researcher 14 (May 1985): 14-29. L1ps1tz, Joan. "Educating th e Early Adolescent: Why Four Models of Schools Are E ffe c tiv e 1n Researching a D if f ic u l t Age Group." American Education 17 (October 1981): 13-17. Lockheed, M arlalne E .; Hunter, Beverly; Anderson, Ronald E .; Beazley, Richard; and Etsy, Edward T. £gmpjy^j L itera c y: D e fin itio n s .and Survey Items fo r Assessment 1n Schools. Washington, DC: National Center fo r Educational S ta tis tic s , Government P rin tin g O ffic e , 1983. Luehrmann, A. "Computer L itera c y — What Should I t Be?" Teacher 7 (December 1981): 682-86. Mathematics M-STAR: Designs fo r E ffe c tiv e In stru c tio n Conference. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education, February 11-12, 1985. McCombs, Barbara. "In s tru c to r and Group Process Roles in ComputerBased T ra in in g ." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, A pril 1985. Market Data R e trie v a l. Microcomputers JLd Schools, 1983 -8 4 : A Cemprer henslve Survey and Analysis. Westport, CT: Market Data R e trie v a l, March 1984. Mars, John D. "New Survey Shows Wide Use of Computers 1n N ation's Schools." Michigan School Board Journal 29 (A p ril 1983): 30. M arshall, C atherine, and Lynch, Kathleen K. "Analysis of Q u a lita tiv e Data With Microcomputers." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, A pril 1985. M arshall, John C ., and Bannon, Susan H. "Computer A ttitu d es and Knowledge 1n Rural S ettings." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, A p ril 1985. Melmed, Arthur S. "Inform ation Technology fo r U.S. Schools." D elta ,|£apj>im 63 (January 1982): 308-10. Ph1 Meyer, John W. "Innovation and Knowledge Use Within American Public Education." In O rganizational Environment: R itual and Ration­ al 1 ty , pp. 233-60. Beverly H ills , CA: Sage Foundation, 1983. 286 Meyers, J. p. 3 . "A L e tte r From the P u b lis h e r.1' Time, January 3 , 1983, Michigan Association fo r Computer Users 1n Learning. N ew sletter, May 1985. The MACUL Michigan Department of Education. "Applications fo r D iscretionary and Special P ro je c t G rants." Lansing: S tate Department of Education, O ffic e of Grants Coordination and Procurement, 1984-85. (L e tte r) ________ . B etter JLflucafcj-pn I ge M.1.c.b-1gan Ci t i zen s; A Bltie _Prj.nl fo r A ction. 1984. Lansing: Michigan S tate Board of Education, January ________ . L is tin g of Michigan School D is tr ic ts C la s s ifie d by Major Community Type. C ited In "Memorandum from June Olson," May 10, 1978. Lansing: S ta te Department of Education, 1971. Michigan S ta te Board of Education. Michigan K-12 Public School D is tr ic ts Ranked t y Selected Financial Data. B u lle tin 1014. Lansing: MSBE, 1983. Michigan, U niversity o f. Report on P roject TMT. Ann Arbor: School of Education, U niversity of Michigan, March 11, 1985. M ic r o s ift. P ortland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Computer Technology Program, 1980. M iles, Matthew B. "Unraveling th e Mystery of In s t it u t io n a liz a t io n ." Educational Leadership 41 (November 1983): 14-18. M ille r , Benjamin S. "Bringing the Microcomputer In to the Junior High: A Success Story From F lo rid a ." Ph1 D elta Kappan 63 (January 1982): 320. Minnesota Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development, Minnesota Association of School A dm inistrators. The Use o f a Computer Xq Help Teachers Teach School Curriculum. Minneapolis: Minnesota Department of Education, 1982. Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation. MECC Educational Comput­ ing Catalog 1984-85 School Year. St. P aul: MECC, 1984. M o llto r, G. The F u tu ris t, A pril 1982, pp. 23-30. Montana O ffic e of P ublic In s tru c tio n . "How to S ta r t a Computer Educa­ tio n Program." The Elements of Computer Education. Helena: Montana O ffic e of Public In s tru c tio n , 1984. 287 Moore# Gwendolyn B .# and Yin# Robert K. " Id e n tify in g Advanced Tech­ nologies fo r Education’ s F u tu re." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association# Chicago# A p ril 1985. Moursund# Dave. "Back to Basics." September 1984): 4 -5 . (e) ________ . "E q u ity ." ________ . 3 -4 . "More Harm Than Good." The Computing Teacher 21 (August/ ItLg Computing Teacher 11 (A p ril 1984): 3 . (d) The Computin g Teacher 12 (1984-85): ________ . "38 B illio n Curriculum U nits: Thoughts on F u lly In teg rated and In d iv id u a liz e d In s tru c tio n ." Computing Teacher 12 (February 1984): 3 -5 . (b) ________ . "To Improve Education." 1984): 180-86. (a) C reative Computing 11 (November ________ . "The Two Percent S o lu tio n ." 1984): 3 -5 . (c) Computing Teacher 2 (November Nalman# Adeline. "Teacher Education: Microcomputers 1n Education: An In tro d u c tio n ." In Microcomputers 1n Education, pp. 21-24. Bloomington# IN: Ph1 D elta Kappa# 1984. Na1sb1tt# John. Megatrends. New York: Warner Books# 1982. Nasman# L. 0. "Computers Mean New Decisions." 57 (A p ril 1982): 36-38. Vocational Education National Association of Elementary School P rin c ip a ls . Standards fo r Q u ality Elementary Schools: K1ndergarten-8th Grade. Reston, VA: NAESP, July 1984. National Commission on Excellence 1n Education, jft Nation a t R isk. Washington# DC: Government P rin tin g Office# 1983. National Committee fo r Economic Development. C hildren. New York: NCED# 1985. Investing 1n Our National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics. "Statement of Basic S k ills 1n Mathematics." Mathematics Teacher 71 (February 1978): 147-52. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. M Agenda fo r Action: Recommendations fo r School Mathematics fo r the 1980’ s. Reston# VA: NCTM, 1980. 288 ________ . "The Impact of Computing Technology on School Mathematics." Report o f the NCTM Conference. Reston, VA: NCTM, 1985. N atkin, Gerald. Planning l e r Microcomputers ±n ±hg Curriculum: M In te rv ie w . Bloomington, IN: Phi D elta Kappa Center on Evalua­ tio n , Development, Research (CEDR), February 24, 1984. Neuman, D e lla . "Learning D is a b ilit ie s and Microcomputer Coursework: A Q u a lita tiv e Study of Students’ and Teachers' In te ra c tio n s With In s tru c tio n a l Dimensions." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, A pril 1985. Nytes, Gary L . , and Musgades, Paul. "Sharing Technology: Keeping Rural Schools A liv e ." NASSP B u lle tin 69 (November 1985): 33-35. Oakes, Jeannle, and Schneider, Mark. "Computers and Schools: Another Case of the More They Stay the Same?" Educational Leadership 42 (November 1984): 13-19. Olson, David R. "Computers as Tools of the In t e l le c t ." Researcher 14 (May 1985): 5 -7 . Educational Papert, Seymour. Mindstorms: C hildren , Computers 3 M Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books, 1980. Parent, M. Joan. "Computers Alone Are Not Enough, House Panel To ld." Education D a ily , September 30, 1983, p. 3 . Passow, A. Harry. "Tackling th e Reform Reports of the 1980’ s ." D elta Kappan 65 (June 1984): 674-83. Phi Patterson, Janice. L e tte r. Madison: Wisconsin Center fo r Educational Research, U niversity of Wisconsin, August 9 , 1984. ________ , and Smith, M arshall. "The Role of Computers 1n Higher Order T hinking." Paper prepared fo r inclusion 1n the 1985 Yearbook fo r the National Society fo r the Study Education, September 1985. Patterson, W. P. "B a ttle of the Computer Heavy Weights." Week 252 (1982): 33-40. Industry Pea, Roy D. "Prototype P le a s (e ): Problem Solving Research fo r Educa­ tio n a l Technologies." Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, A pril 1985. Perkins, D. N. "The F in g e rtip E ffe c t: How Information-Processing Technology Shapes Thinking." Educational Researcher 14 (August/ September, 1984): 1-8+. 289 Peterson* Karen Dusenbury. "The E ffe c t of In d iv id u a l In se rv ic e T ra in ­ ing on Teacher Use of an Innovative Technology: The Microcom­ p u te r." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , Kansas S tate U n iv e rs ity , 1984. Pogrow, S. "On Technological Relevance and the Survival of U.S. Public Schools." Phi D elta Kappan 63 (January 1982): 610-11. Powell, J. C. Using Computers as Exploration Tools Tor Learners _1n the Classroom. Windsor, O ntario: U niversity of Windsor, February 1984. P rin c ip a ls ' Planning Guide fo r Microcomputers. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education and the Michigan Council of Teachers of Mathematics. [P rin te d by Birmingham, Michigan, Public Schools] Puttkamer, Jesco von. "The Future: Do We Have a Choice?" Leadership 41 (September 1983): 4 -5 . Ragan, A. "F lo rid a: A Mandate fo r Educational Computing." Learning 2 (February 1983): 32-33. Rawltch, Don G. Computing." Educational E lectronic "MECC: A Guiding Lig h t fo r Statewide In s tru c tio n a l NASSP B u lle tin 6 (September 1982): 78-82. Raymont, P atrick G. "Some Policy Issues 1n Computing Education In England and Europe." T.H .E . Journal 10 (January 1983): 95. R e ls le r, Raymond F. "The Impact of Technology on Work: How Our Society Should Prepare Our Future Work Force." IEL Network News (F a ll 1984): 5 . Rockman, S .; White, D. J . ; and Rampy, L. "Computers in the Schools: The Need fo r Policy and A c tio n ." Educational Technology 23 (November 1983): 13-18. Roth, Gene L . , and Fesolowskl, Dennis A. "Microcomputer Competencies fo r Vocational Teachers." The Computing Teacher 12 (November 1984): 64. Rubin, A ., and Bruce, B. Q u ill: Reading and W riting With .a Micro­ computer. Report no. 5410. Cambridge, MA: B o lt, Beranek, and Newman, Center fo r Study of Reading, September 1983. Rutkowskl, Chris. "The Computer as a C reative T o o l." ing 11 (November 1984): 97-98. C reative Comput­ Salas, Gumeclndo. "New Educational Technologies: Burdens and Rewards." Michigan School Board Journal 29 (A p ril 1983): 8 -9 . 290 Sang, Herb A. "Academic Excellence Is a 24-Hour Challenge." Computing 10 (December 1984): 113-18. C reative S a tte l, Sue. "Microcomputer Uses 1n the 1980's." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa­ tio n , M ontreal, Canada, A p ril 1983. Sax, G ilb e rt. Foundations of Educational Research. NJ: P ren t1ce-H all, 1979. Englewood C l1 ffs , Schauble, Leona. "Computer Contexts fo r Learning and Development." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, A p ril 1985. "School E ffectiveness, Technology Top 1986 NIE Research Agenda." Report I2D Education Research, February 13, 1984, pp. 1-2. SchoolTech News (Educational News S e rvic e), March 1984, p. 2. Shane, Harold G. "The S ilic o n Age and Education." 63 (January 1982): 303-308. Ph1 D elta Kappan ________ . "The S ilic o n Age I I : Living and Learning 1n th e Inform ation Epoch." Ph1 D elta Kappan 65 (October 1983): 120-26. (a) ________ . "On Education and th e Future: A Conversation With Harold Shane." Educational Leadership 41 (September 1983): 11-13. (b) ________ , and T ab ler, Bernadlne. On Education fo r a New M illenium . Bloomington, IN: Ph1 D elta Kappa, 1981. Shavelson, Richard J . , and Salomon, G a v rle l. "Inform ation Technology: Tool and Teacher of the M1nd." Educational Researcher 14 (May 1985): 1. Shavelson, Richard J . ; W inkler, John D .; Stasz, Cathleen; F e lb e l, Werner; Robyn, Abby E .; and Shaha, Steven. Successful Teachers' Patterns o l Microcomputer-Based M athemat ic s .and .ScJenge In struc­ tio n . Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation fo r the National In s titu te of Education, March 1984. Sheingold, Karen; Kane, Janet H .; and Endrewelt, Marie E. puter Use 1n Schools: Developing a Research Agenda." Educational Review 53 (November 1983): 412-31. "Microcom­ Harvard Shoen, H ., and Hunt, T. "The E ffe c t of Technology on In s tru c tio n : The L ite ra tu re of the Last 20 Years." AEDS Journal 10 (1977): 6882. 291 Shotwel1, Steven. Qua!1ty In s e rv ic e : A Key to Establishing and Main­ ta in in g a Computer Education Program. Troy, MI: Troy Public Schools, 1983. Simon, Herbert A. Computers I d .Education: R ealizin g ±hs E fiie n M a l. Department of Education Conference on Computers 1n Education. Pittsburgh: U n iv e rsity of P ittsbu rg h, November 1982. S in c la ir , CUve. "P redictions on Our Computerized Future." Computing 11 (November 1984): 254-58. C reative S ize r, Theodore R. Horace's Compromise: Ih e Dilemma o f lb s American High School. Boston: Houghton-M1ffl1n, 1984. S lavln , Robert E. Research Methods I d fd r c a liftlli j 6 JPractJoiJ £uid e. Englewood C l1 ffs , NJ : P re n t1 ce -H a ll, 1984. South Dakota Department of Public In s tru c tio n . Computers 1n South Dakota Schools. P ie rre : D ivisio n of Elementary and Secondary Education and In s tru c tio n a l Services, May 1984. Stasz, Cathleen, and W inkler, John. 'D is t r i c t and School Incentives fo r Teachers' In s tru c tio n a l Uses of Microcomputers." Paper pre­ sented a t the annual meeting of th e American Educational Research Association, Chicago, A p ril 1985. Stewart, L. R. "Here's What Computers Can Do." Board Journal 169 (March 1982): 33. American School S tr e lb e l, Michael J. "A C r it ic a l Analysis of Computer-Based Approaches to Education: D r1 ll-a n d -P ra ct1 c e , T u to ria ls , and Programming/ Sim ulations." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the Ameri­ can Educational Research Association, Chicago, A p ril 1985. Stronge, James H. "Funding Computer Related Technology 1n the Public Schools." The Computer Teacher 11 (August 1983): 13-15. Tashner, John. Computer L itera c y fa n Teag.bg.rsj Issues., Qugsfigng and Concerns. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1984. Tobin, Catherine D. "Developing Computer L ite ra c y ." Teacher 6 (February 1983): 251-54. Turkle, S. York: A rithm etic The Second S e lf: Computers and the Human ip 1 r.1 t. Simon and Schuster, 1984. Wagschal, Peter H. "A Last Chance fo r Computers 1n Schools." D elta Kappan 6 (December 1984): 251-54. New Ph1 292 Walker* Decker F. "R eflections on the Educational P o te n tial and L im itatio n s of Microcomputers." Ph1 D elta Kappan 65 (October 1983): 103-107. Walker* Elaine* and Azurnl* Jann. "The Impact of Computer Assisted In s tru c tio n on Mathematics Learning: Gains of Elementary Schools." Paper presented a t th e annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association* Chicago* A pril 1985. Wallace* James W. "W rite F irs t* Then Read." 42 (February 1985): 20-21. Watt* Molly. p. 120. "What Is Logo?" Educational Leadership C reative Computing* October 1982* Webb* Noreen M. "Microcomputer Learning 1n Small Groups: C ognitive Requirements and Group Processes." Journal jaf Educational Psy­ chol oqv 76 (1984): 1040-88. Weir* S y lv ia . "Logo as an Empirical Window* an Excerpt From the D ra ft of the Forthcoming Book, Untrapping In te l 1Igence. ” P a n e lis ts ' Papers* 1984. We1r, S y lv ia ; Russell* Susan J . ; and V alanta, Jose A. "Logo: An Approach to Educating Disabled C hildren: Action Oriented Learning Has Dramatic B e n e fits ." Byte (September 1982): 346-58. White, Mary A lic e . "The E lectro n ic Learning Revolution: Questions We Should Be Asking." Prospects (UNESCO) 14(1) (1984): 23. ________ . "The Schools and the Future of E lectronic Learning." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, A p ril 1985. ________ . "Synthesis of Research on E lectronic Learning." Leadership 40 (May 1983): 13-14. Educational Wilson, Kara Gae. "A dm inistrative Guidelines fo r Introducing Computers W ithin the Curriculum ." NASSP B u lle tin 66 (September 1982): 6 -11 . Wilson, Thomas R. "MICR0MAC a t Rosemount High School." Kappan 66 (December 1984): 255-56. Ph1 D elta Wlmmer* Ron. "A Study of Teacher Concerns About th e Adoption of the Microcomputer as an Educational Innovation." Ph.D. d is s e rta tio n , U n iversity of Kansas, 1984. Winkle, Linda W.* and Malhuls, Walter M. "Computer Equity Comes of Age." Phi Delta Kappan 63 (January 1982): 314-14. 293 Winkler* John D ., and Stasz, Cathleen. "A Survey of In centives fo r S ta ff Development of Computer-Based In s tr u c tio n .” Paper pre­ sented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association* Chicago* A pril 1985. Wisconsin Center fo r Educational Research. On Wisconsin Computing New sletter (U n iv e rs ity of Wisconsin)* December 1984. Workman* B. "Teaching W ritin g ." In Computers 1n Education: Real1z1ng the P o te n tia l. Report of a Research Conference. Washington, DC: Department of Education, O ffic e of Educational Research and Improvement* November 1982. W right, Douglas A .; Melmed, A rthur; and F a rris , E liza b e th . In s tru c ­ tio n a l Use o f Computers In Public Schools. National Center fo r Education S t a tis tic s , Fast Response Survey System, Report no. 14. Washington, DC: Government P rin tin g O ffic e , 1982. Z1m1les, Herbert. "The Changing American C h ild ." Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa­ tio n , Chicago, A p ril 1985. In press 1n T. M. Tomlinson and H. Wal berg (e d s .) , Students .and S o d etv y : L ife .and Jfork ±D Pub!1c Schools. NSSE Yearbook. Chicago: U niversity of Chicago Press, 1985. Zolton, Ronald. Proposal fo r Statewide E ffe c tiv e Computer A ppli­ cations Network. Saginaw, MI: Saginaw Interm ediate School D is t r ic t , January 1983. Zucker, Andrew A. "Computers 1n th e School: A Case Study." Kappan 63 (January 1982): 317-19. Ph1 Delta