Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
APRIL 22, 1999, THURSDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
2791 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT OF
BARBARA
MEANS
CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY IN LEARNING
SRI INTERNATIONAL
BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
SUBJECT - EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, EQUITY, AND FEDERAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS
BODY:
Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to express my views concerning
technology and education.
While legislation typically deals with aspects of
education one by one, the pieces come together at the school level, where
policies and funding streams interact with local variables to influence teacher
behavior and student experiences. On the basis of a decade spent researching
educational technology use in schools serving students from low-income
backgrounds, I would like to offer some observations on the conjoint impact of
ESEA Titles I, II, and III on equitable access to learning with
technology.
The technology infrastructure in America's schools has grown
dramatically over the last two decades. In 1984 there was an estimated one
computer for every 50 students; by 1998 there was one for every 6.1 Equally
important, there has been significant improvement in the presence of computers
in schools serving low-income students.2
At the same time, the majority of
schools still do not have enough computers to support frequent use by all or
most students. When only computers in regular classrooms are counted, there were
17 students per computer in 1998.3 Moreover, schools serving low-income students
lag behind those serving the more affluent in terms of the student:computer
ratio and the proportion of classrooms with Internet connections. Only 39% of
classrooms in the poorest schools had an Internet connection in 1998, compared
with 63% of classrooms in the wealthiest schools.4 We still have a long way to
go to provide equal and adequate access. Moreover, even when technology access
is equivalent, inequities exist because the ways in which technology is used in
schools serving different kinds of students vary markedly.
In schools
serving mostly middle-class students, there is an emphasis on teaching students
to think and create with technology rather than on simply learning from
technology. Instruction for middle-class students is geared toward putting the
students in control, while that for low-income students is more likely to put
the technology in control (through uses such as delivering information or basic
skills practice sessions).
The student-controlled activities more typical in
middle-class schools include having students: - gather and analyze information,
- produce on-line reports and multimedia presentations of their research
findings, - manipulate computer models and simulations (or even produce their
own models) as they develop and refine their understanding of systems and
concepts, and - interact with distant scientists as they participate in real
scientific expeditions and investigations.
Such programs foreshadow the
environments that knowledge workers will encounter in the next century, and can
be powerful contexts for learning. Some examples: - Middle school students in
classrooms using the inquiry-oriented ThinkerTools software manipulate
simulations and visualizations of the concepts of velocity and acceleration. In
carefully controlled studies, these middle schoolers have outperformed high
school physics students in their ability to apply physics principles to
real-world situations.5 - Knowledge Forum, a networked database for learning,
has been used in subject areas including science, history, and social studies.
Students create text and graphics "notes" about the subject under study,
labeling their contributions in terms of the kind of thinking represented-for
example, "my theory for now..." or "what we need to learn about next .... "Other
students can search and comment on these notes. With teacher support, dialogues
among students and an accumulation of knowledge emerge. Students using this
software have performed better than students in control classes in terms of
standardized tests, portfolio entries, and rated depth of explanations.6 - In
the GLOBE program, elementary and secondary school students learn science by
following scientific data collection protocols for measuring characteristics of
their local atmosphere, soil, and vegetation. Thousands of students are using
GLOBE Web-based data entry forms to submit data to a central archive used by
both students and scientists. Students in active GLOBE classes have performed
better than their age-mates in other science classes on assessments, not only of
their ability to take the kinds of measurements used in GLOBE, but also of
knowledge of sampling and measurement principles and ability to interpret data
and apply science concepts.7
Although we have many more examples of such
programs today than we did ten years ago, and several representatives of
noteworthy projects are here today, they are still far from the norm in U.S.
schools. A recent national survey of 4,100 teachers found that in 1998, only 6%
of teachers had their students work with other students at a distance in
cross-classroom projects; only 4% had students "publish" the results of their
work on the Web.8
Federal compensatory education programs have had mixed
effects with respect to equity. On the one hand, an estimated $2 billion of
Title I funds has supported educational technology within schools serving low-
income students over the last decade.9 On the other hand, Title I dollars going
to technology at the local level tend to be used for drill and practice in basic
skills.
Survey data collected as part of the 1996 National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) in eighth-grade mathematics, for example, indicate
that drill and practice programs were used more commonly with African American,
Latino, and Title I students, while simulations and application programs (which
were associated with higher mathematics scores) were more commonly used with
non-poor, suburban, and white and Asian students.10 I would like to raise
several points for your consideration:
1. Flexibility in use of Title I,
Title II, and Title III funds for technology-related supports and teacher
professional development is important to schools serving low-income students.
These funds have paid for software, teacher professional development, and badly
needed technical support. Without these programs, schools serving low-income
students would have little chance of bridging the "digital divide." The easing
of constraints on schoolwide Title I programs has been a plus for efforts to
integrate technology with whole-school improvement; I would like to see this
policy continued.
2. Emphasis on testing broad factual knowledge through
multiple-choice test results is having a chilling effect on innovative uses of
technology, particularly in schools serving low-income students. Those schools
are most likely to be in a "do well on the test or get taken over" situation,
and teachers feel they cannot afford to spend significant time on
technology-using projects. Schools should be pressed to demonstrate that they
are not raising scores on tests of basic skills at the expense of giving
students the opportunity to learn the higher-order skills of planning, research,
data analysis, and composition-areas that employers say will be critical for
competition in the economy of the next century.
11 Title I tries to
encourage this balance by calling for instruction in both basic and advanced
skills. But obtaining equal emphasis on the latter requires assessments that
cover advanced as well as basic skills.
Widely used assessments do a better
job capturing basic skills than they do on more advanced skills. The creation
and validation of assessments of complex, advanced skills is technically
challenging and expensive. While some states are taking up this challenge, they
would be well served by federally supported R&D in this area, including the
development of assessments of advanced skills (such as data analysis) that can
be supported by technology. The use of a balanced set of assessments of both
basic and higher-order skills in schools serving students from low-income
backgrounds would stimulate more balanced uses of educational technology. It
should be noted that technology can contribute to ameliorating this problem, for
example, by creating centralized on-line banks of advanced-skills assessment
items that districts and states can turn to for pre-tested items (as in the
National Science Foundation-funded Performance Assessment Links in Science
available at http://www.tappedin.sri.com/pals/).
3. Teacher preparation and
support is key. When you move away from canned programs that do the teaching to
flexible uses of technology tools, the teacher's role-as activity designer,
classroom facilitator, and learning evaluator-is critical. We must prepare
teachers not just to be technology users themselves but, more importantly, to
orchestrate powerful learning activities that include student use of technology
tools where those tools enhance learning. While we need to do a better job in
preservice education for the 2 million who will join the teaching force by the
year 2010 (as recognized by the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology
initiative), we also need to find better mechanisms to support today's teachers,
only 20% of whom feel prepared to use technology for instruction.12
Our
studies of schools that have been more and less successful in getting a
significant proportion of their teachers to use technology in instruction
suggest that ongoing professional development,including both informal and
formal, supported activities, is far superior to one-shot training sessions. 13
The most powerful teacher learning in educational technology occurs when
teachers are involved in an active network of like-minded teachers. When such
support networks emerge within schools, teacher technology use is likely to be
more widespread and sustained. Support networks can also emerge across schools
or between teachers and content experts and educational technology researchers.
TAPPED IN, the on-line teacher professional development environment run by SRI,
offers one approach for supporting such networks.
More than 3,200 education
professionals allied with one or more educational improvement efforts are
communicating with distant colleagues, sharing Web sites and other documents,
and collaboratively developing learning experiences in TAPPED IN's electronic
"spaces." (See http://www.tappedin.org.)
We find also that most teachers
will get serious about using technology in their classrooms only if they see
ways in which it will support learning in the subject matter domain for which
they are responsible. A policy implication of this finding is that teacher
professional development programs in technology use and those in
subject-specific content and teaching strategies should be combined rather than
separate. This means, for example, training teachers in the use of Web resources
or specific software for teaching biology as part of efforts to improve biology
teaching rather than simply training them on general Internet use skills.
4.
Leadership and support from the principal are vital. Principals are critical in
setting expectations with respect to technology use, locating technology
resources, and making it possible for teachers to receive the professional
development and planning time they need to develop and implement
technology-supported instruction. Many principals feel ill prepared for this
role and do not receive professional development in this area.
5. Existing
Title III programs provide resources and a catalyst for partnerships and
innovation. The competitive nature of these programs encourages schools to
examine how technology can help meet their educational goals and to enter into
partnerships through which they can obtain both financial and intellectual
resources from external organizations. In contrast to typical Title I-funded
activities, Title III programs support innovations aimed at fostering
higher-order skills. It is true that many schools serving low-income students
lack the leadership and vision needed to compete for such funding, particularly
at the federal level. Nevertheless, simply distributing technology funds on the
basis of enrollment of students from low- income backgrounds would be unlikely
to produce meaningful changes in schools in the absence of leadership and a
compelling vision.
6. Existing Title III programs are not good vehicles
either for answering basic research questions concerning how best to use
technology to foster various types of learning or for solving the problem of a
scarcity of high-quality software in subject areas beyond basic skills. The
PCAST Report (1997) makes the case that research on the most effective ways to
use technology to foster different kinds of learning is sorely needed, as is the
development of research-based, high-qualitysoftware products.14 Given the
fragmentation of the school market and the low likelihood that a major
investment in research could be recovered, the private sector is unlikely to
fill these needs. The primary, recipients of Title III funds-states, LEAs, and
schools-do not have the mission or the expertise to fill these roles. Federal
leadership and funding for a systematic research agenda are needed.
In
summary, very real progress has been made in bringing technology to America's
schools, but concerns remain regarding equity and teacher preparation and
support. We need to continue to encourage both whole- school improvement efforts
and high-quality multi-site projects in specific subject areas that integrate
appropriate technology use with challenging academic content. At the same time,
to make the best use of technology capabilities in education, there is a need
for federal leadership in supporting research and development on balanced
assessments that include measurement of the planning, research, data analysis,
and composition skills that students will need in the 21 st century.
Endnotes
1 Mageau, T. Computer Using Teachers, Agenda, 1, 51, 1991; and
Education Week, Technology Counts '98. Washington, DC: Education Week and the
Milken Exchange on Education Technology, October I, 1998.
2 In 1994-95, for
example, schools serving the largest proportion of Title I students had one
computer for every 11 students, compared with one computer for every 9.5
students in schools serving the smallest proportion of Title I students (PCAST,
Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in
the United States. Panel on Educational Technology, 1997).
3 Technology
Counts '98. Washington, DC: Education Week and the Milken Exchange on Education
Technology, October 1, 1998.
4 NCES (National Center for Education
Statistics). Advanced Telecommunications in U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary
Schools, Fall 1996, 1997, and Internet Access in Public Schools, Issue Brief,
February 1998.
5 White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. Inquiry, Modeling,
and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students. Cognition and
Science, 16: 90-91, 1998.
6 Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. Engaging
Students in a Knowledge Society. Educational Leadership, 54(3), 6-10, 1996.
7 Means, B., & Coleman, E. Technology Supports for Student Participation
in Science Investigations. To appear in M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.),
Learning the Sciences of the 21 st Century: Theory, Research, and the Design of
Advanced Technology Learning Environments. Mahwah, N J: Erlbaum.8 Becker, T. J.
Internet Use by Teachers: Conditions of Professional Use and Teacher-Directed
Student Use. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and
Organizations, University of California, Irvine, and University of Minnesota,
1999.
9 PCAST (President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology).
Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K- 12 Education
in the United States. Panel on Educational Technology, 1997.
10 Wenglinsky
H. Does It Compute? The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student
Achievement in Mathematics. Princeton, N J: Educational Testing Service, 1998;
and CEO Forum, School Technology and Readiness Report, Year Two. Professional
Development: A Link to Better Learning, February 22, 1999.
11 SCANS
(Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills). What Work Requires of
Schools. Department of Labor, 1991.
12 NCES (National Center for Education
Statistics). Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of
Public School Teachers, January 1999.
13 See Means, B., & Golan, S.
Transforming Teaching and Learning with Multimedia Technology. Menlo Park, CA:
SRI International, October 1998, and Means, B., & Olson, K. Technology's
Role in Education Reform: Findings from a National Study of Innovating Schools.
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 1995.
14 PCAST, 1997.
END
LOAD-DATE: April 23, 1999
