|
What data do you have to show that technology is being used
and is making a difference in student achievement?
This is a fair question. Education critics are asking it. Members
of the public are asking it. And, at some point, your district
will have to answer it, if you haven't already. After all, technology
represents a major investment for schools and citizens -- money,
some might argue, that could otherwise go to academic programs.
Some valuable return in the way of student achievement is a reasonable
request.
School technology raises many expectations. Teachers expect
it to help engage students, manage administrative details, and
provide new avenues for expression. Students expect it to be available
and working. Parents expect it to serve their children's needs
and give them a "leg up" for the future. The business community
expects it to prepare a technology-literate work force.
But does technology do any of this? How do we know?
In short, we don't know for sure. Research on school technology
suggests that the answers might be buried in a variety of studies
that have addressed specific uses of technology in specific instances
but have not been synthesized to produce more useful generalizations.
But schools should not wait for researchers to address the question,
Is school technology effective? They should be be asking it themselves
-- and that means gathering data locally on what technology contributes
to your curriculum.
Building a case
Data gathering might begin with rather inexpert measures, but
that's no excuse for not gathering data at all. Assembling data
will help you identify what you really want to know and will let
you see how to isolate those factors from the other information
you have collected. To understand how a school uses technology,
it's a good idea to look at a variety of data, such as tests of
students' computer skills, staff development records, student
anecdotes, lab logs, software acquisition records, repair records,
upgrade records, and budget records.
A good place to start is a technology-use plan, which requires
each school to plan how technology will be used in day-to-day
functions and in instructional programs. In a technology-use plan,
each school outlines how teachers will use technological resources
to support the curriculum. For example, how do fifth-grade teachers
plan to use computers in science, and how will they assess their
use? How will second-grade teachers use technology in math instruction?
The technology-use plan functions as both a planning and an
assessment tool and should be tied to wider school instructional
goals. The plan is developed, implemented, and assessed at the
end of each year. Planning for the following year begins on the
basis of the previous year's outcomes. Did the school accomplish
what it wanted with technology? What might need to change in order
to improve the integration of technology in the curriculum?
Gathering data prepares school administrators and board members
to discuss school technology with parents and other members of
the community, explaining technology's contribution to student
learning, the costs involved, and whether the pursuit of technology
has had a negative impact on other programs. Not being able to
address these issues exposes the district to charges that increased
technology spending precludes other quality programs and that
technology's effects on students are either negligible or negative.
Without data to show, educators who support technology are left
with very little on which to base their enthusiasm.
Once classroom data has been collected, it's possible to see
where technology has had the biggest impact. That area can continue
to be developed while school staff begin addressing areas that
have not been as successful, either by adapting technology's role
or by changing it altogether. This kind of planning, assessing,
adapting, and planning again shows a quality program working to
become even better.
Using data to increase, change, or decrease technology spending
shows a professional approach to technology's strengths and a
school district's careful use of technology dollars. Any district
that begins with even a simple set of measures will quickly find
that interest in the data will grow and the questions will become
more sophisticated, generating even better instruments, questions,
information, and choices.
More than a tool
If we are to make a strong case for school technology, we also
need to challenge the old "technology as a tool" model. This model
represents the way we have described technology's role in schools
almost from the beginning. When technology first became visible
in schools, it was necessary to remind staff and parents alike
that technology itself was not the goal, that its purpose was
high student achievement in other disciplines. Many of us have
been emphasizing this "tool" model all along.
Yet, the model seems a little stale and simplistic when we consider
the ubiquity of technology today and students' expectations for
it. Students expect technology to be available and to work. While
it is still a bit of a struggle for adults to integrate technology
into curriculum, to students, failure to make use of technology
calls into question the relevance of a particular course or at
least the currency of what they are learning.
Far from seeing technology as some exotic extension of their
assignments or some new way to "do" their subject matter, students
often see technology, if they notice it at all, as part of their
work environment. As such, they take technology for granted and
only really notice it when it is missing -- the way most people
hardly notice electricity until a storm downs the wires and the
lights go out.
This still seems to support the idea that technology is mainly
a high-quality tool. Yet simply placing tools in a classroom for
students to use without due consideration of what instructional
outcomes are expected does not serve teachers or students well.
That requires asking more questions: What type of technology environment
should be present in a math classroom? How is that different from
what is needed in a science classroom? How are both different
from the technology needed in a graphics and design classroom?
To be sure, there might be some common uses -- word processing
comes to mind. But by not specifically asking about the particular
needs of students in different subject environments, we perpetuate
a "one size fits all" concept of technology -- and that no longer
works.
Supporting the mind
In his 1995 book Outsmarting IQ: the Emerging Science of Learnable
Intelligence, David Perkins challenges educators to rethink their
model of classroom technology. Discussing the notion of "distributed
intelligence," he writes: "The basic idea of distributed intelligence
says that the resources that support intelligent behavior do not
lie solely inside the mind and brain. They typically occur distributed
throughout the environment and social system in which we operate."
Perkins goes on to say that resources that support intelligent
behavior are distributed in three ways: physically, socially,
and symbolically. Physical resources include such things as pencils,
books, chart paper, and computers; social resources include collaborative
teams, experts, teachers, and parents; and symbolic resources
include such things as language and symbol systems.
Technology seems ideally suited for providing access to resources
that promote intelligent behavior. It can bring information to
users, make powerful thinking tools readily available, and help
people to think in different ways. Given this, why not design
technology to meet specific student and teacher needs in various
disciplines? Why not more carefully customize school technology
to address specific requirements for content, age-appropriateness,
and socialization? If different groups of teachers could choose
the technology most suitable for their age and discipline areas,
what would they choose? Teachers already choose software based
on such considerations, but certainly we can be even more thoughtful
about how we build the educational technology environment. (That
means hardware, too.)
Technology is already part of a student's environment -- if
not at school, then probably at work or while shopping, playing,
or interacting with others. As educators, we should be carefully
planning the educational technology environment and targeting
technology use to learning expectations. Sure, technology is a
tool, but now it is time to customize that tool by building networks
and resources to achieve specific ends.
For example, while a writing class needs word processing instruments,
a graphics and design class will need large monitors and a high-quality
color printer, and a math class might want graphing calculators
connected to a projection device. Instead of adapting technology
to these differing instructional needs, we force teachers and
students to adapt themselves to the technology by placing roughly
equal resources in each classroom. That makes no sense: Technology
implementation should mirror, to the extent possible, the different
needs and expectations of different points on the education continuum.
A fair question
It is time to stop saying, "Technology's value should be self-evident,"
and to take a more sophisticated view: "Let's see what the data
show about technology's impact on our various instructional programs."
Schools that gather data on how technology is already used will
make better decisions about targeting its use to specific needs.
A nagging sense that technology isn't doing what we wish it to,
coupled with a lack of data showing outcomes or targeted planning,
has provoked serious public discussion of whether the investment
is worth the cost. It's a fair question. We should be prepared
to answer it with data -- before it is answered for us.
Lisa
Bartles is Technology Literacy Challenge
Grant consultant for the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
in Raleigh.
|
