![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
Background Paper for the Expert Panel on Educational Technology--August 31, 1998
The Technology Resource Group discussed some underlying issues which need to be considered by the Expert Panel as they consider the frameworks for developing definitions and measures of promising and exemplary programs. These questions, and suggestions regarding possible ways of dealing with them, are briefly reviewed below.
The Expert Panel will need to come to a consensus on what they consider to be "technology", and whether they will use the generic term "technology" or specify "educational technology", "instructional technology", "communications technology", "learning technology" or some other preferred term. A review of several recent national reports shows a preference for the term "educational technology" or just "technology". The term has been defined in a variety of ways, including three noted below.
For its 1995 report to Congress on Teachers and Technology, the Office of Technology Assessment used the term "technology" to refer to:
... all forms of computers and their peripherals including hard disk drives, printers, CD-ROM, projection devices and networks offering telecommunication linkages. It also refers to a range of other new or more traditional technologies: telephones, video cameras, televisions and VCRs, fax machines, videodisks, cable and other one-and two-way links, small devices like electronic calculators, personal digital assistants and other hand-held devices, or combinations of these and other new technologies.(p.4)
The Illinois State Board of Education took a more poetic approach for their K-12 Information Technology Plan (1996):
Technology is the combination of human imagination, inventiveness, and the electronic tools that transform ideas into reality. (p.5)
As a third example, in their CD on "The Research on Technology for Learning", the North Central Regional Educational Lab defined "technology" and "technology application" as follows:
... we use the word "technology" to identify electronic tools that help people work faster and/or better by helping them create, store, and access information and interact with others in dynamic ways. For the most part, these tools use a computer co-processor in some aspect of their operation. Therefore, when we use the term "technology" we are referring to the computer and its ancillary components and tools that utilize computer applications in many ways. The term "technology application" refers to computer software or any operational tool that interfaces with the computer.
The Expert Panel will need to create or select a definition they find most closely matches their views.
Technology--both the hardware and software applications--changes so quickly that it is hard to create one definition of what constitutes effective use in an educational setting. A persistent challenge for educators has been simply keeping up with the changing messages of what we believe is important for students to learn and for teachers to teach about and with technology.
For example, when computers were first introduced in schools, the prevailing wisdom around effective use of technology was that students should learn how to program computers in BASIC, both as a means of developing an understanding of how computers worked and because there was so little educational software available. Not long thereafter, however, LOGO was promoted as a computer language that was more appropriate for children because it was seen as a tool for thinking. Then, as drill and practice software packages were developed for a range of content areas, whether in stand- alone or integrated content packages, educators were encouraged to use these to individualize instruction and help students bring up their test scores, especially in basic skills. But then focus shifted to helping students learn tools that they will use in the outside world, such as spreadsheets, word processing, and databases. Soon specialized tools including science probes, specialized educational databases, timelines, and other classroom based resources began to be promoted. With the advent of rich multimedia and hypertext applications, students were encouraged to learn these so they could create products for an audience. Now the Internet and website-based learning are seen as the most powerful instructional vehicles technology can offer.
While there may be some logic to this progression, the reality is that, just as educators get their arms around another approach, with the attendant investments in software, training and possible curricular readjustments, the messages about appropriate technology change.
The key point is that effective educational technology programs are not tied to one technology or method; they must be allowed to evolve as technology changes. Dwyer (1997) points out the challenge succinctly:
We look with envy at educational innovators of the past; for example, those who introduced McGuffey Eclectic Readers to the classrooms in the 1800s. Their task was somehow easier because book-based information technology evolved in the mid-15th century and had been virtually unchanged for hundreds of years. Now, we are engaged with an information technology that reinvents itself with startling rapidity.
The panel will need to be flexible in their planning, and take an approach that recognizes the evolution of technological applications. Ideally, the questions addressed will be open-ended enough to deal with changing goals and opportunities for technology usage.
The Expert Panel should not look at technology in isolation; rather, the focus will need to be on its use as a facilitator for learning in a range of curricular areas. Nonetheless, the resource group came to the conclusion that technology is not yet "invisible" enough, that is, not so naturally applied to teaching and learning, that its appropriate role is so obvious that it can fade into the background. Billions of dollars have been spent on educational technology over the last decade, but the public needs a clearer vision of what uses are most valuable, for what kinds of educational needs and populations and under what conditions. If the education community does not do a better job of articulating this, by making explicit what works and why, future funding could well come to an end as calls are made for a return to "traditional teaching". By designating certain programs and activities as promising and exemplary, the panel will play an important role in suggesting models others can adopt, places to visit, and resources to consider in gaining insight into appropriate policies and expenditures.
Although it is important for students in the information age to know "about" technology, and to be comfortable in using whatever technologies are appropriate for the tasks they find, this does not mean that technology is an end in itself. It is a means to a variety of ends, and some forms of learning are increasingly only possible with technology. Clearly, technology should fit the project, rather than be imposed from the outside because it's available, or some other techno-centric approach. Nonetheless, the role of technology in making it possible to meet learning goals must be made explicit. One technology planner (See, 1997) put it this way:
Effective technology plans focus on applications, not technology. In other words, make your technology plan outcome-based, not input-based. Develop a plan that specifies what students, staff, and administration should be able to do with technology and let those outcomes determine the types and amount of technology your plan requests.
Despite the need to spotlight technology's role in a project's effectiveness, a project shouldn't be evaluated by how much technology it uses or teaches. An effective project will use technology as much or as little is needed to enhance the learning process via technology. As suggested by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1995):
Technology should be the servant and not the master of instruction. It should not be adopted merely because it exists, or because an institution fears that it will be left behind the parade of progress without it. We also believe that sophisticated technology is not to be equated with saturation. In some courses, the use of technology may be appropriate for a few hours in an entire term. In a few, technology may be constructively used for two-thirds of the hours allotted for a term of instruction; in a very few, it may take over the entire process.
Just as there is no one definition of effectiveness, there is no one appropriate level of analysis. Some projects may be better suited to a single school or district for implementation. Other projects may be designed to work over a larger target audience, or a very specific student group. The scope of a project does not define its effectiveness; the project needs to be effective within its target. As discussed by the Technology Resource Group, separate levels of analysis may need to be identified and each proposal analyzed at the proper level. In some cases, projects may demonstrate different kinds of measures for students, classroom organization, teacher style, and school-level change.
The resource group suggested that the unit of analysis should be broadly defined if the goal is to recognize interventions that are sustained and sustainable, and have the potential to transform learning in a significant manner. (See the section below on criteria). For example, if individual programs are identified, they could have multiple models for implementation.
The endpoint of a project should not be the sole subject of the analysis. While learner outcomes are critical, some of these (e.g. greater enrollments in advanced placement or high level classes; impacts on graduation, employment, college or graduate study enrollments; even test scores) may take many years to show up. Therefore, evidence of movement and progression towards goals should be valued.
Many of the technology projects the resource group considered to be the most successful have evolved over a long period of time. Simultaneously learning new technology, designing new lesson plans using the technology, and teaching the new lesson in the classroom over a short period of time are virtually impossible. Educators need time to evolve with a project as their technical fluency and comfort level rise. The opportunity to label some projects as promising, while the data has time to accumulate, may help in dealing with this issue of documenting success over the long-term. Becker (1998) noted:
It takes time for teachers to master computer-based practices and approaches. The Sheingold and Hadley survey shows at least 5-6 years. Teachers who have had students use computer software in a substantial way for several years are the same teachers who are most apt to report that their teaching practice has changed substantially.
The Expert Panel must establish, for the review process, criteria for judging a project as promising or as exemplary. As noted above, programs that are moving forward but still in the process of accumulating research data might be considered for the promising designation. In its simplest form, a promising program may not meet all of the rigorous tests that are required of an exemplary program. It may meet a large number of them, or it may use a unique approach to the incorporation of technology and education. A promising project should, however, be expected to transition to an exemplary project within a fixed time period.
Due to the nature of this panel, it is quite possible that initially there will be more promising projects than exemplary ones. Since technology has been evolving so quickly, identifying a greater number of promising projects may encourage more organizations, districts, and teachers to become involved with the integration of technology and education by putting a spotlight on "works in progress" as models to emulate.
[III. Lessons Learned from Previous Projects]