![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
Technology cannot become a meaningful support for students' work if they have access to it for only a few minutes a week. The kind of technology-supported project-based instruction we have described requires a high level of access to the sorts of technology tools that researchers and other professionals use on a daily basis to support their work. For example, most schools reported word processing as one of the most prevalent uses of the computer across grade levels and subject areas. However, in many cases, students were doing very little initial composition at computers. Rather, they were entering drafts that had initially been composed with pencil and paper and using the computer as an editing and publishing tool. Although for some students, the lack of keyboarding skill interfered with composing at the computer, the lack of adequate access to computers appeared to be a larger factor, particularly at sites where computers were located in separate laboratories or where there were few computers within the classroom.
Data from national surveys suggest that although American schools have more micro-computers than those of any other country, the level of access is still insufficient to fulfill technology's educational potential.(3)
American students report using computers an average of 40 minutes a week (Becker, 1994). Schools are faced with the reality of a limited budget for equipment and software (and an even more limited inventory of the most powerful equipment) and must make hard choices about how to get the most out of what they have.
A lot of teachers wanted a lab, but we have 800 kids and they only get to the library once a week, so how could they possibly share a lab? We never have room for this [a computer lab] so we haven't had to face that issue. ... I wonder if a lab would mean that they would really learn it? But then there is the issue of, it's just a lab, it isn't integrated. You hate to pull computers out of rooms where they aren't being used, but should those who are using them [have more computers]?One of the major decisions that schools embarking on a technology implementation must make is whether to group the computers in separate laboratories, which allow a whole classroom of students to work individually on computers, or whether to disperse them among the regular classrooms. A wide range of strategies for allocating computers were observed. Distribution among the regular classrooms gets the technology to the place where the teachers and the students are, but if the school does not have enough technology to provide a critical mass within classrooms, little benefit is likely to result. In particular, a uniform distribution formula that puts one or two computers into each classroom appears ineffective. With a class of 30 or more students, a small number of computers do not provide individual students or small groups with enough computer time to have a positive impact. We would not argue that schools must have a computer for every student (many activities are not computer based), but it does seem that something on the order of 6 to 8 computers (enough for a quarter of the students working individually or half of the class working in pairs) is necessary to provide an environment where access problems are not an impediment. This level of equipping regular classrooms is much higher than the computer-to-student ratio of the typical American school; even so, it provides students with adequate access only if the teacher is skilled at orchestrating activities in such a way that students learn how to work jointly on computers and that both technology-based and technology-independent activities proceed concurrently.
--Elementary school project coordinator
For schools that do not have the equipment inventory to give this many computers to all classes, one option is distribution to classes in special projects. This approach provides some classes with enough technology to do some good and increases the likelihood that the teachers receiving the technology will have clear ideas about what they want to do with it. Even without special projects, schools may find advantages in incremental roll-out of technology. Often this is done on a grade-by-grade basis, but it could also be done on the basis of teacher interest or subject matter. One of our site principals suggested beginning with kindergarten and first grades and then adding technology to succeeding grades each year. In this way, students in the first kindergarten class would have technology throughout their school career, and the upper grades would end up with the newest and most powerful equipment. The incremental approach spreads the cost not only of hardware and software but also of teacher training. The experiences of the pioneering classrooms can help other teachers implement technology more effectively.
Another option for schools that cannot afford to place 6 to 8 computers in all regular classrooms is setting up a computer laboratory. This setup has appeal in cases where most of the regular classroom teachers lack technology expertise or interest; a computer coordinator can be responsible for keeping the centralized computer resources up and running and for designing instructional programs involving the computers. The potential disadvantage, particularly when students work in the lab on activities designed by a computer coordinator rather than on regular classroom assignments, is that the technology lessons in the computer lab tend to be "inert"; if students do not use technology tools in accomplishing their work for the regular classroom, the power of technology will not be harnessed in the service of the core curriculum. In addition, when technology-based activities are planned and executed by someone other than the regular classroom teacher, regular teachers find the activities in the computer lab easy to ignore, and they feel no pressure to learn how to use technology within their own teaching. Several of the sites in our study began with a computer lab approach but later distributed the computers into classrooms to achieve greater integration with the curriculum.
In the past, computer laboratories were associated with classes teaching computer literacy, programming, or other computer topics at the secondary level and with integrated learning systems (ILS) providing individual students with drill and practice on basic skills at the elementary school level. This situation is changing. More and more schools are finding a place for general-purpose computer laboratories where students can go to work on projects for their other classes. In the computer laboratory at the Maynard Computer Mini-School, for example, students used technology in many tool-like ways--e.g., to obtain information over the Internet, to send electronic mail, and to do word processing of reports--for assignments and projects connected with their regular classes. What made this arrangement work was that the computer lab was located right next to the regular classrooms and that students had extensive access to it through the combination of the mini-school teachers' policy of allowing students to leave their regular classes to use the lab as well as the fact that the lab was open before and after school and during lunch.
Several sites distributed their computers across both labs and classrooms, where they were used in different ways for different purposes. At South Creek Middle School, the School of the Future, and East City High School, a series of computer labs were used for whole-class activities in particular subject or project areas (e.g., writing, science, research, multimedia). Smaller numbers of classroom computers (one to five per classroom, depending on the site) were used by the teachers for material preparation and communication, as well as by the students for individual or small-group work. This arrangement seemed to work particularly well for the middle and secondary school levels, where the curriculum tends to be more specialized.
An alternative to the centralized computer lab that was used in several case study schools was the mobile computer lab. Both John Wesley and Bay Vista put computers (in fact, their most powerful computers) on carts and had them rolled from room to room. Computers have become adequately rugged and portable to permit this kind of use, and both schools felt that the strategy, although perhaps not ideal, made higher levels of access available to students and heightened utilization rates for their equipment. Coordination issues come into play, of course, as teachers need to schedule time with the mobile computer lab and someone (usually students) needs to move the equipment from place to place. Hard feelings can develop if some teachers feel that others are monopolizing the equipment, but in general these issues can be worked out as a matter of school policy.
Finally, some schools have not aimed for dispersing technology across all classrooms but rather have chosen to institute a "technology mini-school" with a high level of technology access. Both the Maynard School and East City High School cases were examples of this approach. Advantages lie in the very high level of technology access that can be provided for mini-school students and in the option to carefully select teachers who are enthusiastic about incorporating technology into their teaching practice. Disadvantages lie in the potential for the mini-school students and staff to become isolated from the remainder of the school and for technology to become something that divides rather than unifies the school. Exhibit 1 provides some profiles of different approaches to addressing the technology allocation problem. Table 2 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages for these allocation approaches.
Even when students are given a high level of access to computers at school, the fact that most students cannot continue their computer-supported activities outside of school poses limitations on the kind of work that they are able to do. This problem is particularly apparent for schools serving large numbers of students from homes with poverty-level incomes. As one teacher pointed out, not only technology's cost but also its portability is at issue:
If we had enough computers and could use them every day, they could use them in place of their notebooks. But then you have the issue of home. They don't have computers in their homes...and a lot of their composing and revision is done at home, so there's a whole other issue. It's impractical the way the technology is because it seems to be just kind of hanging. It's neither one or the other. We're using notebooks, which seem archaic and obsolete in a lot of ways, but they're with them all the time. They're with them on subways or on a trip or whatever. That to me is first priority --the writing of it, not the technology. The technology is only a tool, and right now it's not a good enough tool.
--Elementary school teacher
Exhibit 1Examples of Strategies for Allocating Equipment Distributing a Large Inventory of Computers within a New Technology Middle School When planning for the reopening of this former junior high as a technology middle school, the district made a major investment in over 400 networked Macintosh LC computers for South Creek Middle School. Each regular classroom was assigned 5 or 6 computers. In addition, several labs of about 30 computers and a library media center were included in the plan. Each classroom has a monitor and VCR. Most of the technology ($2.2 million worth) was purchased for the school's opening. Upgrades and additional software are added every year, however, and a recent investment in a T-1 line brought increased telecommunications capabilities. Creating a "Mobile Laboratory" for a Small Number of Computers Bay Vista Elementary School classrooms share the school's higher-end computers through a mobile lab arrangement. Seventeen Macintosh computers are kept on desks with wheels. One teacher maintains the mobile lab schedule, and all teachers schedule these computers into their classrooms for technology-based activities as needed. Each term, a team of four students is assigned to each computer to ensure that the computer is transported securely from class to class. Students consider this assignment an honor and a serious responsibility. Because most of the classrooms in this school are in separate "portable" buildings, one student is also assigned as the "step monitor" to guide the teams of students moving the computers down the steps. At the count of three, the students lift the desk and carry the computer safely to ground level and roll it away to the next classroom. This is an amazing sight to see, especially on rainy days when students cover the computers with large plastic tarps before exiting the building! In addition to the mobile lab, classrooms have a few less-powerful computers on permanent assignment and access to a project room with 14 networked PCs. Centralizing Equipment in a School-within-a-School Eight classrooms are part of Maynard's Computer Mini-School. The mini-school's computer inventory is concentrated in two computer labs. The original computer lab is equipped with 25 to 30 computers, linked on a local area network (LAN) to a Gateway 2000 file server providing access to a full range of tool applications (e.g., word processor, database, spreadsheet) and a wide array of instructional software. Each student has a folder on the file server containing his/her individual work. In addition, each student has his/her own e-mail account. Their WAN connection features a high-speed data line and a client-server model of access that enables students to connect with resources on the Internet as readily and as easily as they are able to access local applications. Front-end user interfaces (Gopher, Mosaic) facilitate the location and use of available resources. The lab is open from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily. In addition to 16 scheduled classes each week (two 1-hour sessions per classroom), the lab is open to students during school hours between scheduled classes and through lunch, as well as before and after school. Students make heavy use of these flexible periods of access for writing, research, and other project-related work, as well as for self-selected and recreational activities. Adjacent to this computer lab, an Integrated Learning System (ILS) was added in 1993. The ILS lab is used for non-mini-school classes but is available to mini-school as well as other students before and after school and during lunch. The ILS network is linked to the network in the main computer lab, making it possible for up to 80 students to use the network's resources, including the Internet link, simultaneously. All but one of the eight mini-school classrooms are located on the same floor as the computer labs. This physical proximity supports extensive use of the computer facilities, and teachers commonly send individual students or small groups from their classrooms to use the lab facilities for their regular classroom work. Although each of the regular classrooms is equipped with one or two computers, these machines are rarely used because these are older models (mostly Apple IIe's) and students have such ready access to the more sophisticated equipment within the lab. Transitioning from a Lab to Distribution to Regular Classrooms Technology use at Nathaniel Elementary began with the installation of an Apple IIe lab. A computer lab teacher was hired, and students were brought to the lab once a week during their teachers' 50-minute prep periods. During these sessions, they engaged in instructional games and word processing. As time went on, the lab instructor became increasingly frustrated because this arrangement did not provide a high enough level of computer access to allow for technology-supported activities that were integrated with the curriculum in meaningful ways. At one point, she attempted to introduce LOGO programming, but found that students would often forget key concepts and commands from one week to the next. The decision was eventually made to separate the lab teacher position from the constraints of the prep period, allowing for greater flexibility in how the lab was run. The change enabled the scheduling of 6-week mini-courses that met three times per week (rotating between classes). Because the lab was no longer used to cover prep time, teachers were able to stay in the lab with their students, providing additional instructional support and learning the technology in the process. The school made the transition to another level of technology use several years after the lab was installed, upon receiving funding for incorporating technology into a large number of classrooms. The lab continued to be used for special activities, but the bulk of technology-supported learning was transferred to regular classrooms. With the transition from lab to classroom, the computer instructor notes that her role became increasingly devoted to technical troubleshooting, demonstration, and curriculum support. She further observes that students came to view computers in a new way, as "tools they used for a variety of purposes" rather than in terms of instructional games. |
Strategies for Allocating Technology
| Strategy | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Computer laboratory | Enables a whole class to use technology simultaneously A single technology coordinator can plan activities and keep technology running |
Regular teachers may be disengaged from technology use Less likely to affect core program |
| Distribution formula | Equipment available in regular classrooms, permitting better integration with core program Perceived equity across classes |
Requires large equipment inventory to permit reasonable number of students to access in parallel Equipment likely to receive little use in some classrooms All teachers require training and technical support |
| Incremental roll-out | Lower initial funding requirement Can train teachers incrementally and have them help train others |
Potential for impatience on the part of teachers in latter phases Incompatibility between equipment purchased at different phases |
| Distribution to classes in special projects | Technology used more efficiently and effectively when placed in classrooms where there is a plan and support for its use | Potential perception of favoritism Students in some classes may receive little or no technology access |
| Mobile laboratory | Maximizes use of limited technology inventory Perceived fairness |
Logistics requirements for scheduling and transporting equipment Teachers use less than if technology stationed in their classroom |
| Technology mini-school | Allows high level of access for subset of students Can focus training on subset of highly motivated teachers |
Teachers and students not in mini-school receive few advantages Tendency toward isolation |
I came from a school where most of the families could afford a computer and the kids that didn't...had the tendency to withdraw and put their heads down and not really want to be into anything technology-based.Our case study sites were quite sensitive to issues of equal access. In fact, the need for schools to be active in giving high-quality technology experiences to students who would have less access to technology in their homes was a motivating factor in setting up a number of the programs. (See Chapter 7.) In some cases, classes instituted explicit policies to ensure that all students had equal access to technology that was in limited supply. For example, in the Nathaniel classes participating in the CSILE project, each child was scheduled for a minimum of 30 minutes a day at the computer. At the Maynard Computer Mini-School, each student had a scheduled 2 hours a week in the computer lab (with his or her regular class), plus the opportunity to come in before or after school, during lunch, or at other times with the teacher's permission. About half of the students took advantage of this opportunity for additional time working with computers, and there were no apparent differences in the participation rates of boys and girls.
--Middle school mathematics teacher
Given the predominantly low-income, ethnic minority character of the schools' student populations, the case studies offered few opportunities to assess whether or not there was differential participation rates along SES lines. Observations in other classrooms would suggest that schools need to be sensitive to this possibility. In addition to developing policies to equalize in-school technology access time, schools need to consider the need for developing norms for cooperative technology work that ensure that all children get opportunities to take the lead. In several classrooms, students working in pairs at computers regulated their own sharing of roles, trading off control of the keyboard at regular intervals. Several other schools attempted to mitigate the differences in technology background stemming from differential experience with computers in the home by instituting take-home computer programs. One such program is described in Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 2Example of a Student Take-Home Computer Program According to estimates given by both the principal and the technology coordinator, fewer than 1% of the students enrolled at Nathaniel Elementary School have access to computers at home. To enable their students to compete with students from more affluent homes in future education and work settings, Nathaniel staff felt that they needed to try to provide these students with in-home as well as at-school technology experience. Nathaniel Elementary decided to purchase 78 Macintosh Classics for use in a special parent/student take-home computer program. The computers were purchased with funds from a district-sponsored restructuring grant (the district initially recommended the purchase of ILS software for the school's existing Apple IIe lab; but the school had other ideas, which the district gave them the flexibility to implement). The take-home program provides families with computers on a 4-week loan basis. Participation in the program is self-selected. Parents are required to attend a 6-hour training session covering computer basics (how to turn the computer on and off, how to load programs) before taking the computers home. The school's technology coordinator reports that the program has been highly successful, especially for students, who use the on-loan computers for a wide range of personal and school-related activities. |
As stated above, we observed roughly equal participation of girls and boys at most of our case study sites (the exception being the School of the Future, which had a low female enrollment, and the Electronic Research class at one of the TeacherNet high schools we visited). This finding stands in contrast to the lower participation rate for girls in many classes observed by others (Mark, 1992). Our observations suggest that when technology becomes thoroughly integrated into a school, such that there are many different technology uses and many technology-using models available, girls will find technology-based activities as motivating as boys do. They may select somewhat different technology activities (a lower interest in computer games and a higher interest in composing at the computer were cited by some informants), but their overall level of use will be comparable. When technology is a part of all kinds of subjects and of every class, when it is used in social studies and fine arts and not just in a specific computer class or a special math class, students are going to see a good many female technology-using models, and this is likely to have an impact.
One of my bugaboos has been that computers have been sexually biased, more of a male thing. I think because I'm a female and I'm the one that is being a presenter and I'm the one that knows [about technology], that [the gender stereotype] does not exist in my class. I think that it breaks out even. The boys do not take over because the girls can do just as much.Thus, our observations are consistent with research suggesting that collaborative uses of technology increase its appeal to girls (Herman, 1985) and that gender differences in technology interest are not present when boys and girls have equal levels of experience with computers. (Chen, 1986).
--Progressive School teacher
-###-
[Implementation Challenges and Strategies (part 2 of 4)]