Implementation Responding to Student and Teacher Needs
Bill Warrick
Coordinator of Instructional Technology
Stafford County Public Schools
Technology implementation and integration in schools are receiving
quite a bit of attention lately. Proponents of instructional technology
are increasingly being held to answer for the massive infusion of
computers and other technologies into our schools. Now that computers
and other technologies have been a part of the classroom for many
years, some questions are arising concerning their use and the benefits
we are seeing. Relating specific educational gains to the use of technology
is difficult, however, because "...there is no clear consensus
on what it means to integrate technology" (Riedl). There have
never been specific educational goals for the integration of technology.
Until very recently, the issues surrounding the implementation of
technology revolved around how much could be bought for the schools
and how fast. The appropriateness of computers in the classroom has
not been questioned. Technology was, after all, the "wave of
the future" and the students would have to deal with the mysteries
of programs, bits, and bytes; not to mention the fact that tomorrow's
citizens would have computers at their fingertips at every turn. ATM
machines, computers in the workplace, computer-based record keeping,
and the information explosion have all been cited as justification
for instructional technology expenditures. Once personal computers
became available, the race was on to gather together all available
resources to purchase and install them in the schools. Not much attention
was paid to how the computers would be used, and even less to how
the computers might effect learning and teaching. As Chris Dede writes,
"...computers are seen as magical devices, silver bullets to
solve the problems of schools." Classroom computers, he contends,
are "envisioned as a technology comparable to fire: just by sitting
near these devices, students get a benefit from them, as knowledge
and skills radiate from the monitors into their minds."
Teachers, parents, administrators, and the public were enthusiastic
about giving the students access to computers. Local and state administrators
called for standards on the numbers of computers that should be in
schools - one multimedia, network-ready computer in every classroom
and a 5 to 1 ratio of students to computers. (Six-Year Educational
Technology Plan for Virginia) Sophisticated software and peripherals
all made their way into the classrooms. The funding for such expenditures
was rarely, if ever, questioned and the infrastructure in place in
many schools grew to the point where, today, network administrators
are as common in schools as reading or math specialists. Indeed, in
some instances, the support needs for instructional technology have
been met at the expense of other programs.
The methods by which success with technology implementation was measured
focused solely on numbers of computers and associated peripherals.
Newspapers published computer counts and ratios to indicate a school
district's progress in technology implementation. A school with a
10 to 1 ratio of students to computers was assumed to be doing a better
job of incorporating technology than one with a 20 to 1 ratio. Teachers
were given the hardware and software but little or no guidance as
to its instructional uses. "Oregon Trail" has become a caricature
of instructional technology - the kids loved it, teachers were using
technology, and the parents were excited about an educational game
where the kids took a simulated trip out west. Unfortunately, though,
games like this were mainly played by students when they finished
their other work. Typically, the best (or at least the fastest) at
the 'real work' got to use the computers. To be sure, some excellent
integration strategies were in use but these were the exception rather
than the rule. Teachers simply weren't given training and strategies
to integrate this technology. A specific plan for the integration
of the new technology did not exist.
Today, the infusion of technology is coming under critical scrutiny.
Rather than continue to endorse the indiscriminate purchase and implementation
of newer and faster technologies, a growing segment of the public
is looking for justification for technology implementation. What benefit
is it to the students? Is there an increase in learning? Is there
an increase in test scores? Andrew Totter, in Education Week, writes,
"...the nation's schools, policy makers and the public are finally
starting to demand evidence that their investments have been worthwhile."
With $5 billion per year spent on technology implementation across
the country, people are beginning to ask, "Why?" This is
an unsettling question to those who took it on faith that computers
would somehow radiate learning to the students.
Measuring success with technology implementation is hampered by the
fact that there are no clearly defined instructional goals for it.
Without a definition of what technology integration is, there is no
way to assess whether technology is being integrated or to measure
the impact of integrating technology (Riedl, 1998). Without articulating
goals, there can be no measurement of whether or not technology implementation
has been successful. Educators need to agree on, and clarify, their
goals for using technology, or they have no business looking to research
for answers. (Cuban, 1998).
Recent research conducted by Harold Wenglinski, an associate research
scientist with Educational Testing Service reveals some very interesting
findings. Wenglinski studied the performance data of 4th and 8th graders
on the math section of the 1996 National Assessment of Educational
Progress. In 1996, for the first time in its 30 years the NAEP contained
questions to students and teachers about how they used computers in
math. His findings indicate that in classrooms that have successfully
integrated technology, the critical factor is not the type of computer
or the length of time it is in use, but the way in which is was used
by teachers. Technology can have positive benefits. But those benefits
depend on how the technology is used (Wenglinski).
His findings indicate that students will not achieve more simply
by virtue of the computer's presence in the classroom or the amount
of time the student spends on it. Rather, they suggest that the differences
in achievement scores are related to how the teacher uses the computer.
In short, technology combined with good teaching will make the difference.
The indications are that it is the teacher who makes the most difference
in the success of technology integration. How the technology is integrated
and the context in which it is used has a much greater effect than
on the time spent on the computers.
Unfortunately, the teachers and students have largely been left out
of the planning process for implementing technology. Technology has
been purchased for its own sake and it was hoped that some good would
come from it. This is what has brought many school systems to the
point today where they are finding it difficult to justify expenditures
on technology.
"Studies of innovation in other types of institutions indicate
that successful change is always bottom-up, middle-out, and top-down.
The driver for bottom-up innovation in a district is the children.
To activate these bottom-up, middle-out, and top-down forces for improvement,
educators must take the lead in developing a shared vision for systemic
reform, distributed learning and sophisticated utilization of technology."
(Dede, 1998)
What is missing are instructionally relevant goals and a vision for
the successful integration of new technologies. Technology implementation
has, in most cases, overlooked the very things that should be given
highest priority: the needs of the students.
"What schools need to consider now are the goals for its use.
The obligation for educators, practitioners, and educational policymakers
to think about what it is they're after. Only with clear goals can
educators be intelligent about how much they want to spend for what
purpose, and under what conditions." (Cuban, 1998)
The first goal in implementing any type of innovation, be it teaching
style, management technique or instructional technology, must be to
meet the instructional needs of the students. When the needs of the
students are matched with appropriate technology then the implementation
of that technology will likely be more successful. If technology integration
is to be successful, it must be relevant and appropriate to the tasks.
Clearly, educators must be included in planning and implementing technology.
The curricular goals and the needs of the students have to drive the
technology that is purchased. These can best be voiced by educators.
There is a bandwagon that school systems around the state and around
the country have been riding and we need to get off and take a good
look at where we are going. We must first realize that technology
infusion is not an end in itself. There are a vast number of ways
that technology can be used to enhance instruction but the driving
force behind its infusion must be the curriculum and learning needs
of the students. To place computers and software in classrooms where
teachers have no need for them is to doom the computers to be relegated
to game playing when work is done. Unless we first engage in some
serious discussion about what we want to see happening in the learning
setting and then decide on how to use the technology to further the
desired activity, we have not really accomplished anything (Riedl,
1998).
Technology can have a great impact on schools. Computers can provide
motivation for reticent students; provide virtual worlds for otherwise
impossible simulations; provide access to tools for students who might
otherwise be incommunicative; or develop higher-order thinking skills
in the management of information. But the implementation of technology
must be responsive first to the needs of the students and teachers.
Educators must be included at all stages of planning for technology
implementation. School systems that continue to purchase and implement
technology without regard for its ultimate purpose will be hard pressed
to show or exploits its benefits.
References:
Cuban, L. (1998) (From The Link To Higher Scores. Education Week,
Vol. XVIII, Number 5, 10 - 12
Dede, C., (1998). The Scaling-Up Process for Technology-Based Educational
Innovations, ASCD Yearbook 1998 Learning with Technology (pp 199 -
215). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development
Riedl, R. E., (1998) Integrating Technology Into Education: What
Does It All Mean?, The Catalyst: The Newsletter of Western Center
for Microcomputers in Special Education, Inc. Spring 1998, Volume
14 #3
Riedl, R. E., (1998) Integrating Technology Into Education: The Sequel
What Does It All Mean?, The Catalyst: The Newsletter of Western Center
for Microcomputers in Special Education, Inc. Summer 1998, Volume
14 #4
Totter, A. (1998) A Question of Effectiveness, Education Week, Vol.
XVIII, Number 5, 6 -9
Six-Year Educational Technology Plan for Virginia (1996 - 2002),
Virginia Department of Education
Wenglinski, H. (1998) (From The Link to Higher Scores. Education
Week, vol XVIII Number 5, 10-12)
