The phone rings in the Montana principal's office.

"This is Mr. Whitehead," he answers.

On the line is a principal from Michigan. She's heard that Bruce Whitehead's school, Hellgate Elementary in Missoula, is a leader in education technology.

"I'd like to know what your scope and sequence is for your computers," she says.

"I don't have a scope and sequence for my computers," Whitehead responds.

The caller is stunned.

"But, but...how can that be? I don't understand, " she sputters.

"We have a curricular scope and sequence, and computers are simply a part of that," Whitehead explains. "We integrate the computers wherever they will enhance the curriculum. We do not have a scope and sequence for technology per se." It's not only hardware (five networked PCs per room plus state-of-the-art peripherals like digital cameras, multimedia presentation software, and flatbed scanners) that makes Hellgate a model for education technology. Rather, what makes Hellgate a standout is the way it blends gear with goals. Researchers are in unison on this point: The most amazing gizmos in the world won't help kids learn better unless those gizmos are linked to larger educational objectives.

"We are all so seduced by cool machines and the cool things they can do," says Anne Batey, a trainer and researcher with the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory's Technology Center. "In our training, we try to keep teachers focused on the question, 'What do you want to do with kids?'"

Writing in the fall 1997 issue of the Kappa Delta Pi Record, Dianne Kanawati defines "technological literacy" broadly to encompass not only the traditional computer-literacy skills in keyboarding, word processing, and spreadsheets but also in the latest generation of technologies-CD-ROM, hypertext, digitally enhanced video, e-mail, and the World Wide Web. But even mastery of these advanced skills, she warns, won't guarantee that students become better learners.

"As long as we regard technological literacy as an end in itself," she says, "it will leave us as directionless as computer literacy has done."

Researcher after researcher calls on educators to view technology as a means to a greater end-improved learning-and to keep that end clearly in focus as they work to find effective uses for such innovations as Web search engines. A roomful of brand-new PCs may wow parents at open house. But by themselves, computers are just a collection of microchips and circuitry. To justify the billions of dollars U.S. schools invest annually in technology, most commentators agree, technology must become the servant of curriculum in every content area, from geography to history to ecology.

"When technology is effectively harnessed to goals identified by teachers, schools, states, and national policymakers, it becomes a vehicle for learning that is powerfully attractive," writes Christopher Conte in The Learning Connection: Schools in the Information Age.

Learning about computers is not the same as learning with computers, researchers stress.

"It is important to distinguish between technology as a subject area and the use of technology to facilitate learning about any subject area," asserts the Panel on Educational Technology of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology in a recent report. "It is important that technology be integrated throughout the K-12 curriculum, and not simply used to impart technology-related knowledge and skills."

The panel's Number One recommendation to the president, in fact, is integrating technology across the curriculum.

"Although universal technological literacy is a laudable national goal, the panel believes the (Clinton) administration should work toward the use of computing and networking technologies to improve the quality of education in all subject areas," the panel writes in its Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education in the United States, March 1997.

Nationwide, schools are struggling to make effective use of emerging technologies. A scant 3 percent earned top marks from a recent study by a group of business and education leaders, including Apple Computer, Public Broadcasting Service, and the National Education Association. The CEO Forum surveyed 80,000 U.S. schools to rate their progress on President Clinton's "four pillars" of school technology: hardware, connectivity, digital content, and professional development. The "target-tech" schools-those that are making the most of technology to "achieve maximum educational benefit"-are strong in all four pillars. These elite schools have at least one computer (many of them multimedia) for every three students, onsite technical support, high-speed Internet access, and teachers who've received many hours of training in technology use.

Of the remaining 97 percent of U.S. schools surveyed by the forum, 12 percent were rated "high-tech," 26 percent were judged "mid-tech," and the rest-a startling 59 percent-earned a "low-tech" rating. In a typical low-tech school, classrooms lack Internet connections, and computers lack the speed or memory to tap the riches of the World Wide Web, with its network of colorful, exciting sites brimming with information (both valuable and trivial) from around the world. Most computers are clustered in a lab, isolated from the regular classroom. And training for teachers is minimal. Close to half, in fact, offer no technology training at all, according to the forum's School Technology Report: From Pillars to Progress, released last fall.

Across America, the gaps in equipment and connectivity are closing, spurred on by deep discounts in the costs of wiring offered as part of the president's initiative to link all schools to the Internet by 2000. The numbers are impressive. The average ratio of students to computers, for instance, is now seven to one, compared with 125 to one in 1984. Although only 14 percent of classrooms were connected to the Internet in 1996, that was four times the number connected two years earlier.

But the growing infusion of machines and wires into U.S. schools shouldn't be mistaken for progress in teaching or learning, experts caution.

"Data on the numbers of computers, videodisk players, satellite dishes, or wired classrooms in schools can obscure crucial questions-including whether they're actually being used," writes Andrew Trotter in a special technology report published November 10, 1997, by Education Week.

Even the massive outlays of money and manpower needed to link classrooms to the global network are small compared to the challenge that will follow: making those connections meaningful and useful for the nation's teachers and students. Billions of dollars-worth of gleaming equipment is in danger of sitting idle-or being used only for games or drills-unless teachers learn how to blend the Internet into their lesson plans and how to match software to educational goals.

Teachers who've been out in front, successfully folding computers and other technologies into their curricula, typically have been lone pioneers-men and women with an affinity for machines, risk-takers who relish new challenges and have the time to pursue them. But these trailblazers are the exception. More typical is the teacher who is overwhelmed by the thousands of software packages on the market. Equipment glitches and shortages turn others away from technology. Simple fear stops many teachers. Others don't see how technology can improve on their tried-and-true methods. Even eager technology "wannabes" often are stymied by the steep learning curve that confronts the technology novice.

"When the computers on students' desks are mysterious devices to teachers, it's unreasonable to expect effective integration into the curriculum," observes technology expert Chris Dede in an October 1995 interview in Educational Leadership.

A deep chasm remains to be crossed-that of insufficient training for teachers-if technology is to become an agent for real change in the nation's classrooms. Researchers are nearly unanimous in their finding that piecemeal, ill-timed, off-target, or nonexistent training is the biggest hindrance to widespread integration of technology into U.S. classrooms.

Teachers who had taken at least nine hours of technology training were a small minority-just 15 percent-in 1994, Richard Coley and colleagues report in a 1997 study from the Educational Testing Service. Several Northwest states were doing somewhat better than the nation as a whole. Washington, in fact, led the country, with 28 percent of its teachers boasting nine or more hours of technology training. Alaska ranked next in the region with 21 percent, followed by Montana with 18 percent. Both Oregon and Idaho came in with an average figure of 15 percent.

The dollars spent for training are equally inadequate. Only 15 percent of the typical school's technology budget goes toward training teachers. The bulk of the money-55 percent-is earmarked for hardware, with the remaining 30 percent being spent on software. "Despite over a decade of investment in educational hardware and software, relatively few of the nation's 2.8 million teachers use technology in their teaching," the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) concluded in 1995. "There are many teachers whose use of technology is marginal, limited, and unenthusiastic."

The training gap translates to an access gap for kids. Last year in Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools, Coley and colleagues reported that just 9 percent of fourth-graders, 10 percent of eighth-graders, and 19 percent of 12th-graders said they used a computer for schoolwork "almost daily." On the flip side, 60 percent of fourth-graders, 51 percent of eighth-graders, and 37 percent of 12th-graders said they never used a computer for schoolwork.

The OTA looked at the prevalence of computers in basic academic subjects. Only 9 percent of secondary school students reported using computers for English class, 6 to 7 percent for a math class, and 3 percent for a social studies class. In elementary schools, computers are mainly used for basic-skills practice. In middle and high schools, they are used mostly for word processing or other "computer-specific skills." More open-ended, problem-solving, or student- directed activities (desktop publishing, developing math or science reasoning with computer simulations, gathering information from databases, or communicating by electronic mail) are "much rarer," the OTA reports.

"Most in education's own ranks are still more comfortable with chalkboards than with a computer mouse," writes Mary Ann Zehr in Education Week's special report on technology. The National Center for Education Statistics found that only one in five teachers regularly uses advanced telecommunications for teaching.

The President's Panel on Educational Technology and other researchers are calling for a doubling of the current training budget-to 30 percent of total technology expenditures. But simply spending more on training isn't enough. Researchers warn against relying on one-shot workshops or classes that focus on mechanics rather than content. Training should give guidance on choosing software that will help teachers meet local, state, and national goals for student learning. It should provide strategies for making efficient use of one or several computers in a 30- student classroom. And it should be bolstered by ongoing, onsite support-an expert whom teachers can call on when equipment fails and a mentor they can seek out when questions pop up.

"What teachers actually need," the panel writes, "is indepth, sustained assistance as they work to integrate computer use into the curriculum and confront the tension between traditional methods of instruction and new pedagogic methods that make extensive use of technology. Such assistance should include not only purely technical support, but pedagogic support as well, ideally including classroom observation within the classrooms of successful technology-using teachers, periodic consultation with more experienced mentors, and ongoing communication with other teachers grappling with similar challenges."

Coley and colleagues recommend that staff development for technology integration should:

• Be driven by a clear understanding of the local needs of teachers
• Emphasize hands-on experience, especially for technology use training
• Use peer coaching rather than lecture format
• Integrate technology training into other staff development programs in the school and district
• Involve administrators as participants with teachers in staff development programs on technology use and integration in the curriculum
• Provide the release time needed for teachers to apply what they learned in training
• Provide follow-up support for implementation of technology skills learned in training
• Give teachers access to resources needed to implement what was learned in training
• Facilitate communications among teachers-use telecommunications technologies to help teachers communicate and share their professional experiences

One training strategy strongly supported by research is the development of teacher-mentors or onsite master teachers who can guide their co-workers toward technological proficiency. About 60 Washington teachers-some from very isolated schools -are being groomed as technology mentors through a project developed by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory's Technology Center in partnership with Washington's Education Service District 112. The project's goal is to identify and nurture building-level leaders-"a person in every building who is willing to share with other adults," says Anne Batey, who coordinates staff development for the project. The project, funded by a grant from the state of Washington, not only provides technology-rich classrooms but pays for substitute teachers to fill in for participating teachers while they develop leadership and mentoring skills with educational applications of technology.

The kind of "indepth, sustained assistance" researchers recommend takes not only money, but also that equally elusive commodity: time. The OTA, in fact, calls teachers' time shortage the "biggest barrier" to technology use in classrooms. Schools that have excelled in bringing technology to learning have provided teachers with time to attend trainings, explore software, seek help from colleagues, and plan lessons that incorporate new technologies. These teachers have time to investigate online projects, visit Web sites, search for curriculum materials, and exchange ideas with a worldwide network of educators. They have time to simply "mess around" on their computer, the OTA reports.

"Teachers are given very little compensated staff development time, and there are multiple, competing demands for this time," the OTA observes. "Unless there are significant changes to the rhythm of the school day or changed incentives for giving teachers more time to learn and experiment with new technologies, this barrier to technology use will remain immense."

Pinpointing "onsite assistance from a full-time computer coordinator" as an especially critical resource for teachers, the president's panel notes that not even 5 percent of schools have such a full-time professional on staff. And even when a full-time coordinator is in the building, she typically devotes the bulk of her time to hardware and software maintenance and to teaching or supervising students-not to helping teachers.

"Most in education's own ranks are still more comfortable with chalkboards than with a computer mouse."

For teachers who want to plunge in on their own, avenues beyond the schoolhouse are available. Throughout the Northwest, for example, universities and educational service districts (ESDs) operate technology resource centers for teachers. Services vary from center to center, but may include software collections, curriculum materials, workshops, inservice training, planning assistance, hardware and software consultation, discussion groups, and information libraries. In Alaska, British Petroleum is funding the development of 15 "Teacher Exploration" centers around the state. [Contact your state education department, local ESD, nearby university, or the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory's Technology Center for information about resource centers in your area. For more guidance on getting started with technology, turn to "Conquering the Computer" on Page 32.]

Even with an ideal mix of training and ongoing support, the president's panel estimates that the typical teacher will need three to six years to "fully integrate information technologies into his or her teaching." The Office of Technology Assessment suggests five years as "the appropriate time frame for large-scale technology infusion."

"Effective technology implementation takes more time and effort than many anticipate when first undertaking technology initiatives," the OTA reports. "Change is not sudden and dramatic; it takes hard work on the part of many people over time to see the benefits of the endeavors."

More than a few observers have questioned whether the pay-off in student learning is worth the huge investment of taxpayer dollars and teacher effort. Writing in the New York Times, technology critic Ethan Bonner recently panned the "glorified video games" that sometimes pass for education on computers. He questioned the "vague but firm belief that access to information, regardless of quality, must be good." Theodore Roszak lamented finding "an awful lot of junk, advertising, and trivia" on the World Wide Web. Samuel Sava, executive director of the National Association of Elementary School Principals, expressed his skepticism this way in a recent Education Week article: "I'm very concerned over the rush to purchase hardware when we do not have enough evidence on how best to use computers to help youngsters achieve in reading, mathematics, writing, et cetera. My second concern is that a number of school systems, in order to purchase the hardware, have begun to eliminate such key programs as the arts."

Most experts agree that educators should not put all their school-improvement eggs in the technology basket. Technology alone does not contain the golden key that will unlock knowledge, skill, and wisdom for all children. "Computers should not be seen as the replacement for traditional methods of learning," muses Amy Derby, resource librarian for the Northwest Laboratory's Technology Center. "Rather, I think the old and the new augment, supplement, and enhance each other. A visit to a virtual museum is not the same thing as a visit to a real museum. Or, to put it more personally, I don't want to curl up with my PC in front of a cozy fire to read."

But the question, Does technology boost student performance? has not yet been answered. Isolating the effects of computers from the overall classroom culture has proven difficult, researchers say. "Additional research is needed," the OTA asserts, "to develop a deeper understanding of which instructional uses of technology are most effective and under what circumstances, and how teacher interaction with technology plays into this effectiveness."

There does appear, however, to be a clearly established link between technology and attitudes. When students use high-tech tools, studies show, their motivation soars. A 10-year study by Apple Computer found that students who had access to learning tools such as multimedia computers and video cameras became more independent learners, worked more cooperatively, and shared their expertise spontaneously, among other changes in outlook and behavior.

These changes reflect what many advocates now see as technology's greatest educational asset-its ability to free teachers and students from the rigid roles of old: teachers as spouters of knowledge, students as sponges to soak it in. In this brave new world of learning, students play a more active role in their own education. They speculate, explore, experiment, discover, share, collaborate, present. Their tasks are often "authentic" (real-world) projects in which they gather data from their school, neighborhood, or community. Their findings can contribute to scientific understanding or change public policy. In this new kind of classroom, students take responsibility for their own learning, solve complex problems, and apply reasoning skills to current issues. "Instead of absorbing an established body of knowledge delivered to them by teachers," Conte writes, "they are developing skills to seek, sift, analyze, and convey information themselves. Instead of studying in isolation, they are working on teams. And instead of regurgitating what they have learned back to their teachers, they are communicating their findings to a much wider public."

Such a seismic shift in learning requires a sometimes-wrenching shift in teaching. One technology-using teacher describes his new role as "facilitator, stage director, resource manager, master learner, discussion leader, observer, and evaluator."

Such changes will not be easy or automatic for most teachers. "If the goal of using technology is to change how teachers teach and how children learn," the OTA counsels, "then teachers will need support and training to learn new pedagogical methods. More technology or more use of technology will not be sufficient to assure other innovations or reforms."

Every technology, no matter how dazzling, needs a talented teacher to guide its use in the classroom. Otherwise, as the OTA warns, computers may be used merely as "electronic blackboards."

"A gulf exists," says the OTA, "between the ambitions of technology experts and software developers and the practice of teachers in classrooms. Helping teachers use technology to facilitate different educational philosophies and teaching practices will require substantial change in curriculum, instructional methods, and teacher understanding."

This document's URL is:

Home | Up & Coming | Programs & Projects: Northwest Education | People | Products & Publications | Topics

© 2001 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

Date of Last Update: 9/28/01
Email Webmaster
Tel. 503.275.9500