Computer Technology In Schools Does it make a Difference and should we Bother?

C. Lyons Boise State University EdTech 501/ December 2, 2009

Computer Technology in Schools Abstract Technology is increasing in Americas classroom everyday; however is it making students smarter, better students or more ready to compete in an international arena? Results from technology studies vary greatly; some indicate that student achievement is improved dramatically while others indicate no significant difference. Schools must decide whether to continue because it is the tool they will use later on or is it fundamentally changing the way students learn and therefore the way we do education. Technology is the tool of the Digital Generation and will have a great impact on how students learn in the 21st century. Educators must move away from classical face to face learning and be ready to teach or better yet, mentor in a variety of ways.

Computer Technology in Schools

Computer Technology In Schools Does it make a Difference and should we Bother? The use of computers in schools across the nation is increasing. By the year 2003, nearly 100% of all K-12 had Internet access in their schools and almost 98% of that access was broadband. Over 93% of individual classrooms were wired for the Internet. The average ratio of students to computers with Internet access is about 4.4:1 and that number is increasing (Jones, 2005). Students currently in US high schools have been labeled the Digital Generation (Hannon, 2007). Many have grown up with computers and technology at home that is not matched in the public high school. This paper will look at whether this approach is appropriate and whether districts should continue to fund technology. Many districts saw an almost immediate improvement in student assessment scores upon introduction of significant technology, however additional expenditure has not lead to further increases in standardized testing (Jones, 2005). The author lives and teaches in the state of Maine that has introduced 1 to 1 laptops to every student, grades 7-12 (Maine Learning Technology Initative, 2001). While the use of Virtual High School and other e-learning programs have been available for years, use of online learning in Maine has been limited due to the states push for 1 to 1 learning. This paper will endeavor to focus on all forms of technology and learning however the direction and focus have been already been determined for the authors professional teaching career.

Computer Technology in Schools Discussion Online learning has been one of the most popular and effective methods for bringing technology into the classroom. This process allows students to take a class outside of the traditional classroom setting without districts hiring additional staff. In 2005 over 328, 000 school districts were using online learning (Lewis, 2005). Enrollment in these services is up from 40,000 to 50,000 students in the 2000 2001 school year and was provided by over 88 online providers (Newman, 2003). Online learning has benefits for the student and the school district. It allows schools to introduce curriculum into a school that they could not offer before. This is very popular in rural communities where schools are often smaller and arent able to offer a wide variety of classes (Lewis, 2005). This includes Advanced Placement (AP) courses that are expensive and require special staff training. In 2004, over 20 states offered virtual classes that complied with their graduation requirements. An additional 26 states had written policies for allowing these classes in their classrooms (Watson, 2004). Online learning is an integral part of education in Florida (Florida Virtual High School [FLVHS]) and Utah. Over 34% of school districts report utilizing virtual learning through other districts, often forming loose consortiums. Virtual High School (VHS) is the largest with enrollment in over 6,100 districts exclusively (Cavanaugh, 2005). Most online learning services are able to boast of improved student performance when compared to traditional face to face (ftf) learning (Kleiman, 2005). Perhaps the most visible result is in the area of improved AP results (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003). The national average for all students (enrolled in ftf classes)

Computer Technology in Schools receiving a score of 3 out of 5 (typically the score allowing students to receive college credit upon admission) is about 60%. The Apex Virtual High School score students at a rate of 65%, the FLVHS a rate of 70% and VHS a rate of 79% (Anderson, 2004). Use of technology in the classroom is generally effective for most students and significant use produces even better results. However certain students tend to benefit even more from the use of technology (Anderson, 2004). Students that are not happy in ftf settings, students with some types of physical disabilities, or certain learning disabilities and the self-motivated student often perform better in an e-learning setting. These students tend to perform even better in a collaborative environment within this setting. These at risk students found it easier to collaborate with each other, other online students or a teacher. Whether students are experiencing technology more independently or through the integration of computers into the classroom, student performance usually improves. A study based upon a 30-year period, combining over 23 separate studies indicates that student assessment scores improve with technology (Kulick, 1994). In 12 of these studies only small positive improvements were documented. However schools with larger amounts of technology inclusion tended to show the greatest improvement. In another compilation of 86 separate studies comparing final academic outcomes for conventional versus distance learning the results indicated a moderately positive effect (Newman, 2003). Administrators typically are pleased with the results of technology integration. While the assessment scores for most students are improved, the more measureable improvement is for students that typically scored poorly in the classic classroom

Computer Technology in Schools setting. Typically their cumulative score shows marked improvement. Perhaps it could best be summarized below: All of this suggests that computers are neither cure-alls for the problems facing schools, nor mere fads that have no impact on student learning. Rather, when they are properly used, computers may serve as important tools for improving student proficiency in mathematics, as well as the overall learning environment in the school (Fouts, 2000).

Generally studies indicate at least a slight improvement in student scores attributable to technology. However results are not always positive or conclusive. Some studies indicate that results may be difficult to interpret and many factors influence the results (Dickson, 2005). This study indicates that school themselves may be part of the problem for measuring results. Dickson (2005) states that most schools are more interested in educating to the standards than education in general. Student Information Systems (SIS) often may not be adequate for tracking such data and results are lost or misinterpreted. The simple inclusion of technology does not fix education all by itself. The simple belief that placing a computer in front of a student will improve scores is poor logic. For example when interviewing 50 parents in Washington state (Fouts, 2000) results were, The reasons given for believing in the importance of increased technology in the schools focused almost exclusive on the ideas that technology is the wave of the future and that these kids will need technological skills to get good jobs when they get out into the real world. Even when pressed on the topic, only two of the fifty parents (a medical doctor and a mother who was herself an elementary teacher who used technology in her classroom) could articulate the importance of computers and technology for helping to reform education and change the nature of classroom activities, the teaching and learning. Another phenomenon reported in several studies is evidence to support technology

Computer Technology in Schools often shows no significant differences (Fouts, 2000). This trend was actually documented in a study conducted by Tom L. Russell at North Caroling State University. He produced a work titled The No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Russell summarized 355 reports dating from 1928 to present. These reports show a repeating pattern result that can be summarized with the statistical phrase no significant difference or similar language (Fouts, 2000). Another study determined that the missing piece in e-learning is the collaboration. A study in Wisconsin tracked the inclusion of technology in two high schools (Ferdig, 2005). Only the smaller, more rural school showed a small improvement, while the other school showed no improvement versus ftf classroom settings. Lack of any type of collaboration might account for the no significant difference result. A compilation of 232 studies showed various results, with many summarized as no significant difference (Bernard, 2004). The study indicated that students that were taught via video conferencing actually scored slightly lower than ftf students in achievement tests. Additionally, the need for technology-based assessment is a critical piece that is missing in most districts. A national survey of 21 states indicates that only 21% of school districts frequently use technology in student assessment efforts (Fouts, 2000). Perhaps the most conclusive data comes from studies that evaluate the extent or completeness of technology integration versus limited integration (Leu, 2005). Leu et. al (2005) looked at levels of integration ranging from limited to integration matched with substantial teacher professional development and follow through.

Computer Technology in Schools Students in this last group had significantly improved reading comprehension, higher conceptual knowledge and performed better on standardized tests. Professional development appears to be key component for improved student performance (Hughes, 2005). While students enrolled in classes in classroom with full technology integration said they sometime had less interaction with other students, they felt as though they had more collegial interactions with their teacher as they we coached and mentored through content. Also students often felt that they had greater ability to give immediate feedback and had more tools available to them (Cavanaugh, 2005). Cavanaugh et. al (2005) described that effective professional development should include increased in-service time, differentiated learning for experienced technology staff vs. limited experience and incentives to encourage development of electronic materials. Teachers using technology also need and should take more online training classes.

Computer Technology in Schools Conclusion

Technology does make a positive influence in the classroom. What students produce is only one indicator of this change. Students are at ease with technology and have started using it as the tool for the creation process (Statham, 1996). Current methods of assessing student knowledge may not be appropriate for todays learner; they learn so much more through technology than we are measuring. Perhaps we need to develop different ways to evaluate learning via technology. As traditional learning shifts to eLearning more assessments created on the computer for online learning will be required. SISs will also have to be adapted to measure that information, only then will it more accurately follow that development. Studies have variable results but rarely do they present a bleak, negative view of technology. Technology allows students to write quicker, better and with zero spelling errors. Students can research any topic without having the fear there is no possibility of not finding enough information (Statham, 1996). Teachers jobs are to guide students through this process (Smith, 2005). Teachers are still the masters of their content and their responsibilities lie in helping students how to manipulate, sort, analyze and then present technology information. Increased and continual professional development for teachers is critical. It is unwise to have one without the other. Technology will produce a better student and teacher.

Computer Technology in Schools

Works Cited

Bibliography
Anderson, T. (2004). Toward a theory of online learning: Theory and practice of online learning. http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/. Athabasca: Athabasca University. Bernard, R. A. (2004). How does distance educaiton compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. New York: Review of Educational Research. Cavanaugh, C. a. (2005). Succeding at the Gateway: Secondary Algebra Learning in the Virtual School. University of North Florida. Unpublished Manuscript. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher. 32 (1), pp. 5-8. New York: Educaitonal Researcher. Dickson, W. (2005). Toward a Deeper Understanding of Student Performance In Virtual High School Courses: Using Quantitative Analyses and Data Visualzation to Inform Decision Making. Lansing, MI: Unpublished Paper. Ferdig, R. D. (2005). Teaching and Learning in Collabrative Virtual High Schools. Gainsville, FL: University of Florida. Fouts, J. T. (2000). Research on Computers and Education: Past, Present and Future. Seattle Pacific University. Seattle: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Hannon, H. G. (2007, May 31). Their space: Education for a digital generation. Retrieved May 31, 2008, from http://demos.co.uk/files/Their%20space%20-20%web.pdg: http://www.webcitation.org/5YEpbODxb Hughes, J. M. (2005). Staff Development and Student Perception of the Learning Environment in Virtual and Traditional Secondary Schools. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Jones, B. P. (2005, October 18). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994 2003. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from National Center for Education Statistics: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005015 Kleiman, G. C. (2005). A Study of the Effectivness of the Louisiana Algebra I Online Project. Education Development Center, Center for Online Professional Education,. Lowell, MA: University of Lowell. Kulick, J. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer based instruction. Technology assessment in education and training. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Leu, D. H. (2005). Evaluation the development of scientific knowledge and new forms of reading comprehension during online learning. Unpublished Manuscript.

10

Computer Technology in Schools Lewis, J. S. (2005, October 18). Distane education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2002-2003. Retrieved October 18, 2005, from National Center for Education Statistics: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs 2005/2005010 Maine Learning Technology Initative. (2001, January 1). Maine Learning Technology Initiative - About MLTI/History. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from History of the MLTI Program: http://maine.gov/mlti/about/index.shtml Newman, M. S. (2003). What can virtual learning do for your school? Eduventures. Boston: Eduventures. Smith, R. C. (2005). A Synthesis of New Research on K-12 Online Learning. Naperville: Learning Point Associates. Statham, D. a. (1996). Computers in the classroom: The impact of technology on student learning. Boise: Army Research Institute. Watson, J. W. (2004, October 18). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: A snapshot of state-level policy and practice. Retrieved October 18, 2005, from NCREL: http://www.ncrel.org/tech/pace/index.html

11