Technology and Educational Instruction - Essay Example

Running head: TECHNOLOGY Technology and Educational Instruction affiliation ChapterOne: Introduction Statement of Problem: Science is taught with the help of traditional methods. Teachers prefer to use traditional methods of new technology based methods. The effectiveness of technology based methods is not known. One possible reason is that the desktop computers are very heavy and can not be carried along. Very useful software programs are available in all subjects specially science. These software programs can be very helpful for science teachers. If teachers are given laptops then their efficiency may increase. Rationale: Many schools, districts, and states have poured thousands and millions of dollars into technology. Most classrooms have at least one computer. Huge computer labs are not uncommon in many American schools. Classrooms are hooked up to the Internet. The technology is there, waiting to be used, but few teachers may know what to do with it all. While these schools have worked hard to bring the technology to the classrooms, many may not have made the extra effort needed to bring the teachers to the technology. Significance of the Study: This study will analyze research made by various educators and technology experts on how technology can be used in the classroom if laptops are provided to the teachers. Information will be gathered from a few different sources such as Pennsylvania's Link-to-Learn web site. It will also look at the effectiveness of teaching using interactive technological tools by experimenting with the middle-school science curriculum at a moderately-sized Christian school. It will also look at the results of a survey taken by the students in the experimental group gauging their motivation level during the experiment. Chapter Two: Literature Review Computers are tools that can be used to accomplish a myriad of tasks and achieve any one of a number of goals. They can be used to promote higher order thinking skills or to play mindless games. However, research tends to indicate that technology is not being used appropriately in today's classrooms (Kleiman, 2000; Glennan & Melmed, 1995). One way that this tool can be used is as a catalyst for change. Researchers have found that when a classroom is immersed in technology, many things begin to change in the classroom. Teacher/student relationships change as teachers get away from the role of instructor and begin to come alongside the student as facilitator or coach. This is a result of a change in the way that teachers teach, moving from traditional instruction with lecture, drill-and-practice, and rote memorization of facts toward a constructivist model which promotes active student learning through inquiry, problem solving, and collaboration with peers and adults. However, these are not the only changes technology can bring to the classroom. Technology integration, done correctly, can lead to success for everyone (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, 1995). In 1996, President Clinton and Vice-President Gore introduced the purpose for technology integration in the Technology Literacy Challenge. The reason for technology in the classroom is not to provide state of the art equipment for its own sake. Instead, the role of technology is to increase student achievement by using this tool (Wenglinsky, 1998). Many states have invested millions of dollars into technology. In 1996, Pennsylvania launched a three-year program named Link to Learn, a project costing $ 109 million (Yakel & Lamberski, 2000). The goal, according to Governor Tom Ridge, was to "keep Pennsylvania educationally and econmomiclaly competitive in a world that increasingly relies on technology," (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1998). More specifically, the commonwealth wanted toassist schools in getting technology, to change education so that it extended beyond the walls of the schools, to give teachers resources and abilities to integrate technology in their classrooms, to enable schools and libraries to become technology resource centers for the community, to promote technology standards in education, to encourage collaboration among school districts, and to link together school, home, and community. Before receiving funds, schools were required to create an educational goal that the technology would help achieve, to provide for professional development, and to promise to share their technology resources with the community (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1998). Rhode Island launched the Rhode Island Teachers and Technology Initiative (RITTI) in 1997, by providing laptop computers and sixty hours of training to twenty-five percent of the teachers to Rhode Island. The initiative had three short-term goals: to help teachers become more productive personally, to encourage communication and collaboration between teachers, and to enable teachers to create their own curriculum. The long-term goal was to improve student learning. The hope was that these teachers would be a voice among educators to push for more technological advancement (Thorpe, 1999). In 1985, the computer to student ratio was 125 to 1. By 1995, that ratio changed to 9 to 1. in 1994 alone, American schools spent three billion dollars on technology (Glennan & Melmed, 1995). Since so many states and schools have spent vast amounts of money brining technology into the classrooms (Robelen, 1999; Wenglinsky, 1998), it would be financially wise to ensure that the technology is being used to fit this goal. Before exploring the studies on the effectiveness of educational technology, it is important to note that researchers have identified three limitations to the present body of research. First, studies have shown a positive impact of technology integration but only in specific conditions. Second, these specific conditions lead to a need for careful interpretation before results are applied generally across the curriculum. Third, technology is a rapidly changing field. Because of that, research methods change rapidly, also (Kimble, 1999). Computer assisted instruction (CAI) has been used in schools since the 1960s (Wenglinsky, 1998; Glennan & Melmed, 1995). It found its origin in educational philosophy based on B. F. Skinner's work (Glennan & Melmed, 1995). This form of drill-and-practice instruction has proven effective in a number of studies. Students with CAI tend to do better on standardized tests than those who do not use CAI. (Wenglinsky, 1998). While drill-and-practice has evolved over the decades, it is still widely used in schools today. In fact, it is still the most frequently used application in American elementary schools (Glenn & Melmed, 1995). According to RAND, most of these studies have been done on small scales using limited settings. However, when put together as a whole, the research creates a large body of literature that seems to suggest that technology wields power that can be used in a number of situations. What is lacking in the current research is a study on entire schools that have made the effort to integrate technology into the curriculum of the whole school (Glenn & Melmed, 1995). James A. Kulik, cited in the RAND study, performed a meta-analysis, an analysis of a large number of research studies, on the effects of computer integration, using primarily drill-and-practice software. He found that when students learn from a computer-based instruction, they tend to learn more in less time. They also develop positive attitudes about computers and the class in which they use computers. However, even though students like classes more when computers are used, computer use does not better students' attitudes toward the content of those classes (Glenn & Melmed, 1995). These findings seem to suggest that computer-based instruction reaps positive gains in the education of children since four out of five measures display beneficial outcomes. With a shifting focus from the traditional approach to teaching to the constructivist style, educational technology use is also beginning to shift away from CAI (Aiken & Aditya, 1997). Instead, more research is being done on how higher order thinking skills can be taught with technology. One such study, which is widely cited in other research projects, is the Apple classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) project. In 1985, Apple, Inc. researchers asked themselves, "what happens to students and teaches when they have access to technology whenever they need it" (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, 1995). Apple Inc. formed an alliance with elementary and secondary schools and universities as they studied the answer to that question. They selected five classrooms across the United States of America and gave each teacher and students two computers, one for school and one for home. Teachers were given some training in using applications. Then they watched what would happen. ACOT researchers not only claimed success, but they also saw their teachers change from using a traditional teaching style to a constructivist style. Students were engaged in activities that promoted not just technology use, but higher levels of learning and collaboration. Based on standardized test scores, teacher comments, and observations by educational experts, ACOT researchers claimed that students improved their performance in a number of areas. Even though students had to learn how to use the technology, which took away from content teaching time, test scores showed that students were performing as well as or better than if they did not have the technology. Students became better, more effective, more fluid writers. Some units of study were actually finished more quickly than before technology was introduced. In fact, ACOT researchers found that students were developing abilities that are not evaluated on traditional assessments and new assessments had to be created to judge their growth (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, 1995; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). According to the ACOT study, technology can be effective if it is used the right way. If computers are used to increase collaboration, exploration, problem solving, social awareness, and independence; students can benefit from using them n the classroom. If computers are highly integrated into the curriculum, then computers can be used effectively (Rein, 2000). Harold Wenglinsky (1998) of the Educational Testing Service (ETS) used data collected from the math section of the National Assessment of Educational Progress of 1996 and a questionnaire that was completed by students, teachers, and administrators to analyze a number of different questions about computer usage in schools. Wenglinsky was particularly interested in "student access to computers in school for mathematical tasks; student access to computers and frequency of computer use at home; preparedness of mathematics teachers in computer use; and the ways in which the mathematics teachers and their students use computers," (wenglinsky, 1998). These studies involved fourth and eighth grade students from across the nation and from all socio-economic groups, all ethnicities, and both genders. Across the country an in both grades, computers were most often used for lower-order thinking, like drill-and-practice activities (Wenglinsky, 1998; fulton & Torney-Purta, 2000). However, a deeper look at the data shows that urban minority students from a lower socio-economic background use computers for drill-and-practice activities more frequently than suburban White students from higher socio-economic backgrounds (Wenglinsky, 1998). However, Wenglinsky also found that those students in either grade who used computers primarily for higher-order thinking activities did better on the math section of their tests. In addition, he found that in eighth grade, lower-order thinking skills were negatively related to mathematic achievement. The data seems to suggest that if computers are used to teach higher-level thinking, then students will be better math students. In addition to standardized math scores, Wenglinsky's study found that technology rich schools gain in other areas such as student motivation and morale (Wenglinsky, 1998). Teaching with technology, when sued appropriately, can bring about benefits other than higher grades. Students tend to be more engaged and involved in their own learning. Technology can be effective, because it brings about positive attitudes toward learning and encourages success for low achievers. When students are actively involved in using computers, they are actively involved in their own learning. With more involvement comes more learning. Technology can help rid the classroom of passive learning because interactive computer use forces students to make decisions and live with the consequences of those decisions. However, computer use must be done effectively. That requires careful planning on how it will be implemented. Applications must be selected that will promote learning and reach individual students where they are (Hancock, 1993). When teachers use technology, it leads to greater student motivation. Research has shown that technology can help students gain initiative in their own learning to go beyond the requirements to learn independently. Once individuals get excited about an assignment, that excitement can rub of on other students as well. This can lead to all students spending more time on task than if there were no computers involved in the project. Likewise, this helps to decrease behavior problems since most, if not all, students are on task (Sandholtz, Ringstaff & Dwyer, 1997). When students use their own initiative, they do more than go beyond the requirements of the assignment. They also take the time to learn new applications and skills .this may be something that the teacher never anticipated, but students get excited to learn. They keep working at something till they figure out how to do it right (Sandholtz, Ringstaff & Dwyer, 1997). In this era when politicians, businesses, and other are crying for educational reform, technlology can help lead the way. (Thorpe, 1999; Glennan & Melmed, 1995). Research may indicate that benefits from computer use do not necessarily stem from the computers themselves. Technology can help realign the three ingredients of learning: teachers, students, and content (Thorpe, 1999). If a constructivist approach is taken to teaching an learning, new relationships will form between these three components (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, 1995). While more will be said about his latter, it is important to note that technology use can be effective, but teachers need to be prepared for technology use to change the way teaching and learning occur in individual classrooms. Teachers who were part of RITTI in Rhode Island were surveyed about how computer use has changed the way they teach. A majority of those surveyed said that they have become more reflective of their own teaching (66 %), have changed their role from instructor to coach (52 %) and find themselves collaborating with other teachers more frequently (55%) (Thorpe, 1999). It seems to appear that in order to make technology integration effective, teachers need to be willing to change the way they teach. The point of computer use, according to Healy (1998), should be to build the brain. That cannot be done effectively through today's "edutainment" programs that claim to educate children with interactive, entertaining activities but spend too much time on entertaining, are not really interactive, and focus on drill-and-practice rather than on critical thinking. She has observed computer use n countess schools and homes across the country, only to find that students can navigate through mazes and buildings with little thought to the educational goals. Random clicking can be just as effective as careful tough with some of the programs that she observed. Teachers and parents should sit with children while they are on computers and occasionally pause to ask them higher level questions about what they are learning through the computer. One controversial idea that Healy (1998) does have is that children should not be involved with computers before the age of seven. Using an apparent Piagetian philosophy, she claims that using computers can hurt the brain development in a child from birth to age seven. These children need to explore in the real world, using toys and other objects because they are concrete learners. Odd things can happen in the cyber world that children would not understand and could actually damage their outlook on how the real world really works. For instance, in some software, objects are propelled or pop up on the screen with no logical method for propulsion. This could teach a child that objects can more on their own without help from an outside force. Instead, the child can learn about real movement and force by pushing cars and wooden blocks around the floor. In all, it appears that Healy wants her readers to judge carefully why computers are being used. An adult should never assume that if a child is sitting in front of a computer, then healthy learning is happening. She does agree that positive computer use can occur, but it is only through careful planning, monitoring, and evaluating of teachers, administrators, and parents that this is possible (Healy, 1998). In his aforementioned ETS study, Wenglinsky (1998) did not find that computer usage is completely positive. Interestingly, he found that in fourth grade home computer use and school computer use also had a negative relationship to mathematic achievement. In eighth grade, school computer use had a negative relationship to mathematic achievement, but home computer use had a positive relationship with achievement in mathematics. Wenglinsky also noted that home computer use seemed to be promoted by school computer use, making the eighth grade relationship between school use and math scores not as drastic as it would appear on paper. These findings lead Wenglinsky to conclude that the primary focus of computer use shold be on middle school students not elementary students since the eighth graders showed more significant positive effects in mathematic achievement than fourth graders. The research seems to indicate that educational technology has not met its desired effectiveness for a number of reasons. First, the technology is being used for the wrong purposes. Students are being entertained instead of being educated. Software tends to focus on facts rather than on thought processes. (Healy, 1998). Second, policymakers are more interested in filling the classrooms with computers than training teachers to use them effectively (Robelen, 1999). Along with that, techno-reformers are not interested in teachers' concerns about efficiency, only in acquiring hardware (Cuban, 1996). Third, many teachers are not willing to sue the technology they have. Obviously, if the computers are not being used, they cannot be used effectively (Wenglinsky, 1998). Fourth, there is not equity in how computers are being used. The purpose of this study is not to discuss the digital divide, but it should be mentioned that it is evident that White, suburban, middle - to upper-class students are using computers for more higher-order thinking activities than minority, urban or rural, lower-class students (Wenglinsky, 1998; Cuban, 1996; Glennan & Melmed, 1995). Until there is equity in computer use, bringing technology to the lower socio-economic schools will not help close the digital divide. Fifth, the nation as an educational community lacks a focus on how to capitalize on the apparent power of technology in the classroom. In order to do this, it is imperative to involve the community and teachers in technology integration and to devote the necessary resources to make sure the integration happens (Glennan & Melmed, 1995). Perhaps, if these problems can be fixed, technology will become a more powerful tool in the United States' schools. Research seems to indicate that, if done correctly, computers can be used effectively in the classroom. In ordr to attain that goal, it is important to look at what effective techlology integration is and how it is done in classrooms already. As the research says, if computers are treated as add-ons, they will never be integrated properly in to the curriculum (Rein, 2000). Instead, it appears as if they should be treated as tools to make teaching and learning better (Glennan & Melmed, 1995). RAND mentions five uses of computers in education as named by technology advocates: support for individual learning, support for group learning, support for instructional management, communication, and administration (Glennan & Melmed, 1995). If computers can truly be used in all five of these areas, then technology would successfully be integrated into every facet of school life and would make traditional teaching techniques extinct (Wenglinsky, 1998). As the research states, it appears that technology fits best and most effectively in a constructivist classroom (Aiken & Aditya, 1997). This means that instruction is learner-centered, not curriculum-centered (Ely, 1999). The curriculum should be tailored to individual learners to fit their backgrounds and skills (Aiken & Aditya, 1997). The goal should not be to cover the curriculum, but to make sure that students master the content. This mastery can be achieved through open-ended tasks, rather than by memorizing a predetermined set of facts, and allowing for student-directed learning, allowing students to select tasks and topics that interest them. (Rein, 2000) In this learning-centered instruction, students use their creativity to research and explain things that interest them. When the curriculum is based on problem solving and creative research, students have the opportunity to construct new knowledge and relate it to prior knowledge. Technology opens the door for students to become active learners who interact and think about knowledge rather than having it told to them. Integrating computers into the curriculum gives students another expert source beyond the teacher and the textbook. Computers can help teachers take this step to a problem-solving curriculum which would take students to this level of deeper understanding of information (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, 1995). This type of teaching enables the student to actively pursue knowledge, not just memorize what the teacher says is important. Students are actively involved in their own education, learning not just from the teacher and the textbook, but from other students and experts in the field. (Robelen, 1999) When students collaborate, whether with classmates or those outside the classroom, they have the opportunity to view knowledge from another point of view that may be more beneficial to them than the teacher's perspective. This has lead to the term "multiple representation of ideas," presenting knowledge in various forms. (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, 1995) This is also called multidimensional contact. (Aiken & Aditya, 1997) Constructivism is not always the best course of action in the classroom. Sometimes direct instruction is required. It is important that the teacher learns how to adequately blend direct instruction and guided inquiry. The ACOT study does not advocate a completely constructivist approach to teaching. Researchers understand that there are times when a collaborative, research-based method is best and there are times when direct instruction will best suit the needs of the students. (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow, 1995; Ely, 1999) Bibliography Aiken, R. M. & Aditya, J. N. (1997). The golden rule and the ten commandments of the teleteaching: Harnessing the power of technology in education. Education and Information Technologies, 2. Retrieved from http://webfuse.cqu.edu.au/Information/Resources/Readings/Papers/ei020102/pdf Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow. (1995). Changing the conversation abut teaching learning & technology: A report on 10 years of ACOT research. Retrieved from http://a400.g.akamai.net/7/400/51/c03abe60ced0dd/www.apple.com/education/k12/leadership/acot/pdf/10yr.pdf Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (1998, May). Link-to-Learn progress report. Retrieved from http://www.cas.psu.edu/docs/pde/ann121.pdf Cuban, L. (1996, October 9). Techno-reformers and classroom teachers. Education Week, 16. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-16/06cuban.16 Ely, D. (1999). Toward a philosophy of instructional technology: Thirty years on. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 305-310. Fulton, k. & Torney-Purta, J. (2000). How teachers beliefs about teaching and learning are reflected in their use of technology: Case studies from urban middle schools. Retrieved from http://121.org/iclt/2000/126a.pdf Glennan, T. K. & Melmed, A. (1995). Fostering the use of educational technology: Elements of a national strategy. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR682 Hancock, V. E. (1993, January). Technology-the at-risk student. Educational Leadership, 50. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/org/readingroom/edlead/9212/hancock.html Healy, J. M. (1998). Failure to connect: How computers affect our children's minds-for better or for worse. New York: Simon & Schuster. Kimble, C. (1999, May). The impact of technology on learning: Making sense of the research. McRel Policy Brief. Retrieved from http://www.mcrel.org/products/tech/tech/html Kleiman, G. M. (2000, April-June). Myths and realities about technology in K-12 schools. Leadership and the New Technologies, 14. Retrieved from http://www.edc.org/LNT/news/Issue14/feature1.htm Rein, D. (2000). What is effective integration of technology, and does it make a difference Retrieved from http://121.org/iclt/2000/papers/181a.pdf Robelen, E. W. (1999, March). The promises and the pitfalls. Infobrief, 16. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/inforbrief/9903/html Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Thorpe, R. (1999, October 20). Can computers change the system Education Week, 19. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfmslug=08thorpe.h19 Wenglinsky, H. (1998, September). Does it compute The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.ets.org/pub/res/technology.pdf Yakel, E. & Lamberski, R. J. (2000, March 8-10). Searching for the difference technology makes. International Conference on Learning with Technology. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://121.org/iclt/2000/papers/176a.pdf Read More