Month: February 2004

Check this site for ideas related to K-8 Blogs.

Cindy had an experience while teaching one of her classes that gave me an idea for a demonstration. She was working with pre-service teachers creating simple web pages and experienced some “issues” while trying to work back and forth creating web pages with multiple programs.

Her students were generating web pages by converting a Word document into HTML. At some point, they wanted to tweak the page that was generated and they opened this document in Netscape Composer. After saving the changes, they loaded their pages to the server and then attempted to view the pages in Internet Explorer on Windows machines.

Here is a screen image of what they encountered (this my approximation of the process). If you view this same material on a Mac, my experience has been you do not necessarily see these same abnormalities. Version “Web page created by opening Word HTML document and saving using Composer” that appears below is the corrupted version.

I started experimenting with this same process and generated the following options. I would encourage students to create a similar set of “experiments” to evaluate some of these same issues.

Web page created by saving Word document in HTML

Web page created by opening Word HTML document and saving using Composer

Word HTML page resaved using FrontPage

HTML page generated by AppleWorks

AppleWorks HTML resaved in Composer

My Point? I do not like the approach taken by Microsoft products. The code appears to create some compatibility problems (easy to see if you view these examples from a Windows machine and IE) and the code is overly complex (view the source code). Why would this be a desirable approach? Beats me. If you feel my analysis is unfair, please feel to respond.

Another research paper commenting on technology use in schools has surfaced – Zhao and Frank (2003). Factors affecting technology use in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807-840.

The authors argue that much of the previous work has evaluated single variables through correlational studies and more complex approach is required. The description of the ecological approach is interesting. I will warn you that authors have decided to explain what an ecological approach is by contrasting the movement of computer applications into some schools as similar to the invasion of the Great Lakes by the zebra mussel. This comparison is not just mentioned, but it is used extensively throughout. I had to keep telling myself that in this case I was supposed to be a supporter of the Zebra Mussel and that I wanted it to be allowed to survive.

For “stat types”, think of a regression model that includes main effects and interactions. The main effects might be things like the ecosystem (district), the teacher, and the interactions might involve the teacher and ecosystem.

A couple of findings:
Teachers who perceive pressure from and receive help from colleagues were more likely to involve their students in the use of technology (a teacher-ecosystem interaction). Help from others who are not close colleagues did not seem to be influential. If this would include “computer coordinators”, I would find this both interesting and disappointing since it has long been argued that schools must put money into such sources of support.

The more a teacher believes computers are compatible with personal teaching style, the more likely the teacher is to use technology with students.

I must admit that after being impressed by the ecosystem model and the call for more complex ways of attempting to understand the use of technology, I was not that impressed by the quality or uniqueness of the questionnaire data. The “interaction” findings seem similar to what others have reported. Because the study also selected districts that had invested heavily in technology (see my post of 2/20), the access variable was not in play. In the big scheme of things (a larger ecological perspective), the level of access may interact in very significant wants with the variables evaluated in this study. Any variable that adds another significant challenge (access), my influence other parts of the ecosystem model and result in different outcomes.

I do think the attempt to build an ecological model makes good sense and this study may prompt more work of this type.

There were also some specific findings that may be helpful. I tend to look for data that might be used as benchmarks or indicators. There were some data on student use of technology in specific ways. I am summarizing here by indicating the % of students estimated to make a particular use of technology as least once a month.
– Student inquiry (search electronic database, WebQuest – I am not certain whether general web searching would be included) – 45%
– Student-to-student communication (publish web site, e-group projects) – 19%
– Core curriculum skill development (e.g., drill and practice) – 71%

I am surprised that the inquiry category is this low (unless general web searches were excluded). I am disappointed that the student-to-student category was so low (obviously because we try to promote such activities).

I think it is fair to say student use of technology in K-12 settings is still very limited. This a concern because of the lost opportunities and because money is being spent without seemingly accomplishing much.

I encourage you to read a recent Journal of Research on Teaching article (2003, 36, 15-27) attempting to generate data on student use and then understand the factors associated with levels of use.

The study confirms (or brings up to date) dismal accounts of student use. The graph above describes Internet use. The bars represent the % of students expering none, 15 min, 34 min, and above levels of use. Two-thirds experience less than 15 minutes per week.

The study concludes that the major factor influencing student use is access to computers. Students simply have extremely limited access.

See Snapshot Surveys for another way to access these data.

I continue to work my way through Todd Oppenheimer’s “Flickering Mind.” It takes a while and I try to read carefully to process the various arguments that are advanced. I think it is a good exercise for tech advocates. I also think I could probably create the same kind of book for other expensive programs – do you think anyone would want to read about the lack of good evidence for high school science labs? Perhaps we should quit spending money on science labs so we do not have to cut band or art programs. (Pardon the sarcasm – read the book and these comments may make more sense)

I always wonder about the heavy use of anecdotal “bad examples”. How were the examples selected? How would people associated with the bad examples react to the depiction. Read Jamie McKenzie’s counter analysis of one of Oppenheimer’s examples – see From Now On Article

Stewart Brand is one those big thinkers who seems to have the capability to get others to share his vision. He has a new venture , Long Now, that deals with concerns that the accelerating pace of change threatens our ability to ground outselves in history and plan thoughtfully for the future. His perspective plays out in a variety of interesting ways including what he has to say about the permanence of digital historical records. Take a look at his site.

THE Journal (Feb 2004) contains an article (Ferdig and Trammell) entitled “Content Delivery in the Blogosphere. The article provides practical suggestions of how blogs might be used and be useful in classroom settings.