Author: grabe

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.

Today, our Education College held a public forum on ??No Child Left Behind.?? I attended. I try to keep up on general policy issues, but there are clearly many individuals who have a much more comprehensive view of major issues. I felt the dean’s comments were quite insightful and would like to summarize them here. I cannot claim responsibility for these ideas, nor can I guarantee that I have captured what the dean intended.

I think it would be fair to conclude that the UND Dean of Education is very concerned about the long term of NCLB and feels a responsibility for voicing concerns that others are unwilling or unable to express. Having taken this position, he was quite careful to recognize that NCLB was a law with broad support from both sides of the aisle. Those in positions of preparing teachers must operate in compliance with the provisions of NCLB, but must also use their professional knowledge and skills to make recommendations and raise critical issues in relationship to any legislation that is not truly in the best interest of all learners.

A good part of the presentation concerned an attempt to identify assumptions that seem to form of the basis for NCLB. As you might expect, the point was that these assumptions are either flawed or simplistic.

Assumptions:
1) Teachers are the problem
2) Teacher education programs do a poor job of training teachers
3) Anyone with a major can teach (Note: this assumption violates the assumption (2) that there are few essential pedagogical skills to be learned)
4) All students can perform at grade level
5) The mean class average in any given class will improve each year
6) It is productive to make an example of bad schools
7) Parents pulling their children out of a bad school will improve the quality of that school for others

Why are we in this position? My understanding of the dean’s comments would indicate that he feels the present situation results from a combination of a political agenda on the part of a specific group and the concerns of a different group that there are truly poor schools in some settings (i.e., inequity in student opportunity). The concern is that those making decisions are unable or unwilling to recognize that these two groups have very different long term goals and that these groups fundamentally believe in very different things.

The Dean provided a handout outlining key Provisions and Timeline.

Books cost a lot. Why? It is a bit of a puzzle I wish college students would attempt to understand. Clearly, you can visit any “public” bookstore and most books one would think require the same quality of writing and editorial support as a textbook cost much less. The problem is the resale market and we seem to be caught in a spiral from which we cannot escape.

Given the existing circumstances (the book company must make a certain level of profit to meet costs and pay authors, books are resold through various sources without compensating the company producing the book or the author, local bookstores and used book vendors make money from resales, students pay so much for books they cannot keep their books, book companies employ tactics such as frequent revisions to discourage the use of used books), we are stuck and it is possible no one is being unethical, greedy, etc. Each party seems to want to blame another participant in this cycle, but it takes all parties looking out for their own interests to keep the cycle rolling. If a book company sold a $30 book, would students still resell the book? Would the book store still buy it back? Would that guy still come to my office asking if I wanted to sell the free books I was sent? Would used book companies accept books from all these sources for $15 and try to sell them for $25? You tell me.

See Daily Texan piece that offers an analysis of this situation. Search the same student paper to see some of the replies.