UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Intermediate computer use : a survey of the nature and extent of computer use in intermediate classrooms… Beairsto, James Atley Bruce 1986

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A8 B42.pdf [ 4.94MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054709.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054709-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054709-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054709-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054709-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054709-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054709-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054709-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054709.ris

Full Text

INTERMEDIATE COMPUTER USE: a survey of the nature and extent of computer use i n Intermediate classrooms i n B r i t i s h Columbia by James Atley Bruce Beairsto B. Sc. (Honours Physics), The University of Calgary, 1970 M. Sc. (Physics), The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972 P.D.P., Simon Fraser University, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the ifequired standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1986 (C) Copyright James Atley Bruce Beairsto, 1986 *0 Ln In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of C>/// Cl4ll4'/frrVT) <U?* -V The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada / V6T 1Y3 Date /</ PC 7~ ABSTRACT The use of computers at a l l levels i n the educational system i n B r i t i s h Columbia has been expanding rapidly despite a noticeable lack of provincial direction and support. With increasing funding t h i s expansion can be expected to continue and even to accelerate. As computer-based instruction becomes more prevalent the need for programs of in-service training becomes increasingly important. This study reports the results of a survey of the nature and extent of computer use i n intermediate classrooms i n B r i t i s h Columbia. I t was conducted to c o l l e c t the descriptive baseline data necessary to design an in-service program. The study also examines the educational motivations for computer-based instruction cited by teachers. Data was collected using a province-wide mail questionnaire distributed i n December 1985 and a series of telephone interviews i n A p r i l , May and June of 1986. The results indicate that: a) There i s great d i v e r s i t y i n the a v a i l a b l i t y of hardware and software across the province. b) There i s great d i v e r s i t y i n the experience and training l e v e l of teachers across the province. c) In general, computer access i s severely l i m i t e d . d) In general, intermediate teachers have minimal training i n the educational use of computers. - i i -In general, intermediate teachers have very limited experience with computers. The most widely used programs i n intermediate classrooms are Bank Street Writer, Logo, typing training programs, mathematics programs and various materials from the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium (MECC). The respondents ranked computer-based strategies superior to t r a d i t i o n a l strategies i n teaching language arts and problem solving. The educational motivations cited by the respondents f e l l into seven major categories characterized, i n descending order of frequency of c i t a t i o n , by the following key words: u t i l i t y , i n t e r e s t , l i t e r a c y , d r i l l , enrichment, reinforcement and i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n . There i s l i t t l e evidence of any developmental pattern, associated with an increase i n experience, i n the educational motivations for computer use cited by the respondents. The correlations which do exist indicate that with increased trai n i n g and increased length of time using computer-based in s t r u c t i o n a l strategies teachers tend to devalue the objectives of promoting computer l i t e r a c y and i n f l a t e the objectives of reinforcing t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g instruction and using the computer as a productivity tool for text editing. - i i i -TABLE OF CONTENTS page ABSTRACT •••«• «•••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• x i TABLE OF CONTENTS ' i v LIST OF TABLES .... • .. •.. ••• ..... v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i i Chapter 1. THE PROBLEM 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 The Problem Statement 4 1.3 The Purpose of the Study 5 1.4 The Method of the Study 1.4.1 The Preliminary Survey 7 1.4.2 The Structured Interviews 8 1.5 Background Information 9 1.6 The Significance of the Study 11 2. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1 Introduction to the Issues 13 2.2 Issues of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n 14 2.3 Issues of Adoption 18 2.4 Issues of Software Evaluation and Development 2.4.1 Software Evaluation 20 2.4.2 Software Development 25 2.5 Issues of Implementation 28 2.6 Issues of Process Evaluation 30 - i v -3. THE METHOD OF STUDY 3*1 Introductxon •«•• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• 3A 3.2 The Preliminary P r o v i n c i a l Survey 3.2.1 Development of the Questionnaire 36 3.2.2 Application of the Questionnaire 37 3.2.3 Analysis of the Responses 37 3.3 The Telephone Interviews 3.3.1 Development of the Interview Schedule 39 3.3.2 Conduct of the Interviews 40 3.3.3 Analysis of the Results 41 4. THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY 4.1 Introduction 44 4.2 Results of the Preliminary Questionnaire 44 4.3 Results of the Telephone Interviews 49 5. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS 5.1 Introduction ..... 58 5.2 The Effect of Expertise 59 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6*1 Cone X visions ••••• ••••• ••••» ••••• ••••• 6A-6.2 Limitations of the Conclusions 6.2.1 Selection of the Sample 67 6.2.2 Extrapolation of the Results 67 6.3 Recommendations for Further Research 68 - v -BIBLIOGRAPHY » ••••• »* • • • »•»•• »• •»• •»••• 70 APPENDICES A. Covering Letter for the Preliminary Questionnaire 74 B. The Preliminary Questionnaire 76 C. Summary of Questionnaire Results for Respondents 84 D. Covering Letters for the Telephone Interviews 90 E. Telephone Interview Protocol 96 F. Explanation of the Experience Measures 104 - v i -LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Rating of Computer-Based Instruction i n Comparison to Traditional Strategies i n Various Curricular Areas 47 Table 2: Most Frequently Reported T i t l e s From the Software Checklist 48 Table 3: Teachers' Favourite Software 47 Table 4: Students' Computer Contact Time 50 Table 5: Relative Merit of Selected Software 52 Table 6: Motivational Categories 53 Table 7: Overall Relative Importance of Motivational Categories 54 Table 8: Relative Importance of Motivational Categories With Reference to Selected Software 56 Table 9: Correlation Between Measures of Experience and Frequency of Cita t i o n of Various Motivational Categories • ••••• »•••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• 57 - v i i -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to express my gratitude to a number of people who have been instrumental, i n various ways, i n helping me to complete th i s thesis. F i r s t , my hear t f e l t thanks to my wife who has been so consistently patient and accommodating over the past year and my children who have been understanding when Daddy had to work and could not play. Second, my gratitude to Dr. C. J . Anastasiou, my thesis advisor, for his wise counsel, patience and friendl y encouragement. Thanks also to the other member of my committee, Dr. M. Westrom, for help i n defining the thesis topic and for valuable e d i t o r i a l comment and proofreading; and to Dr. H. Ratzlaff for his very useful c r i t i c i s m of my research instruments and instruction i n the techniques of s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. And l a s t l y my thanks to a l l of the respondents to the questionnaire and the participants i n the telephone interviews. Their consistently w i l l i n g response and affable manner made l i g h t of an arduous task. - v i i i -1 Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM 1.1 IPRODUCTION The introduction of microcomputers into education was neither planned nor coordinated and continues to be essentially a grassroots movement. Very few j u r i s d i c t i o n s have had the foresight and the resources to r a t i o n a l i z e the process. Nonetheless, the use of computers i s growing rapidly across the continent as well as i n B r i t i s h Columbia and the public demand for their introduction into classrooms continues to be strong. The broad public support behind the computer's infusion into the educational system gives a unique status to th i s particular innovation. Certainly there was no corresponding lobby for open area classrooms, continuous progress or overhead projectors. The general increase i n awareness of and interest i n educational matters among the public i s not the only explanation for the high p r o f i l e of computer-based education which was revealed i n the Let's Talk About  Schools (1985) report. Surely the fact that the computer has generated a so c i e t a l revolution as well as educational innovations must contribute to i t s t o p i c a l i t y . This s o c i e t a l revolution has not only contributed to the public interest i n computer-based education but has guaranteed that the The Problem / 2 importance of t h i s innovation w i l l not wane. The computer i s here to stay and i t s presence w i l l continue to have s i g n i f i c a n t implications for education i n one way or another for the i n d e f i n i t e future. Even i f one could foresee the passing of interest i n i t s i n s t r u c t i o n a l applications the computer would remain an important object of study i n i t s own r i g h t . In fact, interest i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l use of computers continues to be strong and there i s no reason to foresee any decline. As hardware power increases, costs decrease, and the sophistication of software designers develops, the importance of the computer i n the classroom should grow. Clearly t h i s i s not just another educational fad. However, we must recognize i n the rapid emergence of computer-based education some of the unfortunate characteristics of many educational movements. As i s a l l too t y p i c a l i n education, i n i t i a l expectations were i n f l a t e d by naivete while appreciation of the long-term consequences of t h i s innovation was largely lacking. From massive early projects such as Plato on mainframe computers to the plethora of more recent one-shot software packages designed for microcomputers we find an apparent absence of the understanding that the impressive technological c a p a b i l i t i e s of the computer are wasted unless we can harness them with sound pedagogy. Consequently, u n r e a l i s t i c goals have frequently been set and the resources required to meet these goals have been d r a s t i c a l l y underestimated. The misguided software which has resulted i s responsible for retarding the development of computer-based education and for creating a certain The Problem / 3 backlash of skepticism on the part of many teachers and educational organizations. The computer "revolution" i n education has survived despite these p i t f a l l s because the machine has become of such central importance i n our society and because i t s a c c e s s i b i l i t y to individuals has allowed the emergence of a powerful grassroots computer movement. In schools, hardware financed by bake sales and software hatched i n basements has kept the movement a l i v e through the period of reaction to unrealized expectations. Now, however, we are seeing a re-emergence of i n s t i t u t i o n a l interest and support on a large scale. The lessons of the past decade are forming the foundation for a new wave of support for the educational applications of the computer. However, while the lessons of the past have been learned by many there i s s t i l l a d i s t i n c t lack of clear visi o n for the future. We are beginning to do the things we previously f a i l e d to do more successfully but there does not seem to be a l i v e l y and informed forum for the development of new directions. The educational community as a whole seems poised for a second foray into the jungle of computer innovations but we possess neither a map nor a compass. We need a clear set of goals, a de f i n i t e v i s i o n of the future, and techniques for measuring our success i n achieving the goals. Without these navigational aids our high-tech adventures stand l i t t l e chance of success. The Problem / 4 1.2 THE PROBLEM STATEMENT One consequence of the desultory development of computer-based education i s a d i s t i n c t lack of common vi s i o n and goal concensus among teachers. While there i s ample enthusiasm, sincere concern and abundant optimism i n schools there i s frequently a lack of sophistication and c r i t i c a l analysis. Teachers have evolved the i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l applications with l i t t l e supervisory assistance i n developing a mature and informed conception of the role of the microcomputer i n their classroom. The energetic leaders of the computer movement have often been hardware enthusiasts. The emergence of the microcomputer postdates most teachers' preservice tra i n i n g and inservice opportunities have normally focussed on simple software sampling. D i s t r i c t and provincial direction has usually been limited to f i s c a l and purchasing guidelines. In order to consolidate the gains which have been made to the present time and build a s o l i d foundation for the future development of computer-based education we must begin to provide effective inservice. This w i l l require a sophisticated understanding of the process of innovation and change, a mature vi s i o n of the appropriate use of microcomputers i n education and a r e a l i s t i c analysis of the existing state of a f f a i r s . One aspect of t h i s analysis must be a survey of the state of development of teachers i n their emerging understanding of the role of the microcomputer i n their classrooms. This "what i s " knowledge i s the necessary f i r s t step i n any inservice needs analysis. Teachers may have valuable insights into the The Problem / 5 educational use of the computer or they may be completely at sea. In the f i r s t case a knowledge of their attitudes may provide useful dir e c t i o n and i n the l a t t e r case t h i s knowledge i s an essential foundation for badly needed inservice. There i s at present, however, i n s u f f i c i e n t r e l i a b l e data to know precisely how the microcomputer i s actually being used or even the true extent of i t s use. Without such a well-developed snapshot of the classroom situation we cannot devise strategies for improving and expanding computer-based education. P a r t i c u l a r l y at the provincial l e v e l there i s a need for a thorough reconnaissance of the classroom. One might expect the provincial s p e c i a l i s t s association of the BCTF to provide t h i s information but i n fact the membership of the Computer Using Educators of B r i t i s h Columbia (CUEBC) i s not representative of teachers as a whole and, i n any event, t h i s body has not conducted any systematic survey of classroom uses of the computer. There i s a profusion of i n d i v i d u a l experience and opinion available but an absolute dearth of hard data. 1 . 3 THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This present study w i l l attempt to provide some of the "what i s " knowledge required to develop a r e a l i s t i c understanding of the nature and extent of computer use i n B r i t i s h Columbia classrooms. I t w i l l s p e c i f i c a l l y address the question: The Problem / 6 How do intermediate teachers i n B r i t i s h Columbia use the microcomputer i n classrooms at the present time: that i s , i n which c u r r i c u l a r areas i s the computer employed and with what software? The organizational strategies of teachers w i l l be examined as a secondary focus but the main objective i s to id e n t i f y those items of software which are most widely used. Intermediate classrooms were chosen because software i s probably more p l e n t i f u l at th i s l e v e l than at any other. Since there i s no curri c u l a r direction from the ministry, computer use at t h i s l e v e l i s motivated by teacher and community b e l i e f s about the importance and efficacy of computer-based ins t r u c t i o n . Once the primary applications of the computer are determined the study w i l l examine the question: What applications do intermediate teachers i n B r i t i s h Columbia perceive to have the most educational merit? F i n a l l y , the study w i l l also attempt to determine the reason for the popularity of the most common applications. Since i t would be d i f f i c u l t to eliminate obviously important factors such as the a v a i l a b i l i t y and price of various software packages, the study w i l l focus on the question: What educational motivations do intermediate teachers i n B r i t i s h Columbia profess for the most popular classroom uses of the microcomputer? An e f f o r t w i l l be made to determine the effect which the length (years of use), breadth (number of programs used) or depth (workshops and courses taken) of the teacher's experience may have on the motivations professed for computer use. In order to eliminate computer hardware The Problem / 7 as a variable the study w i l l focus exclusively on Apple computer users. 1.4 THE METHOD OF THE STUDY The l a t t e r two questions c l e a r l y cannot be answered u n t i l the actual classroom uses of the microcomputer have been determined. Consequently, the study was divided into two parts: a broad preliminary survey of the nature and extent of computer use i n intermediate classrooms across the province and a more focussed examination of the l a t t e r two questions i n l i g h t of the answer to the f i r s t . The preliminary survey took the form of a mailed questionnaire intended to i d e n t i f y the most popular cur r i c u l a r applications of computers and the second half of the study involved structured telephone interviews of a sample of intermediate computer users. 1.4.1 The Preliminary Survey The preliminary survey was designed to c o l l e c t data on the number and type of microcomputers i n intermediate classrooms or otherwise accessible to intermediate teachers, the trai n i n g and experience of teachers, the software programs actually used i n the classroom and the reported motivation for these applications. The questionnaire was developed i n consultation with several colleagues, piloted i n two Richmond schools, revised, and distributed The Problem / 8 to 500 intermediate teachers i n December of 1985. The subjects included a l l 29 intermediate l e v e l members of CUEBC and a randomly selected sample of 471 of the 620 members of the Intermediate Provincial S p e c i a l i s t s ' Association (PSA) of the B r i t i s h Columbia Teachers' Association (BCTF). There were 198 responses by A p r i l . Of these, 167 represented v a l i d data. The response rate was 100% from members of CUEBC and 36% from members of the Intermediate PSA giving an overall rate of 40%. The results of t h i s questionnaire were analyzed to id e n t i f y the computer hardware used, the most frequently used software programs and the types of educational motivations cited by teachers for thei r use of these programs. 1.4.2 The Structured Interviews The structured telephone interviews focussed on rating the seven most common educational motivations for the f i v e most popular types of computer applications. Subjects were asked to rank the f i v e most popular classes of software i d e n t i f i e d i n the preliminary survey. They were then asked to select i n p r i o r i t y order the three most important motivations for the use of each class of software with which they had experience i n the classroom. The motivations were to be selected from a l i s t of seven i d e n t i f i e d i n the preliminary survey and read to the subject i n random order. Subjects included the 16 most experienced teachers i d e n t i f i e d i n the f i r s t province-wide survey and 28 others of varying experience who The Problem / 9 were i d e n t i f i e d by computer coordinators i n two metropolitan d i s t r i c t s . The results were analyzed to determine the importance of the seven major motivations for each of the f i v e classes of software and to i d e n t i f y any effect which trai n i n g or experience might have on the motivations reported by teachers. 1.5 BACKGROUND INFORMATION B r i t i s h Columbia has a population of 2.9 m i l l i o n including 1.4 m i l l i o n i n the metropolitan Lower Mainland and 250,000 i n the c i t y of V i c t o r i a . The remainder of the population i s t h i n l y distributed over a large area along the coast and i n the mountainous i n t e r i o r . There are 75 school d i s t r i c t s . The provincial Ministry of Education i s responsible for establishing curriculum and providing funding. At the time of the survey there was no branch of the Ministry s p e c i f i c a l l y responsible for guiding or supporting computer-based i n s t r u c t i o n . In 1980 the Ministry did establish a s p e c i f i c agency, J.E.M., to investigate the potential for computers i n the classroom and conduct a p i l o t study involving the purchase of 100 Apple 11+ computers i n various d i s t r i c t s across the province. However, the agency was disbanded i n 1982 and no further s p e c i f i c funding was provided. The introduction of computers into classrooms proceeded e n t i r e l y at the expense and direc t i o n of indivi d u a l d i s t r i c t s from that time on. Despite the lack of The Problem / 10 provincial coordination and support, progress was rapid i f somewhat uneven. A BCTF survey i n October of 1984 (Flodin) found that only 8 d i s t r i c t s (13%) had no dist r i c t - w i d e implementation of microcomputers and that there were 5317 computers i n use. Of these 48% were Apple I I and 11% were Apple compatibles. The student-computer r a t i o ranged from 22-154 to 1 among the d i s t r i c t s reporting and averaged 76 to 1. D i s t r i c t s reported plans to purchase a minimum of 772 more computers i n the 1984-85 school year for an increase of 15%. Since that time there has been considerable a c t i v i t y but there i s no data to indicate the precise l e v e l of hardware acquis i t i o n . In recognition of the rapidly expanding base of computers and l o c a l l y developed courses the Ministry undertook to introduce a provincial Computer Studies 11 course i n September 1984 and a Computer Science 12 course i n September 1985. An existing course called Introductory Data Processing has e n t i r e l y changed focus since the advent of microcomputers and i s now computer-based but has not yet been revised. Thus, the only two provincial courses r e l a t i n g to computers at the present time are the two senior secondary computer courses. Whatever influence the Ministry has had on the direction of computer-based instruction has been through these two courses and the personnel involved i n their development. In January of 1985 the Ministry i n i t i a t e d a province-wide survey t i t l e d Let's Talk About Schools. Among other things t h i s report The Problem / l l revealed a wide-spread b e l i e f among the public that i t was important to increase the l e v e l of computer use i n the school system. Subsequently, and presumably i n response to t h i s survey, the Ministry announced a special fund to which d i s t r i c t s could apply for funding for special projects including computer projects. At the time of writing these funds had not been f u l l y dispersed but i t would seem that a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of the money which found i t s way into the hands of l o c a l school boards would be for computer related projects. There i s s t i l l no department of the Ministry providing funding, policy or assistance to l o c a l boards i n the i r e f f o r t s to expand the use of computers i n the intermediate classroom. 1.6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY A 1983 study by Jones, Porter and Rubis found that computer l i t e r a c y was the primary educational use of the computer i n the elementary grades and computer science studies was the most important use i n the secondary grades. While the l a t t e r has almost certainly not changed, the use of the computer i n the elementary grades has begun to s h i f t considerably and w i l l continue to do so. The emphasis on computer l i t e r a c y during the early years of computer use i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the fact that the educational community had no clear understanding of what might be appropriate and effective uses of the computer i n the classroom despite the i r strong b e l i e f that i t s introduction to students was important. The BCTF study of 1984 (Flodin) found that "the most v i t a l issue facing computers i n The Problem / 12 education today" was "the need to integrate computers into the classroom as means rather than end." This current study confirms what observers of the educational scene already knew. Teachers are growing beyond a vague bel i e f that the computer i s somehow important towards a more sophisticated understanding of how and where i t can be e f f e c t i v e l y used i n the curriculum. This s h i f t towards s p e c i f i c c u r r i c u l a r applications has strengthened the computer movement and made i t demonstrably educational. D i s t r i c t s which may have been reluctant or skeptical are now beginning to appreciate the importance of funding computer-based instruction and increase i t s p r i o r i t y i n thei r limited budgets. Increased provincial funding for computers via the Fund for Excellence i n Education creates the potential for a dramatic acceleration i n the computerization of the intermediate classroom. If an increase i n computer a c c e s s i b i l i t y does occur, i t w i l l be essential to accompany t h i s increase with expanded opportunities for appropriate inservice a c t i v i t i e s . The results of the present study should be useful i n guiding such inservice e f f o r t s . The results may provide a clear picture of the present state of a f f a i r s from a provincial perspective and give some indication of the effects of inservice e f f o r t s to date. I f coupled with a mature image of what computer-based instruction should be the information obtained i n th i s study w i l l be of great value i n designing inservice for the next phase of the computer movement i n B r i t i s h Columbia. 13 Chapter 2 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ISSUES Before beginning any exploration of the l i t e r a t u r e the author would l i k e to examine some basic vocabulary. There i s a plethora of terms i n use which are intended to describe the educational uses of computers: computer-assisted instruction (CAI), computer-assisted learning (CAL), computer-enriched instruction (CEI), computer-integrated ins t r u c t i o n (CII), computer-managed inst r u c t i o n (CMI), computer-based training (CBT), and computer-based education (CBE) to name a few. While some of these terms are intended to imply s p e c i f i c styles of use and shades of difference do exist between them, for the most part the i r profusion i s simply due to a lack of standardization on the part of various authors. This author can find no commonly accepted term which would subsume a l l of the various classroom l e v e l applications of the computer. The issues which surround the young but surging f i e l d of educational computing are at least as diverse as the terms which describe i t . In order to make t h i s amorphous mass manageable, a unifying taxonomy i s proposed. Attention i s concentrated on questions which are s p e c i f i c a l l y educational, fundamental and enduring: issues r e l a t i n g to appropriate hardware selection and equity of access are A Review of the Literature / 14 not addressed. These issues w i l l decrease rapidly i n importance as the inevitable "shakedown" i n the computer industry and computer access for students increases. What remains may be divided into f i v e major categories: i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , adoption, software evaluation and development, implementation and process evaluation. • 2.2 ISSUES OF IDENTIFICATION The f i r s t l o g i c a l issue i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of potential areas of application for the computer i n education. Consideration of t h i s issue has been intense and some concensus has been reached. That i s not to say, however, that the question i s answered. As with any ra d i c a l l y new tool or process i t w i l l take time to appreciate the f u l l range of potential application for the computer i n education. Consider, for instance the continuing process of change i n i t i a t e d by the introduction of the microwave oven. The eating patterns of an entire hemisphere are i n the process of changing and the effects on our health and l i f e s t y l e , although they cannot be accurately predicted, may be considerable. As the process continues, new products are being designed especially for a device which was o r i g i n a l l y used only to warm left-overs. Whole new industries are emerging to exploit the potential of t h i s device. While the example i s inconsequential i n comparison to the scale and importance of the computer, i t does serve to i l l u s t r a t e the point that the potential areas of application of any technological innovation i n any area of human endeavour w i l l be revealed only over time. Our f i r s t thought i s A Review of the Literature / 15 to use a new t o o l for an old job. I t i s only as our sophistication grows through use that we begin to develop fundamentally new applications and the true impact of the innovation begins to become evident. This tendency has cer t a i n l y been present during the introduction of computers into education. Predictably, one of the f i r s t areas of application to be exploited has been i n administration. This has occurred not only because the administrators control the finances but also because the application i s easy to conceptualize. S i m i l a r l y , i n the classroom many of the e a r l i e s t applications consisted of the proverbial 'electronic page-flippers'; programs which emulated a text book by presenting endless screens of textual information which can be 'flipped' by pressing the spacebar. The next generation of software attempted to emulate the process of in s t r u c t i o n by incorporating some questionning of the student i n order to reinforce the instruction and control the rate of progress. F i n a l l y , there emerged applications such as Logo which were q u a l i t a t i v e l y different from t r a d i t i o n a l strategies and genuinely novel. As new technologies such as compact disks j o i n the computer i n the classroom t h i s slow process of recognizing and exploiting the potential of the hardware i n creative and r a d i c a l l y different ways should continue. However, i f past experience i s any guide we can expect the majority of applications to be simply adaptations of old strategies for some time to come. The presently recognized areas of cur r i c u l a r application may be conveniently organized according to a taxonomy f i r s t proposed by A Review of the Literature / 16 Taylor i n The Computer i n the School: Tool, Tutor, Tutee (1980). The great virtue of t h i s scheme i s i t s s i m p l i c i t y but, as with any other such c l a s s i f i c a t i o n strategy, i t i s important that the taxonomy i t s e l f not be r e i f i e d . There w i l l always be applications which cut across the a r t i f i c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n s we impose or which l i e e n t i r e l y outside the range of our nomenclature. Others, such as Cohen (1983) and Senn (1983), have proposed alternative schemes but t h i s t r i p a r t i t e framework seems to possess a good combination of s i m p l i c i t y and insight. To function as a t o o l , the computer must have some useful capability such as text e d i t i n g , graphics generation or music synthesis programmed into i t . This use "can pay off handsomely i n saving time and preserving i n t e l l e c t u a l energy by transferring necessary but routine c l e r i c a l tasks of a tedious, mechanical kind to the computer" Taylor, 1980, p. 3). The tool applications of the computer have been developed extensively for business and s c i e n t i f i c applications. Some of these, such as text editing, have been adapted for educational use with great success. Others, such as testing and classroom management, are being developed s p e c i f i c a l l y for educators. To function as a tutor, the computer must be programmed so that: The computer presents some subject material, the student responds, the computer evaluates the response, and, from the results of the evaluation, determines what to present next. At i t s best, the computer tutor keeps complete records on each student being tutored; i t has at i t s disposal a wide range of subject d e t a i l i t can present; and i t has an extensive and f l e x i b l e way to test and then lead the student through the material. (Taylor, 1980, p. 3) A Review of the Literature / 17 The term computer-assisted instruction (CAI) i s approximately synonymous with t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Tutor applications have the potential to accommodate indiv i d u a l differences but have been c r i t i c i z e d because they do not allow for spontaneous improvisation and can, i f used improperly, decrease the human content of instruction with a l l of i t s adventitious personal and s o c i a l benefits. The tutor category i s the most diverse i n t h i s taxonomy and i s , consequently, often divided into various subcategories. These may include, i n addition to the t u t o r i a l style previously described, d r i l l and practice, educational gaming, simulation and modelling, problem-solving, and inquiry and dialogue. Moreover, the various types of software may be used i n standard instruction or as a supplemental technique of reinforcement for the general population; or i n various individualized modes for s p e c i f i c students such as remediation, enrichment or special education. I t i s t h i s class of computer application, the tutor category, which i s the area of the greatest a c t i v i t y i n terms of software development but not necessarily the area of greatest impact or success. To use the computer as a tutee i s to reverse the roles of the computer and the student i n the tutor applications; hence the derived term "tutee". For that, the student doing the tutoring must learn to program. In most cases, t h i s type of application implies the use of Logo. Proponents of t h i s application contend that "because you can't teach what you don't understand, the human tutor w i l l learn what he or she i s trying to teach the computer...[and, more importantly] learners A Review of the Literature / 18 gain new insights into their own thinking through learning to program" (Taylor, 1980, p. 4). Neither of these b e l i e f s i s uncontested. 2.3 ISSUES OF ADOPTION The taxonomy of applications which has been presented i s not congruent with the e x i s t i n g c u r r i c u l a r framework. This creates the p o s s i b l i t y of applications which cannot be conveniently subsumed by any existing content area. Consequently, educators need to be concerned with examining the areas of potential application to determine whether they are appropriate for the educational system to adopt. Tetenbaum and Mulkeen (1984) suggest, for example, that "before tens of thousands more children are taught Logo, i t seems advisable to give serious consideration to i t s purpose" (p. 19). Even those applications which have a c l e a r l y defined and appropriate purpose may be problematic, however, since whenever we introduce new topics and a c t i v i t i e s into the school system we must inevitably displace some existing a c t i v i t y . For example, i f intermediate teachers begin to spend time and energy using computers to promote "computer l i t e r a c y " or teach "problem-solving" s k i l l s then they must necessarily modify or c u r t a i l some other teaching a c t i v i t y . Every issue of adoption involves a comparison of the r e l a t i v e merits and importance of two a c t i v i t i e s and when we embrace one topic or strategy we must simultaneously discard another. An example of such comparative analysis i s given by Levin and Meister (1986) who found A Review of the Literature / 19 that "CAL.was more cost-effective than adult tutoring, reducing class s i z e , or increasing i n s t r u c t i o n a l time...[but] considerably less cost-effective than peer tutoring i n mathematics and s l i g h t l y less cost-effective than peer tutoring i n reading" (p. 749). There are, of course, also human costs as well as f i n a n c i a l costs. Bourque and Ramage (1984) point out that: In education we assume that teachers have the right to experiment with the teaching/learning process....But there are r i s k s : a f a i l e d experiment may result i n more or less severe damage to the learning situation...[and] new technological developments such as the microcomputer present an escalation of the r i s k s , both i n number and severity, and may therefore require greater caution i n our approach to classroom experimentation, (p. 36) DeKoven (1984) indicates other human costs i n commenting that "although learning admirably, the kid playing with the computer i s playing alone...[moving] further away from s o c i a l awareness, becoming less and less responsive to the outside world" (p. 64). Carmichael, Burnett, Higginson, Moore and Pollard (1985) support t h i s contention i n t h e i r two-year study of children from Kindergarten to Grade 8. I t was found that s o c i a l interaction did not only f a c i l i t a t e a s o c i a l i z i n g process but was also a c r i t i c a l component i n the furthering of cognitive development and of creative expression. This strong need for s o c i a l contact expressed by children would suggest that any future scenario that sees only the singular c h i l d happily engaged i n front of a computer over extended periods of time away from any human contact, i s either u n r e a l i s t i c or, i f i t i s forced on children, w i l l lead to serious dislocations i n their normal development, (p. 365) On the other hand, they found that the teaching of Logo could contribute to creating an environment which encouraged exploration and led to increased s o c i a l interaction and willingness to share, refine and revise ideas i f the teacher managed the si t u a t i o n s k i l l f u l l y . A Review of the Literature / 20 These studies are, however, the exceptions to the r u l e . In general the l i t e r a t u r e on computers i n education seems to be so caught up with the exciting potential for thei r use and so frenzied to keep up with the pace of technological change that fundamental issues have been overlooked. The computer i s changing not only our style of instruction but the very nature of the school system and a l o t of the changes seem to be taking place without s p e c i f i c direction and with the blind f a i t h that the changes represent progress. There seem to be some important issues related to the use of computers i n education which have been given only cursory consideration i n the l i t e r a t u r e to thi s point. 2.4 ISSUES OF SOFTWARE EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT 2.4.1 Software Evaluation Once we i d e n t i f y areas of potential application for computers and adopt these as part of the educational system we must concern ourselves with the problem of developing these applications to be effect i v e and e f f i c i e n t . The f i r s t educational software was developed on mainframe computers for small projects directed by educational researchers. However, with the advent of the microcomputer the process became much more decentralized. Hardware began to become available i n a large number of classrooms and with t h i s change the educational software industry blossomed. Educational software began to be produced by A Review of the Literature / 21 r e l a t i v e l y small companies and by i n d i v i d u a l entrepreneurs. Although the t r a d i t i o n a l publishing houses have now become involved, the educational software industry i s s t i l l characterized by i t s d i v e r s i t y and by small-scale development. The result i s a flood of one-shot software of highly variable quality. In order to cope with the i n i t i a l rush of software and to remove the overburden of poor material i n order to expose any vein of valuable software various projects such as MicroSIFT were i n i t i a t e d . These projects were intended to evaluate software but i n fact they were barely able to cope with the volume of material which was being produced and, consequently, were content to catalog and describe as much of i t as possible. Evaluation was confined to i d e n t i f y i n g software which did not run without crashing and was not manifestly inappropriate. In fact, according to Lathrop, i n 1982 less than 5 percent of the available educational software had been reviewed i n p r i n t . There i s a large body of l i t e r a t u r e which examines t h i s process of " s i f t i n g " through software and suggests variations to the checklist of q u a l i t i e s which should be employed ( S t e f f i n , 1983; Cohen, 1983; Senn, 1983; Gorth, 1984; Thomas, 1984; Wallace and Rose, 1984; Klopfer, 1984; Schug, 1984.) Wager (1982) suggests four major concerns from which software evaluation practices may be usefully derived: technical quality, content accuracy, i n s t r u c t i o n a l quality, and learner type. Cohen (1983) points out that two types of attributes need to be considered: those that are generic to a l l types A Review of the Literature / 22 of media and those that are unique to computer software. Rothe (1983) reminds us that the " s o c i a l implications of the software have not yet received high p r i o r i t y i n educational l i t e r a t u r e " (p. 9) and proposes that we consider language usage, knowledge selection, ideology, c u l t u r a l assumptions and value assumptions. After surveying current thinking on design and evaluation, Kearsley (1985) concludes with the observation that "courseware i s often i n s t r u c t i o n a l l y sound but f a i l s because i t lacks the touches of the creative mind - spontaneity, humor, variety, and pizazz" (p. 217). Chomsky (1984) comes to a similar conclusion when reviewing software for language a r t s . I t ' s r e l a t i v e l y easy to find programs that work e f f e c t i v e l y for isolated s u b s k i l l t r a i n i n g or r e p e t i t i v e practice. I t ' s another matter to find programs that help with such intangibles as comprehension, inference and appreciation of s t y l e , and that inspire students to interact imaginatively with sentences, paragraphs and plot. (p. 61) Good checklist evaluations can touch on most of the important q u a l i t i e s mentioned by the various authors and even account for the intangibles through the subjective judgement of the reviewer. A l l of t h i s presumes, of course, the existence of a pool of trained, experienced and talented reviewers. The Evaluator's Guide For Microcomputer-Based Instructional Packages (1983) presently used by the P r o v i n c i a l Educational Media Centre (PEMC) i s derived from the o r i g i n a l MicroSIFT materials and i s t y p i c a l of such review instruments. The process i t defines i s primarily descriptive. Although there i s a checklist of attributes such as c l a r i t y , accuracy, appropriate l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y and effective use of feedback, the actual evaluation i s confined to a A Review of the Literature / 23 personal judgement on the part of the reviewer as to whether the package should be recommended for purchase, recommended with changes or not recommended. There i s no component which requires actual classroom use although t h i s may occur i f the reviewer wishes. There i s no component which c a l l s for student reaction. There i s no component which s p e c i f i c a l l y examines the details of the in s t r u c t i o n a l design. There i s a single checklist item which asks i f "the content presents a balanced view of any so c i a l consideration" (p. 12) but no detailed review of the s o c i a l , c u l t u r a l or e t h i c a l implications of the material. I t would, of course, be u n r e a l i s t i c to expect a more detailed review for the thousands of small-scale packages which are being produced yearly. The best that an agency such as PEMC can do i s to catalogue some of the more common materials as an aid for teachers who are charged with the selection of software. Not a l l evaluative e f f o r t s are of the checklist variety however. In reviewing three B r i t i s h case studies related to reading development and comparing them to chec k l i s t s , Harrison (1985) used Stake's matrix of evaluative concerns. He found "a heavy emphasis on antecedents i n the checklists and on transactions i n the case studies...[but] neither checklists nor case studies devoted great attention to empirically measured outcomes" (p.221). In the case of checklists, Harrison found the emphasis on antecedents hardly surprising since teachers usually have to select software without the opportunity to acutally use i t beforehand. In addition he noted that the apparent inattention to A Review of the Literature / 24 empirically-determined outcomes even i n the case studies might be explained by the fact that: ...when teachers evaluate material, their attention i s directed by the exigencies of the classroom towards immediate and pragmatic concerns. In such conditions, concerns such as time on task, student motivation and cooperation are l i k e l y to be much more dominant than either long-term pedagogical or philosophical issues, (p. 231) Empirically-determined outcomes w i l l inevitably require student input and Signer (1983) has observed that "students and teachers have different perceptions of quality software, with the students being the stronger c r i t i c s " (p. 35). Her interpretation of th i s fact supports Harrison's speculation. Teachers, as content s p e c i a l i s t s , are more c r i t i c a l of the sp e c i f i c content of a program....Students, not cognizant of these i n t r i c a c i e s , evaluate programs on the basis of int e r e s t , c l a r i t y and thei r l e v e l of par t i c i p a t i o n . (Signer, 1983, p. 35) We must conclude, therefore, that meaningful evaluation should involve actual classroom t r i a l , empirically-determined outcomes and student input. Such an extensive and expensive process of evaluation i s ent i r e l y impractical for the immense volume of small packages currently being produced and used. We are l e f t with a cataloging system which i s managing to keep up with only a small percentage of the available material. A l l i s not l o s t however, for as the e d i t o r i a l column i n Educational Technology for June, 1984, so cogently observes: I t would appear, then, that we have anarchy i n the schools when i t comes to software selection. I t ' s every teacher for himself. But...does anyone r e a l l y believe that the majority of teachers select t h e i r other classroom materials based on care f u l , l o g i c a l , detailed analysis of alternative media?... You w i l l f i n d that the largest single c r i t e r i o n , so-called, i s simply "gut reaction", with "recommendations of a fr i e n d " a close second. Reading of software reviews published i n A Review of the Literature / 25 respected journals? Come now! Teachers don't read such journals. (TECHnically Speaking, 1984) 2.4.2 Software Development If the evaluative e f f o r t s of the past few years have not been successful i n actually a s s i s t i n g classroom teachers to make i n t e l l i g e n t software decisions they have not been en t i r e l y wasted either. I f nothing else, they have made the role of i n s t r u c t i o n a l theories i n evaluation a topic of discussion i n the l i t e r a t u r e . C r i swell and Swezey (1984) point out that "the topic which appears to be omitted from previous nonexperimental courseware evaluations i s an assessment of the learning p r i n c i p l e s , derived from behavioural learning theory" (p. 43). Four months la t e r i n the same journal Margaret B e l l (1985) notes that: Unfortunately, the evaluation of microcomputer courseware has proceeded i n much the same manner as the e a r l i e r evaluations of programmed (instruction) materials (during the s i x t i e s ) . That i s , descriptive c h e c k l i s t s , employing a variety of often overlapping c r i t e r i a , abound. The irony i n t h i s present e f f o r t i s that, unlike the f i r s t technology revolution (after Sputnik), a knowledge base now exists from which to develop sound evaluative c r i t e r i a . That knowledge base, referred to as i n s t r u c t i o n a l theory or i n s t r u c t i o n a l psychology, emerged i n part as a result of the e a r l i e r teaching machine emphasis and the curriculum design e f f o r t s of the s i x t i e s , (p. 36) Although i n s t r u c t i o n a l theory may have started i n the s i x t i e s , one of the e a r l i e s t applications to educational computing was made by Gagne, Wager and Rojas i n 1981 and again by Gagne i n 1982. The application of Gagne's theory of instruction to computer-based materials has been followed by further a r t i c l e s on "The Cognitive Approach to Computer Courseware Design and Evaluation" (Jay, 1983) and "What Communication A Review of the Literature / 26 Theories Can Teach the Designer of Computer-Based Training" (Larsen, 1985). In t h i s l a t t e r a r t i c l e Larsen admits that "while few would dispute the d e s i r a b i l i t y of a unified and coherent theory of CBT design, we have yet to achieve i t " (p. 17). S t i l l , he contends that while there i s much to be learned, much i s already known and that too often "we simply neglect to apply some fundamental principles of readily available learning and communication theories" (p. 16). Margaret B e l l (1985) has surveyed the currently available educational theories and considered the i r implications for CBI. At the present time, i n s t r u c t i o n a l psychology includes several theories that address different issues i n classroom learning. B. F. Skinner's technology of teaching, for example, emphasizes the role of reinforcement i n behavioural change, while information-processing theories delineate important cognitive stages i n the learning process. Some other current approaches are Robert Gagne's conditions of learning, Jean Piaget's cognitive development theory, Albert Bandura's observational learning theory, and Bernard Weiner's at t r i b u t i o n theory, (p. 36) She goes on to suggest which of these theories i s most relevant to the various types of educational software. Vargas (1986) also contends that "many CAI programs contain serious i n s t r u c t i o n a l flaws...[although] A large body of l i t e r a t u r e exists i n which basic principles of in s t r u c t i o n a l design have been researched and ar t i c u l a t e d " (p. 738). In addition to learning theory there are a r t i c l e s i n the l i t e r a t u r e which concern themselves with the factors which make computer use a t t r a c t i v e to students whether they learn anything or not. Kearsley (1985) suggests a set of such guidelines and i n Down A Review of the Literature / 27 with Green Lambs; Creating Quality Software for Children (1983) Ann White Lewin suggests that " i f we can make games which are compelling, i t should be a t r i v i a l task to integrate facts into these games" (p. 275). She i d e n t i f i e s the characteristics of such games as including singleness of purpose, attractiveness, f l e x i b i l i t y , challenge, performance feedback and autotelism. (An a c t i v i t y i s " a u t o t e l i c " i f i t i s rewarding for i t s own sake and does not require external motivation to e l i c i t and sustain interest.) The most comprehensive and coherent software development project i n Canada i s being conducted by the Ontario Educational Software Service (OESS). That agency has produced A Formative Evaluation Plan  for Exemplary Software ( G i l l i s , 1984). In that publication there i s a set of c r i t e r i a for i d e n t i f y i n g effective software. 1. The instruction i s suited to a computer presentation... 2. The software accomplishes the purpose(s) for which i t was designed. 3. The program has a sound i n s t r u c t i o n a l design influenced by theoretical and p r a c t i c a l knowledge of how people learn... 4. The content of the program i s accurate, well organized, appropriate for i t s intended users, and appropriate to the Ontario school curriculum. 5. The software i s technically r e l i a b l e under normal conditions of use. 6. The software i s easy to use for individuals with a minimum of computer expertise. 7. The intended users (teachers, counsellors, or l i b r a r i a n s ) perceive the program as worthwhile. In other words, the benefits derived from the program more than j u s t i f y the amount of time and e f f o r t the educator must invest to use i t . 8. The documentation and support materials meet the needs of i t s users. Aside from the comprehensive nature of these c r i t e r i a , i t s t r i k e s the author that they are approximately i n reverse order to those on the early evaluative checklists - with the difference that items 1,2 and 3 A Review of the Literature / 28 seldom i f ever appeared. The existence of such a document would indicate that the lessons of the l i t e r a t u r e have i n fact been learned, at least i n Ontario. Unfortuanately, that i s apparently not true elsewhere. F u t r e l l and Geisert (1985) claim that: Although a large and robust body of research on the use of the computer i n the classroom show i t to be an effective i n s t r u c t i o n a l tool at a l l levels of i n s t r u c t i o n , vendors continue to stress the " b e l l s and whistles" approach... (p. 13) 2.5 ISSUES OF IMPLEMENTATION As the use of computers i n education continues to grow, i t w i l l not be enough to i d e n t i f y areas of potential application and develop effective software. We must also concern ourselves with the process of change i t s e l f . One of the fundamental lessons i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s provided by the Rand study which points out that "innovation i s more a learning process than a systems design problem" (McLaughlin and Marsh, 1978, p. 93) and the l i t e r a t u r e on the process of change suggests that i t i s u n r e a l i s t i c even to expect change to proceed i n any well-ordered way for " i t must r e f l e c t an a c t i v i t y which thrives on f l e x i b i l i t y and redundancy" (Reid, 1975, p. 256). An understanding of t h i s complicated human process begins with H a l l and Loucks' observation that "at the i n d i v i d u a l user l e v e l , implementation of innovations...is not a bipolar use/nonuse phenomenon" (Hall and Loucks, 1977, p. 265) and "represents a process rather than a decision-point" (Hall and Loucks, 1975, p. 52). Consequently, they have i d e n t i f i e d , after extensive case studies, eight Levels of Use i n the developmental A Review of the Literature / 29 growth continuum. These are: non-use, orientation, preparation, mechanical use, routine use, refinement, integration and renewal. While different individuals may star t at different points and progress through the levels at different rates - perhaps even i n a non-linear fashion - we should note Huberman's caution that "saving time by short-cutting the t r i a l phase i s a catastrophic strategy" (Huberman, unpublished). Besides the process of change i t s e l f , the l i t e r a t u r e t e l l s us something about i t s impact on teachers. In t h i s regard, the conservative nature of teachers described by Lortie (1975) and Reid's observation that "change involves the abandonment of practices as well as their adoption" (Reid, 1975, p. 247) are c r u c i a l . In order to embrace and use CBI teachers must not only be convinced of i t s efficacy but they must also abandon some of their present i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies and approach a foreign technology which they may well find confusing and even threatening. I f we neglect t h i s fact then i t w i l l be a long time before computer applications are implemented whether we succeed i n supplying s u f f i c i e n t hardware and effect i v e software or not. One key to effec t i v e implementation i s the observation by C i c c h e l l i and Baecher (1985) that "attention must be given to the involvement of individuals i n the change process for change w i l l occur only when individuals change" (p. 56). A Review of the Literature / 30 The vehicle for promoting and supporting change i s inservice. This inservice must be designed i n the knowledge that the teacher and not the hardware i s the appropriate focus of attention, that change i s a potentially threatening process, that change w i l l only occur with the cooperation and commitment of the teacher, and the change w i l l , of necessity, take time to occur. There i s also considerable evidence i n the l i t e r a t u r e that while the indivdual i s the central issue, the school i s the unit of change. That i s , change w i l l be greatly f a c i l i t a t e d i f the entire school community i s involved cooperatively rather that as individuals. Consequently, inservice a c t i v i t i e s should be organized around that unit rather than i n d i v i d u a l teachers (McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978). 2.6 ISSUES OF PROCESS EVALUATION If i n fact we do provide s u f f i c i e n t hardware and eff e c t i v e software for appropriate c u r r i c u l a r applications, and i f we further r e a l i z e s i g n i f i c a n t change through car e f u l l y designed inservice then i t w i l l become important that we evaluate the consequences of t h i s process. We must know ultimately whether computer-based strategies are having the desired consequences. In a meta-analysis of 42 controlled evaluations Bangert-Drowns et a l . found that "computer-based education (CBE) has had positive effects on achievement of students i n junior and senior high schools" (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, J . , & Kulik, C , 1985, p 59). They also found A Review of the Literature / 31 that "more recent studies found stronger effects on student achievement" (p. 66) which may indicate that the quality of software i s improving. An e a r l i e r study by Bright (1983) had not found such a positive effect but did conclude that CBI resulted i n "equivalent learning i n less t o t a l student time" (p. 146). He concluded that t h i s may be due to the fact that CBI " a c t i v i t i e s increase both the absolute engaged time as well as the rate of engagement...[and] the r a t i o of high success within the engaged time" (p. 149). These results are encouraging but i n other areas there are some doubts emerging about computer-based strategies. The Bangert-Drowns (1985) study found, for instance, that "programs of computer-assisted instruction and computer-managed instruction were generally quite eff e c t i v e ... (but) programs of computer-enrichment, on the other hand, did not add anything substantial to student learning" (p. 65). By "computer-enrichment" the authors meant programming i n languages such as BASIC and Logo. They found that "the children who taught computers undoubtedly learned to write computer programs, but mastery of t h i s a c t i v i t y did not seem to affect other aspects of th e i r cognitive functioning" (p. 66). This i s a severe blow to the large body of Logo boosters who "view LOGO as a cognitive amplifier (Pea c a l l s i t the 'Wheaties of the Mind')...[and believe] that i t i s a language for learning how to think" (Tetenbaum & Mulkeen, 1984, p. 17). Tetenbaum and Mulkeen (1984) have called for a moratorium on the teaching of Logo as a general problem-solving model u n t i l such claims can be substantiated. They point out that " i n general, theory A Review of the Literature / 32 and research i n the f i e l d of cognitive science suggest that there i s not a single homogeneous set of s k i l l s that can be i d e n t i f i e d as the important s k i l l s of problem solving...[and that] learned problem-solving s k i l l s are, i n general, idiosyncratic to the task" (p. 17). While t h i s favourite son of the computer revolution i s taking some l i c k s there i s emerging some respect for the Rodney Dangerfield of software: d r i l l and practice programs. M e r r i l l and Salisbury (1984) contend that "there i s much evidence today, a r i s i n g from recent research, i n modern cognitive theory, which suggests that the role of d r i l l and practice i n learning has been unwarrantably downgraded" (p. 19). They point out that " i n order for a learner to be able to e f f i c i e n t l y perform many complex tasks, performance of lower l e v e l s u b s k i l l s must become automatic" (p. 19) and contend that well-designed d r i l l and practice a c t i v i t i e s can be of considerable help i n promoting t h i s automaticity of s u b - s k i l l s . I t would seem, therefore, that there i s much yet to be learned about the effects of computer-based instruction and that ongoing research and evaluation w i l l be c r u c i a l . U n t i l the results of that research are known we might do well to heed the warning of John Ohles (1985) . A high-powered computer industry i s over-selling i t s merchandise to a degree that makes the hucksters of f i l m , radio, t e l e v i s i o n , language laboratories and teaching machines look l i k e amateurs...The l i t e r a t u r e on the computer i n the classroom has e a s i l y surpassed the rhetoric of the past...But what a waste, what a tragedy i f another highly useful (even i f not miraculous) educational tool i s misunderstood, A Review of the Literature / 33 over-bought, under-used, and eventually largely discarded. To those of you with your fingers on the keyboard, introduce the microcomputer to education and educators, but please don't love i t to death, (p. 53) 34 C h a p t e r 3 THE METHOD OF STUDY 3.1 INTRODUCTION T h i s s t u d y r e p r e s e n t s d e s c r i p t i v e r e s e a r c h . I t i s i n t e n d e d t o p r o v i d e o b j e c t i v e d a t a w h i c h c an be u sed i n t h e d e s i g n o f i n s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s f o r i n t e r m e d i a t e t e a c h e r s on t h e use o f t h e m i c r o c ompu t e r i n t h e c l a s s r o o m . The s t u d y was c ondu c t ed as two s e p a r a t e s u r v e y s : a p r o v i n c e - w i d e s u r v e y t h r o u g h t h e m a i l , and t e l e p h o n e i n t e r v i e w s w i t h a s m a l l e r s e l e c t e d samp le o f t e a c h e r s . The p r e l i m i n a r y s u r v e y was i n t e n d e d t o answer t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s : a ) What i s t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f computer a c c e s s f o r i n t e r m e d i a t e t e a c h e r s ? b) What i s t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f i n t e r m e d i a t e t e a c h e r s w i t h c ompu t e r - ba s ed i n s t r u c t i o n ? c ) Wh i ch s p e c i f i c p rograms a r e used i n i n t e r m e d i a t e c l a s s r o o m s ? d) Wh ich p rograms a r e f a v o u r e d by i n t e r m e d i a t e t e a c h e r s ? e ) I n w h i c h s u b j e c t a r e a s do t e a c h e r s f e e l t h a t t h e a v a i l a b l e p rog rams a r e most e f f e c t i v e r e l a t i v e t o t r a d i t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s ? The Method of Study / 35 f) Other than the fact that students generally l i k e to use computers and parents applaud the i r introduction, why do intermediate teachers use computers i n the classroom? The telephone interviews were conducted with a selected sample of intermediate teachers representing a broad range of experience. This survey focussed on the f i v e classes of software i d e n t i f i e d as most popular and the seven educational motivations for computer use i d e n t i f i e d as most common i n the preliminary questionnaire. The follow-up survey was intended to determine: a) How do intermediate teachers rank order the educational merit of the f i v e classes of software i d e n t i f i e d as being most popular i n the provincial survey? The software categories were word processing, Logo, math s k i l l s , science s k i l l s , and three simulations from the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium (MECC). b) How do intermediate teachers rank order the seven most popular educational motivations for the use of t h i s software as i d e n t i f i e d i n the provincial survey? The motives referred to the computer's value for u t i l i t y use as a word processor, interest generation, computer l i t e r a c y , d r i l l and practice, enrichment, reinforcement and i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n . The Method of Study / 36 3.2 THE PRELIMINARY PROVINCIAL SURVEY 3.2.1 Development of the Questionnaire The questionnaire was developed i n consultation with Dr. C. J . Anastasiou and revised over a series of meetings. I t was then c r i t i c a l l y reviewed by Dr. H. Ratzlaff and s i g n i f i c a n t l y revised on the basis of his observations. One component of the questionnaire was a checklist of software. This l i s t was developed by extracting a l l the programs relevant to the intermediate grades contained i n The 1985 Educational Software Preview Guide developed by the Educational Software Evaluation Consortium of which PEMC i s a member. This software l i s t was composed i n December of 1984. In i t s i n i t i a l form the questionnaire was given to three teaching colleagues on an interactive basis to test for c l a r i t y . Minor revisions resulted. F i n a l l y , the questionnaire was distributed to 6 intermediate teachers i n two different schools with the i n v i t a t i o n to comment on the time required to complete the instrument and the c l a r i t y of i t s questions. As a result of th i s p i l o t the questionnaire was s i g n i f i c a n t l y shortened by combining two of the major sections and eliminating an open-ended concluding question. The Method of Study / 37 3.2.2 Application of the Questionnaire In December of 1985 the completed questionnaire (Appendix B) along with a covering l e t t e r (Appendix A) and a stamped self-addressed envelope was mailed to 500 intermediate teachers across the province. This sample included a l l 29 intermediate l e v e l members of the Computer Using Educators of B r i t i s h Columbia (CUEBC) and 471 of the 620 members of the Intermediate P r o v i n c i a l S p e c i a l i s t s ' Association (PSA) of the B r i t i s h Columbia Teachers' Federation (BCTF). The 471 members were selected by omitting every fourth name from an alphabetical mailing l i s t . There were 175 responses before the reopening of school i n January and 198 before A p r i l of 1986. These included a l l 29 members of CUEBC and 169 (36%) from the Intermediate PSA. Of these, 167 represented v a l i d data. The remainder were from individuals who were r e t i r e d , unemployed, s t i l l i n t r a i n i n g , not classroom teachers, had moved or were otherwise inappropriate. 3.2.3 Analysis of the Responses The items on the questionnaire were analyzed through the calculation of means, medians and standard deviations. Teacher training was rated according to the following arbitrary scale for the purpose of numerical analysis. The Method of Study / 38 0 - no s p e c i f i c training at a l l 1 - up to 5 days of train i n g i n t o t a l 2 - more than 5 days and up to one semester 3 - more than one semester and up to two semesters 4 - more than two semesters This t r a i n i n g c o e f f i c i e n t was based purely on time and may include any combination of l o c a l in-service a c t i v i t i e s , education courses or computer programming courses. No attempt was made to determine the relevance or value of the training to actual intermediate classroom practice. Only four respondents reported more than two semesters of tra i n i n g . Since both trai n i n g and actual experience i n the classroom are important factors i n developing expertise, an additional c o e f f i c i e n t of expertise which combines the three component measures was calcuated as follows: expertise = (yrs of use + training coeff) * (# of programs used / 5) In essence t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t equates one week of inservice, one year of classroom contact and actual experience with f i v e different programs i n terms of developing expertise. A teacher who had attended two days of l o c a l in-service and used f i v e different programs i n her classroom over the period of one year would have an expertise c o e f f i c i e n t of 2.0. Two years of use involving ten different programs combined with a one semester course would y i e l d a co e f f i c i e n t of 8.0. (See Appendix F for a more complete explanation of the expertise c o e f f i c i e n t . ) Respondents were asked to rate the computer as an in s t r u c t i o n a l tool i n comparison to more t r a d i t i o n a l media using a Likert scale on The Method of Study / 39 which 4 represented rough equality and 7 a s i g n i f i c a n t superiority. The rest of the questionnaire involved checklists and open-format questions. The f i n a l item asked what reasons the respondent had for using computers i n the classroom "other than the fact that students generally l i k e to use computers and parents applaud t h e i r introduction". There was room for three different responses. These were l i s t e d i n f u l l for the f i r s t t h i r t y questionnaires. At that time an abbreviated system for recording the common reasons was adopted and non-standard responses were recorded i n f u l l . The data was summarized by counting the number of occurences of the common responses and l i s t i n g the non-standard responses. This system of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n required interpretation on the part of the author but i n most cases t h i s interpretation seemed clear. The purpose of the question was to ide n t i f y the most common responses and therefore the procedure was deemed to be l o g i c a l l y defensible and r e l i a b l e . A summary of the results was mailed to the 23 persons who had requested such a summary when returning their questionnaire. 3.3 THE TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS 3.3.1 Development of the Interview Schedule The interview protocol was developed, reviewed and revised over a series of meetings with Dr. C. J . Anastasiou. I t was then reviewed by The Method of Study / 40 Dr. H. Ratzlaff and revised according to his recommendations. F i n a l l y , the interview was piloted with three teachers and revised s l i g h t l y to make the explanations by the interviewer more succinct. 3.3.2 Conduct of the Interviews The sixteen most experienced respondents on the preliminary survey were a l l sent a summary of the results (Appendix C) and a l e t t e r (Appendix D) requesting the i r assistance i n providing more information through a brief telephone interview. A similar request (Appendix D) was sent to 18 intermediate teachers from School D i s t r i c t Number 38 (Richmond) and 10 intermediate teachers from School D i s t r i c t Number 45 (West Vancouver) who were not part of the preliminary survey. These teachers were selected by the computer coordinator i n each d i s t r i c t to represent a cross-section of the intermediate s t a f f and a variety of experience. The telephone interview followed a detailed outline (Appendix E) and examined only the f i v e classes of software i d e n t i f i e d i n the preliminary survey as being most popular with intermediate teachers. In order that the correlation between the responses and the experience of the teacher might be examined, those respondents who had not been part of the o r i g i n a l survey were mailed a checklist of software extracted from the o r i g i n a l questionnaire. The number of programs which they reported having used was one factor i n determining their expertise as described i n connection with the o r i g i n a l questionnaire. The Method of Study / 41 Some d i f f i c u l t y was encountered securing return of t h i s checklist and i t was necessary to follow up with a telephone request for i t s return i n several cases. A number of subjects never did return the checklist and were consequently not interviewed or the interview was discarded. The coincidence of the survey with the Stanley Cup hockey championships was a s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n protracting the time required to complete the survey. 3.3.3 Analysis of the Results The results were analyzed to rank order the f i v e applications surveyed and the l i s t e d motivations for the use of the computer i n the intermediate classroom. An attempt was also made to determine whether there was any correlation between the significance of each motivational category to an indiv i d u a l and that individual's background. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the correlation with years of use, the training c o e f f i c i e n t , the number of programs from the checklist reported as having been used, and the expertise c o e f f i c i e n t was examined. In an attempt to account for the importance attached to a particular motivation by i t s being the primary motivation for the use of a respondent's favourite program as opposed to a secondary motivation for a less popular program or the f i n a l motivation for the least favoured program a weighting system was devised. Each motivation was given a weight as follows: The Method of Study / 42 weight = (6 - program rank) * (4 - motivation rank for program) Thus, the primary motivation for the top ranked program out of the fi v e received a weight of 15, whereas the second motivation for the th i r d ranked program received a weight of 6 and the f i n a l motivation for the l a s t ranked program received a weight of 1. (See Appendix F for a more complete explanation of the weighting algorithm.) In addition, a scheme was devised to account for the fact that not a l l respondents had experience with a l l programs. In fact, 23% of the data matrix was l e f t blank due to a lack of experience with a particular program on the part of the respondents. In order that each respondent's motivational perspective should rate equally the frequency of each motivation reported was normalized as follows: normalized frequency actual frequency number of or reporting for = of reporting for * 5 / programs a motivation a motivation reported on The effect of t h i s adjustment i s to give each motivation a weight equal to i t s percentage frequency i n a subject's responses. Thus, i f a teacher had experience with only 3 of the 5 categories and reported " l i t e r a c y " as being a motivation twice i n the survey of those 3 programs then the normalized frequency for that motivation would be 3.3. (See Appendix F for a more complete explanation of the normalization algorithm.) The frequency of occurrence of each motivation was then calculated for each respondent according to a straight frequency, a The Method of Study / 43 normalized straight frequency, a weighted frequency and a normalized weighted frequency. Scattergrams were plotted showing the frequency of each motivation as a function of the experience of the respondent. Frequency was calculated using each of the four techniques just described and experience was calculated as years of use, the training c o e f f i c i e n t , the number of programs from the checklist reported as having been used and the expertise c o e f f i c i e n t . This gives a t o t a l of sixteen different plots for each motivational category. In addition, a correlation c o e f f i c i e n t was calculated for each r e l a t i o n . Both the scattergrams and the calculations were produced from the raw data using a computer program written by the author for that purpose and executed on an Apple l i e microcomputer. The normalized weighted frequency was judged to give the best indication of a respondent's motivation on l o g i c a l grounds and consequently only t h i s measure of frequency i s reported here. However, the four measures of experience were judged to have the potential for revealing different effects and thus a l l four are reported. 44 Chapter 4 THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY 4.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of t h i s study was f i r s t to provide an objective description of the nature and extent of computer use i n intermediate classrooms and second to examine the reasons reported by teachers for the use of computers i n intermediate classrooms. The main results of the study are presented i n t h i s chapter. 4.2 RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE The o v e r a l l response rate was 39.6% of a sample of 500. I t i s reasonable to assume that the respondents are on average more enthusiastic about and involved with computers than those who did not respond so that the results reported may be skewed i n favour of their school situations. Apple computer users represented 63% of the respondents, Commodore 64 users 25% and various other models the remainder. The number of computers available to the class was not reported by 19% of the respondents. Of those reporting, 11% had no access of any kind, 29% had access to a single computer, 16% to two and 11% to three. The results ranged up to nineteen. However, the actual number Results of the Study / 45 of computers available to the average classroom i s d i f f i c u l t to guage since they are often shared between classes or organized into labs which rotate throughout a d i s t r i c t over the course of the year and consequently the numbers reported do not represent permanently resident machines i n a l l cases. The results can s t i l l be seen to indicate that the " t y p i c a l " classroom contains one computer or no computers on a regular basis. Teachers reported no s p e c i f i c training of any kind whatsoever i n 33% of the cases and a further 38% had 5 days or l e s s . There were four respondents with more than two semesters of computer tr a i n i n g of one type or another. The average value was 1.2 and the median value was 1 on the ordinal scale previously described. When asked how long they had been using a computer i n the classroom and how long they had been using i t outside of class the vast majority of teachers reported less personal use than professional use. This probably indicates that their f i r s t introduction to computers came through the classroom. The average of the two indicators of length of computer experience ranged from 0.0 years (14%) to 5.5 years (one person) with an average of 1.8 years and a median of 1.5 years. The number of computer programs actually used at least once i n the classroom ranged from 1 to 43 with a median of 7, an average of 9.8 and a standard deviation of 8.6 among the respondents reporting classroom use of the computer. Results of the Study / 46 Since both t r a i n i n g and actual experience i n the classroom are important factors i n developing expertise, an additional c o e f f i c i e n t of expertise which combines the three component measures of experience was calculated as follows: expertise = (yrs of use + training coeff) * (# of programs used / 5) The results ranged from 0.0 up to 48.0 with an average of 8.4 and a median of 2.4 for 95 individuals. This median value would, for example, be assigned to a teacher with one year of in-class computer experience who also used the school's computer for the occasional b i t of word processing, had attended two or three d i s t r i c t workshops and had used s i x different programs with his class. Respondents were asked to rate the computer as an i n s t r u c t i o n a l tool i n comparison to more t r a d i t i o n a l media using a L i k e r t scale on which 4 represented rough equality and 7 a s i g n i f i c a n t superiority. The most frequently rated areas were language arts and mathematics and the highest rated areas were problem solving and language arts as shown i n Table 1. The most frequently reported t i t l e s from the software checklist are l i s t e d i n Table 2 and the programs which enjoyed the best combination of frequency of use and reporting as a "favourite" program are l i s t e d i n Table 3. The application area i s that within which the respondents included the program most frequently. Results of the Study / 47 Table 1 Rating of Computer-Based Instruction i n Comparison to Traditional Strategies i n Various Curricular Areas + + + + | Instructional Area | respondents | average rating | + + + + Problem solving / Logic 25 5.3 (s = 1.15) Language Arts 46 5.1 (s = 1.11) Mathematics 48 4.6 (s = 1.43) Social Studies 22 4.5 (s = 1.44) Science 22 4.5 (s = 1.44) + + + + Table 3 Teachers' Favourite Software +-+-+ -I + -I +--+ ! -+ - + I - + I -+ Program Name | Application Area Logo Moptown Hotel Problem Solving Bank Street Writer Oregon T r a i l | Language Arts | Social Studies Fay, That Math Woman M i l l i k e n Math Sequences Math Blaster Math A c t i v i t i e s 5 Mathematics - + I -+ Odell Lake | Science Results of the Study / 48 Table 2 Most Frequently Reported Titles From The Software Checklist + + + + | Frequency | Software Title | Category | 64 BANK STREET WRITER WP 46 APPLE LOGO CP, PS 45 THE PRINT SHOP CA.GG 38 APPLE PRESENTS APPLE SI.TU 31 TERRAPIN LOGO CP, PS 29 TYPING TUTOR DP..TU 27 FAY THAT MATH WOMAN DP 24 ELEMENTARY V . l : MATH DP,EG,PS,SI 20 ELEMENTARY V.4: MATH/SCI DP,EG,SI 20 ROCKY'S BOOTS CA.PS.SI 19 ELEMENTARY V.3: SOC ST EG, SI 19 ELEMENTARY V.6: SOC ST EG, SI 19 MASTERTYPE DP.EG.TU 18 ALLIGATOR MIX DP, EG 18 DRAGON MIX DP, EG 17 MOPTOWN HOTEL EG, PS 16 MATH BLASTER DP, EG 14 ALIEN ADDITION DP, EG 14 BASIC NUMBER FACTS DP, EG 13 MATH SEQUENCES DP 12 CROSSWORD MAGIC CA,EG,IM 12 DEMOLITION DIVISION DP, EG 12 GERTRUDE'S PUZZLES EG, PS 12 METEOR MULTIPLICATION DP, EG 11 EZ LOGO CP, PS 11 SHELL GAMES DP.EG.SH 10 APPLE WRITER HE WP 10 CHESS EG 10 FACTORY EG,PS,SI 10 GERTRUDE'S SECRETS EG, PS Note. Software Category Abbreviations: CA Creative Activity PS Problem Solving/Logic CP Computer Programming SH Shell/Mini-authoring System DP Dri l l and Practice SI Simulation EG Educational Game TU Tutorial GG Graphics Generator WP Word Processor IM Instructional Materials Generator Results of the Study / 49 The author would caution that the presence of a program i n Table 2 does not necessarily imply that i t i s of particular i n s t r u c t i o n a l value but only that i t i s widely distributed and f a i r l y well received. This data r e f l e c t s the pattern of use i n classrooms as i t now exists but does not constitute either an evaluation or an endorsement of the software. F i n a l l y , respondents were asked what reasons they had for using computers i n thei r classroom "other than the fact that students generally l i k e to use computers and parents applaud t h e i r introduction". The results were widely varied but several d i s t i n c t categories of response were evident. These are l i s t e d below along with the i r frequency of appearance. 28 valuable as a word processor 22 useful for motivation / fun / generates interest 19 promotes "computer l i t e r a c y " 13 useful for d r i l l and practice 10 useful for enrichment 9 useful for reinforcement of inst r u c t i o n 9 allows student to control pace / allows i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n There were 37 other responses of various types ranging from the fact that computer use "promotes neatness and precision" and "encourages careful reading and following inst r u c t i o n s " to "promotes small group sharing" and "builds s e l f esteem". 4.3 RESULTS OF THE TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS Only Apple computer users were interviewed. Otherwise the teachers were chosen to give a cross-section of the population rather than a representative sample. In order to obtain information from subjects with a r e l a t i v e l y even d i s t r i b u t i o n over a wide range of traini n g and experience the author chose a group whose average expertise was much greater than the population as a whole. The expertise c o e f f i c i e n t calculated as previously explained ranged from 3 Results of the Study / 50 to 78 with a median of 25.2 and an average of 26.5 compared to the average of 8.4 and median of 2.4 i n the preliminary survey. The teachers interviewed reported such a wide variety of hardware situations involving combinations of permanently assigned machines, mobile machines, school labs and rotating d i s t r i c t labs that no numerical summary of the hardware a v a i l a b i l i t y would be meaningful. The sit u a t i o n can only be characterized by two facts: the shortage of adequate hardware and software, and the commendable f l e x i b i l i t y and ingenuity evidenced i n teachers' attempts to make the best possible use of what was available. The average time per student per week i n interaction with a computer either i n d i v i d u a l l y or i n a group of two ranged from less than 15 minutes to more than 4 hours. This includes both in-class and out-of-class use. In many situations the students were making extensive use of time before and after school, at recess and during lunch i n order to obtain access to a computer laboratory. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of times reported i s shown i n Table 4 for those teachers who were prepared to make such an estimate. The effect of rotating labs which are i n the school for a few weeks a year has not been included i n t h i s time estimate. Table 4 Students' Computer Contact Time | time per week (min) | 0-15 | 15-30 | 30-45 | 46-60 | 60 + | | number of reports j 9 | 12 j 9 | 1 | 7 | Results of the Study / 51 The author would caution that t h i s table i s not representative of the provincial s i t u a t i o n . The teachers interviewed are far more experienced than average and i t i s reasonable to assume that their students have far more computer access than the average. The preliminary survey showed that 11% of the respondents had no computer access at a l l and 56% had access to three or less computers for the i r class. With t h i s degree of access i t i s unlikely that an indi v i d u a l student would have more than 15 minutes of computer time. The respondents ranked f i v e classes of computer software i n descending order according to their opinion of i t s educational merit. In cases where a respondent did not have experience with a l l f i v e classes of software the rankings were shifted so that the highest rank was a f i v e . This was done so that a teacher's rankings did not carry undue weight as a result of limited experience. The results are shown i n Table 5. Results of the Study / 52 Table 5 Relative Merit of Selected Software (as ranked by respondents to the survey) | Software Category + + +  | n | average | + + + Word Processing - Bank Street Writer, Magic Window, Magic Slate or M i l l i k e n + | Logo - any version 41 2.59 •+ + + | 33 | 3.09 | •+ 1- + 39 3.56 Math S k i l l s - Math Blaster, M i l l i k e n , Fay That Math Woman, Mathematics A c t i v i t i e s Courseware or Demolition Division Science S k i l l s - Gertrude's Secrets, Moptown Hotel, Moptown Parade, The Factory 18 3.72 Simulations - Odell Lake, Odell Woods, or Oregon T r a i l 36 4.67 Note. The f i v e software categories were i d e n t i f i e d as the most common classroom applications i n the preliminary survey. In the telephone interviews respondents were asked to rank-order these f i v e categories according to thei r "educational merit". The value "n" i s the number of teachers who reported a rating for each software category. After they had ranked the software according to preference the respondents were asked to "imagine that you are writing a brief for your board requesting more time and money for the use of [software name] i n your school". The three educational motivations which they would c i t e i n support of thei r request were chosen i n order of p r i o r i t y from the l i s t i n Table 6. Results of the Study / 53 Table 6 Motivational Categories 1) DRILL: Computers are very good for mechanical d r i l l and practice a c t i v i t i e s . They are patient and non-threatening, and can adjust the l e v e l and pace of the d r i l l to the students demonstrated progress. 2) ENRICHMENT: Computers make extra information and a c t i v i t i e s available to students who have mastered core topics. They can explore new ideas and a c t i v i t i e s while the teacher continues to work with the rest of the class. 3) INDIVIDUALIZATION: The computer can make a wide variety of information and instruction available to students. Moreover, they can select these materials according to their needs and proceed at their own pace. 4) INTEREST: Students l i k e to undertake computer-based tasks and consequently are motivated to participate actively i n the educational a c t i v i t i e s presented by the software. I t arouses interest and holds attention. 5) LITERACY: Computers are an important item of modern technology. Students need to become fam i l i a r enough with their use that they are comfortable with them and can r e a l i s t i c a l l y assess the i r power and the i r l i m i t a t i o n s . 6) REINFORCEMENT: Computer software i s another way to i l l u s t r a t e and reinforce the curriculum. I t offers the opportunity to practice s k i l l s and apply concepts learned through classroom i n s t r u c t i o n . 7) UTILITY: The computer i s a powerful t o o l and students should learn to use i t for the same reason that they learn to use a calculator or a telephone. I t enhances their a b i l i t y to explore, to reason and to communicate. Note. The categories are l i s t e d i n alphabetical order. Results of the Study / 54 The motivations i n Table 6 were read to the respondents i n random order with the inst r u c t i o n to write down the key word for the category. The order of presentation to the respondent was determined from a randomized l i s t generated on an Apple H e computer by the author. The frequency of c i t a t i o n of each motivation i s shown i n Table 7 i n raw form as well as the normalized and normalized weighted forms previously explained. Table 7 Overall Relative Importance of Motivational Categories + + + Motivational | Frequency of Ci t a t i o n | Category + + + + | Raw | Normalized | Weighted and Normalized | + + + + + | Enrichment | 106 | 147.0 | 894.6 j + + + + + | Interest | 107 | 153.7 | 842.6 | + + + + + | Reinforcement | 70 | 92.5 | 537.1 j + + + + + | Literacy | 52 | 79.3 | 530.1 | + + + + + | U t i l i t y | 42 | 62.0 | 523.2 | + + + + + | Individualization | 67 | 91.2 | 460.0 | + + + + + | D r i l l | 23 | 34.3 | 172.5 | + + + + + In interpreting the results shown i n Table 7 i t i s important to remember that they are not the opinions of a representative sample of intermediate teachers. Rather these results represent the opinions of a much more experienced group. (The opinions of a representative sample on t h i s issue were presented i n discussing the preliminary survey.) One must also bear i n mind that the respondents were Results of the Study / 55 r e s t r i c t e d to a selection from the seven motivational categories under consideration. Also, the respondents were required to c i t e a motivation for each of the classes of software with which they had had experience. The data has been weighted to account for the teachers' perceived importance of each program but the previous data may better represent the actual time spent i n pursuing each goal or a c t i v i t y . As a particular example we may note that the computer's importance as a word processor was c l e a r l y the major reason for i t s use i n the classroom according to the preliminary survey but t h i s motivation i s relegated to f i f t h spot i n the present ranking. This i s probably due to the fact that word processing was only one of the f i v e software categories considered and the only one for which " u t i l i t y " would be a common motivation. The r e l a t i v e importance of each motivation for the use of the various software groups may be seen i n Table 8. The results shown represent the frequency of c i t a t i o n weighted to indicate the r e l a t i v e importance of each motivation to an i n d i v i d u a l respondent by assigning a score of 3 for the primary motivation, 2 for the second motivation and 1 for the l a s t motivation of the three requested. Again, these results are not representative of the population as a whole but do indicate the r e l a t i v e importance of the motivational categories i n each software category for t h i s experienced sample of teachers. Results of the Study / 56 Table 8 Relative Importance of Motivational Categories With Reference to Selected Software + + + Motivational | Percentage of Weighted Ci t a t i o n Frequency | text Logo math science MECC editor process process simulation | Enrichment | 12.8 | 32.0 | 21.5 | 38.7 | 22.8 | | Interest | 16.1 | 24.2 | 19.3 | 22.6 | 35.3 | | Reinforcement | 12.0 | 8.2 | 26.6 | 4.7 | 15.8 | ] Literacy { 18.6 { 13.4 | 3.4 j 12.3 | 10.9 | | U t i l i t y | 33.9 | 4.6 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 3.8 | | Individualization { 6.6 | 17.5 | 9.4 | 20.8 | 10.9 | | D r i l l | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.5 | 0.9 | 0.5 | The correlation between the various measures of experience and the normalized weighted frequency of c i t a t i o n i s given i n Table 9. Since the "years of use" and "programs used" data i s measured on a r a t i o scale while the "training l e v e l " i s measured on an ordinal scale, Pearson's product moment correlation c o e f f i c i e n t has been used for the two former sets of data while a rank correlation has been calculated for the l a t t e r data and both combined measures. The "product" measure i s just the experience c o e f f i c i e n t previously defined while the "sum" measure i s a simple sum of the three in d i v i d u a l measures of experience. Results of the Study / 57 Table 9 Correlation Between Measures of Experience and Frequency of Ci t a t i o n of Various Motivational Categories + +. Motivational | Category +-Experience Measure train i n g l e v e l years of use programs | combined measure used + + | sum | product + +-| Enrichment | | Interest | | Reinforcement | | Literacy | | U t i l i t y | | Individualization | | D r i l l | -+ - + I I I I I I I I I -+ +0.06 | +0.21 | +0.02 -0.06 | -0.27 | -0.07 +0.03 | +0.33*| +0.25 -0.34* | -0.38*| -0.23 +0.30* | +0.18 | +0.05 +0.35* | +0.31*| +0.06 -0.10 | -0.38*| -0.06 | +0.10 j +0.11 | -0.03 | -0.03 | +0.37*| +0.37* | -0.37*| -0.35* | +0.20 | +0.16 | +0.19 | +0.18 | -0.16 | -0.15 *2 < 0.05 Note. The normalized weighted frequency of c i t a t i o n has been used. 58 Chapter 5 DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS 5.1 INTRODUCTION The results of t h i s study confirm the conventional wisdom that computer-based education i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s s t i l l i n i t s infancy. There i s great d i v e r s i t y i n the a v a i l a b i l i t y of computer hardware and software across the province and i n the experience and train i n g of teachers. I t i s probably f a i r to assume that the r e l a t i v e scarcity of computer resources i s a s i g n i f i c a n t contributing factor i n retarding the development of expertise i n the teaching force. As the a v a i l a b i l i t y of computer resources increases the experience of the teaching force w i l l automatically increase. However, i t would be naive to assume that broader experience automatically ensures greater sophistication. A closer look at the results indicates that there i s l i t t l e evidence for a developmental pattern associated with increases i n either training or experience. The descriptive results up to and including Table 7 probably speak for themselves. Tables 8 and 9, on the other hand, require some interpretation. Discussion of the Results / 59 5.2 THE EFFECT OF EXPERTISE Detailed interpretation of the results i n Table 8, which shows the r e l a t i v e importance of the various motivational categories for each of the software categories, would be largely speculative. However, the author w i l l venture a couple of observations. F i r s t , we may see that the motivation for using Logo and the various science processes programs i s primarily "enrichment" and " i n t e r e s t " while "reinforcement" i s only weakly c i t e d . In the case of Logo t h i s i s probably due to the fact that the value of the a c t i v i t y i n promoting l o g i c a l analysis and problem solving s k i l l s does not find any convenient c u r r i c u l a r l a b e l and thus teachers may hesistate to claim to be reinforcing i n s t r u c t i o n . In the case of the science processes programs such as Gertrude's Secrets and Moptown Hotel the author would suggest that most intermediate teachers do not associate the processes of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and deduction contained within these programs with science and therefore are without a convenient c u r r i c u l a r label once again. The author can, however, offer no explanation for the strong showing of the " i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n " motivation for t h i s class of software which would seem inconsistent with t h i s l i n e of argument. The correlation between the various measures of experience and the normalized weighted frequency of c i t a t i o n i s given i n Table 9. The most s t r i k i n g feature of the data i s the absence of strong correlations between any of the variables. Some are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n that they exceed the minimum threshold but none are strong. This absence of developmental patterns i s indica t i v e of a Discussion of the Results / 60 situa t i o n where concensus i s weak and leadership i s sporadic. The casual observer of the provincial scene would certainly perceive a rather e c l e c t i c and ad hoc approach to computer-based education and the data r e f l e c t s that lack of strong d i r e c t i o n . There i s , however, a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t positive correlation between "reinforcement" and ove r a l l experience and a si g n i f i c a n t negative correlation between " l i t e r a c y " and ove r a l l experience. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t correlation between o v e r a l l experience and any other motivational category. Among the component measures we find a positive correlation between " u t i l i t y " and "t r a i n i n g " , " i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n " and " t r a i n i n g " , "reinforcement" and "years of use", and " i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n " and "years of use". There i s a negative correlation between " l i t e r a c y " and " t r a i n i n g " , " l i t e r a c y " and "years of use", and " d r i l l " and "years of use". The strongest and most consistent correlation i s between " l i t e r a c y " and the various measures of experience. The importance attached to the promotion of computer l i t e r a c y decreases with both train i n g and length of use. This developmental pattern can probably be attributed largely to the fact that computer l i t e r a c y i s a poorly defined concept. There i s not even a commonly accepted d e f i n i t i o n of the term l e t alone empirical evidence that incidental contact with computer-based a c t i v i t i e s w i l l promote such l i t e r a c y . I t i s essentia l l y an unsubstantiated a r t i c l e of f a i t h among members of the educational community that students w i l l gain some meaningful and empowering knowledge of computer technology and i t s impact on their Discussion of the Results / 61 l i v e s simply by virtue of exposure to computers. None of the programs involved i n t h i s survey has the promotion of computer l i t e r a c y as a primary goal. Consequently, the be l i e f that any one of them promotes computer l i t e r a c y must come from the teacher. The evidence here i s that as they acquire tra i n i n g or as the length of their experience increases teachers tend to devalue t h i s motivation. This may be because they move on from t h i s rather vague global goal to more sp e c i f i c objectives i n the i r use of computers. This p o s s i b i l i t y i s substantiated by the presence of s i g n i f i c a n t positive correlations between several other goals and the various measures of experience. I t would seem that their t r a i n i n g shows teachers the potential of the computer for i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g i n s t r u c t i o n and i t s importance as a tool i n the writing process. (Analysis of the data shows that 76% of the times " u t i l i t y " was cited i t was i n connection with word processing.) As the length of the i r exposure to computer-based education increases teachers show a heightened appreciation of the use of the computer for i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g instruction and for reinforcing the curriculum. As the potential of the computer for these more s p e c i f i c educational goals increases the importance of promoting the vague and more global goal of computer l i t e r a c y decreases. There i s also a decreased importance attached to the use of the computer for d r i l l and practice. This s h i f t i n emphasis i s probably also due to a dawning recognition of other areas of potential application. Discussion of the Results / 62 One f i n a l pattern of interest i n the data i s the absence of correlation between some motivational categories and particular measures of experience where a correlation does exist with another measure of experience. For example, teachers tend to attach increased significance to the a b i l i t y of the computer to provide reinforcing educational experiences i n general and less to d r i l l and practice a c t i v i t i e s i n particular as the length of the i r exposure increases. However, there i s no such correlation with t r a i n i n g . Are the various courses and workshops available to teachers f a i l i n g to a s s i s t them i n discovering the s p e c i f i c curricular applications of computers? I t i s also s t r i k i n g to note the complete absence of any correlation between the number of programs used and the various motivations. The data shows that teachers' perspectives on computer-based education do i n fact change through training and over time but they do not change purely as a result of increased exposure. This i s probably due to the fact that the various educational motivations are closely related to a teacher's classroom behaviours and b e l i e f s . I t takes time to reconceptualize and to s h i f t either behaviour or b e l i e f s . A course of instruction may be useful i n i n i t i a t i n g or accelerating such a change but i t w i l l s t i l l take time to accomplish. Interpretation of the correlation data should be mitigated by recognition of the p o s s i b i l i t y that the subjects may have been responding i n the manner that they f e l t they should respond rather than i n a purely personal manner. For instance, more importance was attached to the goal of enrichment than to any other but there was no Discussion of the Results / 63 developmental pattern associated with i t . Does t h i s indicate that the term represents a b i t of educational apple pie which teachers f e e l bound to c i t e as an important motivation whether or not they t r u l y use the computer for t h i s purpose? The necessity to attach a single descriptive key word to each motivational category i n order to conduct the telephone interview may possibly have introduced such a confounding factor into the data. Such a factor should, however, apply uniformly across the spectrum of experience and should not seriously affect any trends which exist i n the data. 64 Chapter 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 CONCLUSIONS The following general conclusions concerning the nature and extent of computer use i n intermediate classrooms i n B r i t i s h Columbia are drawn from the data: a) There i s a great d i v e r s i t y i n the a v a i l a b i l i t y of computer hardware and software and i n the expertise of teachers across the province. The number of computers available to a class ranged from 0 to 19 and the number of programs on a standard l i s t reported as having been used ranged from 0 to 43. b) There i s great d i v e r s i t y i n the experience and training of teachers. Classroom experience varied from none to more than 6 years and a variety of educational backgrounds were reported ranging from no training at a l l up to an undergraduate degree i n Computer Science. c) In general, computer access i n intermediate classrooms i s severely l i m i t e d . Among the respondents (40% of the sample), 11% reported no access at a l l , 29% reported access to a single computer, 16% reported access to two and 11% reported access to three computers. Conclusions / 65 d) In general, intermediate teachers have minimal training i n the use of computers. Among the respondents, 33% reported no s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g at a l l , and 38% reported less than f i v e days of in-service t r a i n i n g . e) In general, intermediate teachers have had only brief experience i n using computers. The median value for the length of the respondents' experience with the computer was 1.5 years. The following conclusions concerning the particular types of computer use i n intermediate classrooms i n B r i t i s h Columbia are drawn from the data: f) The most widely used programs on the standard software l i s t were Bank Street Writer, Logo (various versions), typing trai n i n g programs, mathematics programs and various materials from the Minnessota Educational Computing Consortium (MECC). g) The respondents ranked computer-based strategies superior to t r a d i t i o n a l techniques i n teaching language arts and problem solving. The following conclusions concerning the factors which motivate intermediate teachers i n B r i t i s h Columbia to apply computer-based in s t r u c t i o n a l strategies are drawn from the data: h) The educational motivations most commonly reported by the respondents for using the computer i n the classroom f e l l into Conclusions / 66 seven major categories. These may be characterized, i n descending order of frequency of c i t a t i o n , by the following key words: u t i l i t y , i n t e r e s t , l i t e r a c y , d r i l l , enrichment, reinforcement and i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n . (These motivations are defined more f u l l y i n Appendix E.) The educational motivations cited by the respondents show l i t t l e evidence of any clear developmental pattern associated with an increase i n experience. The importance attached to the seven motivations i d e n t i f i e d i s only dependent on ov e r a l l expertise i n two cases: l i t e r a c y and reinforcement. The correlation i n these two cases i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t but not strong. The correlations which do exi s t indicate that with increased tr a i n i n g and increased length of time using computer-based in s t r u c t i o n a l strategies teachers tend to devalue the objective of promoting computer l i t e r a c y and i n f l a t e the objectives of reinforcing t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n , i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g i n s t r u c t i o n and using the computer as a productivity tool for text e d i t i n g . An increase i n the number of programs which a teacher uses does not seem to have any effect i n modifying the importance attached to the seven educational motivations examined. Conclusions / 67 6.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE CONCLUSIONS 6.2.1 Selection of the Sample The return rate, although t y p i c a l of mail questionnaires, was not high. This creates the p o s s i b i l i t y that the data i s not representative of the population as a whole. The subjects were randomly selected from members of two PSAs but membership i n these organizations represents a selection c r i t e r i o n i n i t s e l f . Moreover, since the respondents have demonstrated a greater than average interest i n the topic of educational computer use through the very act of responding i t i s l i k e l y that the data derived from the questionnaire i s somewhat skewed by t h i s de facto selection c r i t e r i o n . These two factors may tend to create a somewhat i n f l a t e d impression of the degree of a c t i v i t y and interest i n the educational use of computers. 6.2.2 Extrapolation of the Results Since the selection process may be flawed and the data displays great v a r i a b i l i t y , the results of the questionnaire may not be generalizable to the province as a whole. In p a r t i c u l a r , any numerical extrapolation to a larger population should be done with caution. Moreover, the entire f i e l d of edcuational computing i s i n a state of great f l u x . The amount of computer hardware available to teachers i s probably increasing rapidly, p a r t i c u l a r l y with the recent awards Conclusions / 68 from the Fund for Excellence i n Education. This complicates the process of generalizing any of the s p e c i f i c numeric data. In addition, the quality of the available software i s changing. Introduction of a single package of high technical quality and educational merit could create a s i g n i f i c a n t change i n the pattern of use quite quickly. A previous example of such a s h i f t would be the introduction of Logo. The very youth and vigour of educational computer use makes i t necessary to extrapolate into the future with caution. 6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The results of t h i s study to examine the nature and extent of computer use i n intermediate classrooms i n B r i t i s h Columbia suggest that the following further studies may be of value. a) Replicate the mail questionnaire or otherwise determine the rate of growth i n the use of computers i n education. b) Conduct a survey of the courses and workshops offered by the various professional and educational i n s t i t u t i o n s i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia to determine whether the content i s designed to promote development of the participant's appreciation of and proficiency i n the educational use of computers. The results of the present study would tend to indicate that the training being received by teachers i s having a minimal effect on their perspective. Conclusions / 69 c) Conduct a more detailed study of the beliefs held by teachers concerning the motivations for and consequences of educational computer use with specific reference to a particular application such as text editing or instruction in Logo to determine the degree to which they are focussing on a global concern for computer literacy or more specific curricular objectives. The study should specifically attempt to identify any developmental pattern which may exist. 70 REFERENCE LIST Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik C. C. Effectiveness of Computer-Based Education i n Secondary Schools. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, Summer 1985, 12_(3), 59-68. B e l l , M. E. The Role of Instructional Theories i n the Evaluation of Microcomputer Courseware. Educational Technology, March 1985, 25(3), 36-40. Bourque, J . H., & Ramage, K. The Hidden Costs of Computer Innovation. Educational Technology, November 1984, 24(11), 36-39. Bright, G. W. Explaining the Efficiency of Computer Assisted Instruction. Association for Educational Data Systems Journal, 1983, 16(3), 144-152. Carmichael, H. W., Burnett, J. D., Higginson, W. C, Moore, B. G., & Pol l a r d , P. J. Computers, Children and Classrooms: A M u l t i s i t e  Evaluation of the Creative Use of Microcomputers by Elementary  School Children. Ontario: Ministry of Education, 1985. Chomsky, C. Finding the Best Language Arts Software. Classroom  Computer Learning, January 1984, 4_(6), 61-63. C i c c h e l l i , T., Baecher, R. Introducing Microcomputers into the Classroom: A Study of Teacher's Concerns. Journal of Educational  Computing Research, 1985, 1(1), 55-65. Cohen, V. B. C r i t e r i a for the Evaluation of Microcomputer Courseware. Educational Technology, January 1983, 23(1), 9-14. C r i s w e l l , E. L., & Swezey, R. W. Behavioural Learning Theory-Based Computer Courseware Evaluation. Educational Technology, November 1984, 24(11), 43-46. DeKoven, B. Technolust and What To Do About I t . Popular Computing, Mid-October 1984, 3(13), 61-64. Evaluator's Guide for Microcomputer-Based Instructional Packages ( o r i g i n a l draft developed by Northwest Regioanl Educational Laboratory's Computer Technology Program with the assistance of the Research on Evaluation Program of NWREL). B r i t i s h Columbia: Pro v i n c i a l Educational Media Centre, 1983. Flodin, N. B.C. Public Schools Microcomputer In-Service Survey. B r i t i s h Columbia: B r i t i s h Columbia Teachers' Federation, October 1984. Reference L i s t / 71 F u t r e l l , M., & Geisert, P. Selecting Computer Software - We Take I t Seriously. The Computing Teacher, 1985, 12(2), 63-64. Gagne, R. M. Developments i n Learning Psychology: Implications for Instructional Design; and Effects of Computer Technology on Instructional Design and Development. An Interview. Educational  Technology, 1982, 22(6), 11-15. Gagne, R. M., Wager, W., & Rojas, A. Planning and Authoring Computer-Assisted Instructional Lessons. Educational Technology, 1981, Vol. 21, pp. 17-26. G i l l i s , L. A Formative Evaluation Plan for Exemplary Software. Ontario Educational Software Service (distributed by TVOntario), 1984. Gorth, W. P., & Nassif, P. M. A Comparison of Microcomputer-Based, Computer-Managed Instruction (CMI) Software. Educational Technology,, January 1984, 24(1), 28-32. H a l l , G. E., & Loucks, S. F. et a l . Levels of Use of the Innovation: A Framework for Analyzing Innovation Adoption. Journal of Teacher  Education, 1975, 26(1), 52-56. H a l l , G. E., & Loucks, S. F. A Developmental Model for Determining whether the Treatment i s Actually Implemented. American  Educational Research Journal, 1977, 14.(3), 263-276. Harrison, C. C r i t e r i a for Evaluating Microcomputer Software for Reading Development: Observations Based on Three B r i t i s h Case Studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1985, 1_(2), 221-234. Huberman, M. Microanalysis of Innovation Implementation at the School  Level, unpublished. Jay, T. B. The Cognitive Approach to Computer Courseware Design and Evaluation. Educational Technology, January 1983, 23(1), 22-25. Jones, R. S. D., Porter, D., & Rubis, R. A Survey of Microcomputers  i n B.C. Schools. Burnaby: Simon Fraser University, 1983. Kearsley, G. Microcomputer Software: Design and Development P r i n c i p l e s . Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1985, 1_(2), 209-220. Klopfer, L. E., et a l . Microcomputer Software Evaluation Instrument Version 1983. Science Teacher, January 1984, 51_(1), 95-98. Reference L i s t / 72 Larsen, R. E. What Communication Theories Can Teach the Designer of Computer-Based Training. Educational Technology, July 1985, 25(7), 16-19. — Lathrop, A. Microcomputer Software for Instructional Use: Where Are the C r i t i c a l Reviews? The Computing Teacher, 1982, 9(6), 22-26. Let's Talk About Schools: a. discussion paper on B r i t i s h Columbia  schools. B r i t i s h Columbia: Ministry of Education, 1985. Levin, H. M., & Meister G. Is CAI Cost-Effective? Phi Delta Kappan, June 1986, 67(10), 745-749. Lewin, A. W. Down With Green Lambs: Creating Quality Software for Children. Theory Into Practice, F a l l 1983, 22(24), 272-280. L o r t i e , D. School: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975. McLaughlin, M., & Marsh D. Staff Development and School Change. Teachers College Record, 1978, 80(1), 69-94. M e r r i l l , P. F., Salisbury, D. Research on D r i l l and Practice Strategies. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 1984, 11(1), 19-21. Ohles, J . F. The Microcomputer: Don't Love I t to Death. Technological Horizons i n Education Journal, August 1985, 13(1), 49-53. : ~~ Reid, W. A. The Changing Curriculum: Theories and Practice. In Reid & Walker (Eds.), Case Studies i n Curriculum Change, Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975, pp. 240-259. Rothe, J . P. C r i t i c a l Evaluation of Educational Software from a Social Perspective: Uncovering Some Hidden Assumptions. Educational Technology, September 1983, 23(9), 9-14. Schug, M. C , & Kepner, H. S. J r . Choosing Computer Simulations i n Social Studies. Social Studies, September-October 1984, 75(5), 211-215. Senn, P. R. Six Checklists to Prepare Your Classroom for Technology. Social Education, May 1983, 47(5), 317-320. Shostak, R., & Golub, L. S. A Guide to Producing Educational Software. The Computing Teacher, March 1984, 11(7), 26-27. Signer, B. How do Teacher and Student Evaluation of CAI Software Compare? The Computing Teacher, March 1983, 11_(7), 34-36. Reference L i s t / 73 Simpson, N. A Research Study of School Computer Use. Educational  Computer, 1983, 11(3), pp. 15-16; 37. S t e f f i n , S. A. A Suggested Model for Establishing the V a l i d i t y of Computer-Assisted Instruction Materials. Educational Technology, January 1983, 23(1), 20-22. Taylor, R. P. The Computer i n the School; Tutor, Tool, Tutee. Teachers College Press, 1980. TECHnically Speaking ( E d i t o r i a l Column). Educational Technology, June 1984, 24(6), 6. Tetenbaum, T. J . , & Mulkeen, T. A. LOGO and the Teaching of Problem Solving: A C a l l for a Moratorium. Educational Technology, November 1984, 24(11), 16-19. Thomas, D. A High School Evaluates Software (with an Evaluation Form). Educational Technology, September 1984, 24(9), 21-24. Van Dijk, T. A. M., Gastkemper, F., & Romeijn, W. Motives for CAI i n Post-Secondary Education. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 1985, 12(1), 8-11. Vargas, J . S. Instructional Design Flaws i n Computer-Assisted Instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, June 1986, 67(10), 738-744. Wager, W. Design considerations for i n s t r u c t i o n a l computing programs. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 1982, Vol. 10, pp. 261-269. Wallace, J . , & Rose, R. M. A Hard Look at Software: What to Examine and Evaluate (with an Evaluation Form). Educational Technology, October 1984, 24(10), 35-39. APPENDIX A COVERING LETTER FOR THE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE Appendix A / 75 December 1985 Rej_ INTERMEDIATE COMPUTER USE QUESTIONNAIRE Dear Colleague, The enclosed questionnaire i s part of my Master's thesis work at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The purpose of t h i s questionnaire i s to determine the nature and extent of computer use i n intermediate classrooms throughout B r i t i s h Columbia. I t i s intended for both experienced and inexperienced computer users. In fact, i f you have no access to computers or simply have not had the time to use whatever resources may be available t h i s fact i n i t s e l f constitutes useful information. I am interested i n what, i f anything, i s happening i n a l l classrooms across the province but have chosen you as part of a sampling of these teachers. Please dp not f a i l to respond just because you f e e l that you are not very  experienced. The questionnaire has been f i e l d - t e s t e d and w i l l take you less than 15 minutes to complete. Please try to find a l i t t l e time i n your busy schedule to a s s i s t me i n th i s study. A stamped self-addressed envelope i s enclosed for your convenience i n returning the completed questionnaire. If you are interested i n receiving a summary of the res u l t s , including a l i s t of the most popular software, please indicate t h i s by enclosing your own stamped self-addressed envelope with your return. Thank you for your valuable assistance. J. A. B. Beairsto APPENDIX B THE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE Appendix B / 77 iniEBillEDtflTE COMPUTER USE A REVIEW OF THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF COMPUTER USE IN INTERMEDIATE CLASSROOMS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA DECEMBER 1985 A) BACKGROUND INFORMATION +Qptional completion • {School Dis t r i c t No: School name: ITeacher's name (please print): + ' GradeCs) you teach: Do you use Apple computers? yes: no: If you do not use Apples, what other make do you use? Number of computers available to your class: II + : He: l i e : What i s the usual size of your class when you are using the computers? How are the computers in your school distributed? in separate classrooms: in a designated "lab": mobile: If the preceding questions cannot be answered unambiguously please explain the special circumstances in your school below. How long have you been using computers with students in the classroom? 1 yr: 2 yr: 3 yr: 4 yr: 5 yr: £ yr +: How long have you been using computers yourself for non-instructional purposes such as private or professional word processing? 1 yr: 2 yr: 3 yr: 4 yr: 5 yr: 6 yr +: Are you a member of the Computer Using Educators of B r i t i s h Columbia CCUEBC), which i s the BCTF PSA for computer users? yes: no: Have you had any specific training in the use of computers? yes no If yes, please explain. . If you do not use Apple computers or i f you do not teach students in grades 4, 5, 6 or 7 then the rest of the questionnaire need not be completed. However, I would appreciate your returning even this much. Thankyou. Appendix B / 78 B) SOFTWARE YOU HAVE USED AT LEAST ONCE Please indicate the programs you have used at least once in the classroom by placing a tick in the appropriate box. TITLE PUBLISHER TITLE PUBLISHER ADDITION MAGICIAN TLC — ! DISCOVERY LAB MECC ADVENTUREWRITER CODEURITER DISCRIH ATRB & RULES SUNBURST ALIEN ADDITION DLN ! DIVIDE FRACTIONS CBS ALLIGATOR ALLEY DLH DIVISION SKILLS MILT BRAD ALLIGATOR HIX DLN ! DRAGON HIX DLM ALPHABETIC KEYBOARDIN6 SW PUB DRAGON'S KEEP SIERRA ALPHABETIZE JMH I EASY GRAPH GROLIER ANALOGIES PRO DESI6N : ELEM MATH CLSRH LANG SYSTEM STER SWIFT APPLE LOGO APPLE 1 ELEMENTARY LIB MEDIA SKL COMBASE APPLE LOGO II APPLE' ELEMENTARY V.l: MATH MECC APPLE PRESENTS APPLE APPLE ' ELEMENTARY V.3: SOC ST MECC APPLE SPRITE L060 LCSI : ELEMENTARY V.4: HATH/SCI MECC APPLE SUPER PILOT APPLE ! ELEMENTARY V.6: SOC ST MECC APPLE WRITER HE APPLE ENERGY SEARCH MCGRAW HIL ARCHON ELECTR ART ' EXPEDITIONS MECC ARISTOTLE'S APPLE STONEWARE EXPLORER METROS SUNBURST ARITH-HA6IC QED , EXPLORING LOGO SUNBURST ARITHHETIC-TAC-TOE EDUTEK : EZ LOGO HECC BANK STREET SPELLER SCHOLASTIC FACT AND FICTION TOOLKIT SCHOLASTIC BANK STREET WRITER SCHOLASTIC FACTORY SUNBURST BASIC ARITHMETIC HECC FANTASY LAND LEARN WELL BASIC NUMBER FACTS CNTRL DATA FAY THAT HATH WOMAN DIDATECH BATTLING BUGS/CONCENTRATN MILLIKEN FRACTIONS PRACTICE CNTRL DATA BLAZING THE BASIC TRAIL SUNBURST FRENZY/FLIP FLOP MILLIKEN BUMBLE GAMES TLC FRIENDLY COMPUTER MECC BUMBLE PLOT TLC FRIENDLY FILER GROLIER CAUSE & EFFECT LEARN WELL FUN HOUSE NAZE SUNBURST COIN LEVEL A SRA FUNDAMENTAL MATH II RANDOM CDIM LEVEL B SRA GALAXY HATH FACTS SAME RANDOM CDIH LEVEL C SRA i GENETICS TIES CHALLENGE MATH SUNBURST GEOLOGY SEARCH MCGRAW HIL CHARACTRSTCS OF A SCNTST CYGNUS : GEOMETRIC CONCEPTS: AREA JOSTENS CHECKERS QDESTA GEOMETRIC CONCEPTS: PERIMETER JOSTENS CHESS 0DE5TA ; GERTRUDE'S PUZZLES TLC CODE QUEST SUNBURST GERTRUDE'S SECRETS TLC COMMUNITY SEARCH MCGRAW HIL ! GLOBAL PROGRAM LINE EDTR BEAGLE BRO COMP LIT ADV OF LOL DRA6N SVE GOLF CLASSIC/COHPUBAR MILLIKEN COMP-U-SOLVE ED'L ACTV ! GRAND PRIX RANDOM COMPREHENSION POWER MILLIKEN GREAT CREATOR, THE GESSLER COMPU-POEM SCURIP : GULP!!ARROW GRAPHICS MILLIKEN COMPUTER GENERATD MTH V.2 MECC HEY, TAXI! MILT BRAD CONPUTER LIT INST PR6M ED'L ACTV ! HIGH RISE MICRO LAB CREATIVE PLAY LAWR HALL HINKY PINKY 22ND AVE CROSSWORD MAGIC MINDSCAPE ! HOMEWORD SIERRA CRYPTO CUBE DESIGNWARE HOT DOG STAND SUNBURST CUT AND PASTE ELECTR ART ; IDEA INVASION DLM DARK CRYSTAL SIERRA IN SEARCH OF MOST AMAZING SPINNAKER DECIMAL SKILLS MILT BRAD ! INCREDIBLE LABORATORY SUNBURST DELTA DRAWING MECC INTERPRETING GRAPHS CONDUIT DEMOLITION DIVISION DLM : INTRO TO MICRO COMPUTERS MCGRAW HIL Appendix B / 79 Please indicate the programs you have used at least once in the classroom by placing a tick in the appropriate box. TITLE PUBLISHER TITLE PUBLISHER INTRO TO NICROCHP KEYBD ED AUDIO - PUZZLES AND POSTERS MECC ISLE OF MEN SROLIER QUILL DC HEATH JISSAU ISL SOFTWR READ 4 SOLVE MATH PROBS ED'L ACTV JINX/WELTER ISL SOFTMR ROCKY'S BOOTS TLC KAREL SIMULATOR CYBERTRON SAR60N III HAYDEN KING'S RULE SUNBURST SCHOOL UTILITIES V.2 MECC LEARNING ABOUT NUMBERS C 4 C SOFT SCIENCE V.3 MECC LIBRARY USAGE SKILLS JHC SENSIBLE SPELLER IV SENSIBLE LONG DIVISION NIC URKSHP SHELL GAMES APPLE H-SS-NG L-NKS, ENGLISH ED SUNBURST SKILLS MAKER LIB SOFT H-SS-NG L-NKS, YG PPLS LT SUNBURST SNOOPER TROOPS 11 SPINNAKER MAGIC SLATE SUNBURST SNOOPER TROOPS 12 SPINNAKER MANAGING LIFESTYLES SUNBURST SONGWRITER SCARB0R0U6 MASTER MATCH ADV ID , SPECIAL NEEDS V. 1 MECC MASTER MATCH (DLH) DLH , SPOTLIGHT APPLE HASTERTYPE SCARABORQU ; SQUARE PAIRS SCHOLASTIC HATH ACTIVITIES 4 HOUGHTON STORY TREE SCHOLASTIC HATH ACTIVITIES 5 HOUGHTON SURVIVAL MATH SUNBURST HATH ACTIVITIES 6 HOUGHTON TEASERS BY TOBBS SUNBURST MATH ACTIVITIES 7 HOUGHTON TEMPERATURE LAB HAYDEN MATH BASEBALL ED'L ACTV . TERRAPIN LOGO TERRAPIN MATH BLASTER DAVIDSON THAT'S MY STORY LEARN WELL HATH CONCEPTS I k II HARTLEY THREE R'S OF HCROCHPTNG MECC MATH SEQUENCES NILLIKEN TIC TAC SHOU ADV ID MATHUARE ESSERTIER TRAFFIC JAM ISL SOFTUA MEDALISTS: BLACK AMERICANS HARTLEY TROLL'S TALE SIERRA MEDALISTS: CONTINENTS HARTLEY . TURTLE TRACKS SCHOLASTIC MEDALISTS: WOMEN IN HISTORY HARTLEY TUTORIAL COMPRj MN ID RANDOM MEMORY CASTLE SUNBURST TYPE ATTACK SIRIUS MEMORY: THE FIRST STEP SUNBURST TYPING TUTOR MICROSOFT METEOR MISSION DLH VOYAGE OF NIHI:HPS4NV6TN HOLT, R4U METEOR MULTIPLICATION DLH WHATSIT CORPORATION SUNBURST METRIC 4 PROBLEM SOLVING NECC UHOLE NUMBERS: PRACTICE CNTRL DATA NILLIKEN WORD PROCESSOR NILLIKEN UIZ WORKS DLM MINUS MISSION DLH UIZARD OF UORDS ADV ID MIX AND MATCH APPLE UORD ATTACK DAVIDSON MOPTOHN HOTEL TLC UORD MAN DLM MOPTOUN PARADE TLC UORD SPINNER TLC HOUSE PAINT APPLE WRITE CHOICE POSER UA6N MULTIPLYING FRACTIONS NIC URKSHP URITE STUFF HARPER ROU MUSIC THEORY NECC ZORK I 4 II INFOCOM NUMBER WORDS-LEVEL 18.2 HARTLEY OH, DEER! NECC PIC.BUILDER MEEK READ PINBALL CONSTRUCTION SET ELECTR ART POND, THE SUNBURST PRINT SHOP, THE BRODERBUND PROFESSIONAL SIGN MAKER SUNBURST PUZZLE TANKS SUNBURST PUZZLER. THE SUNBURST Appendix B / 80 C? YOUR FAVOURITE SOFTWARE Professional use IN CLASS Rate the value of the computer software which you have actually used in  the classroom in each of the following application areas by comparing i t to more traditional instructional techniques. If you have not used any software in an application area simply skip over i t . +Example of how to complete the table much inferior roughly equal much superior 1) A r t i f i c i a l intelligence 1 2 3 4 5 (T) 7 c i r c l e number of programs actually useds 0 1 2 4 5 6 favourite(s): 1) much inferior r ough1y equal 1) Art 1 2 3 4 c i r c l e number of programs actually used: 0 1 favourite(s): 1) 2) much super i or much inferior roughly equal 2) French 1 2 3 4 c i r c l e number of programs actually used: 0 1 favourite(s): 1) 2) much super i or 6 4 much inferior roughly equal 3) Language Arts 1 2 3 4 c i r c l e number of programs actually used: 0 1 favour i t e ( s ) : 1) 2) much super i or 6 4 much inferior r ough1y equal 4) Mathematics 1 2 3 4 c i r c l e number of programs actually used: 0 1 favourite(s): 1) 2) much superior b 4 Appendix B / 81 5) much inferior Music 1 2 c i r c l e number of programs actually favourite(s): 1) used: roughly equal 4 o i 2) 6 4 muc h super i or 7 5 6 much inferior roughly equal 6) Physical Education 1 2 3 4 c i r c l e number of programs actually used: 0 1 favourite(s): 1) & 4 much superior 7 5 6 7) much inferior Problem Solving/Logic... 1 2 c i r c l e number of programs actually favourite(s): 1) roughly equal used: 0 1 2) much inferior 3) Science 1 2 3 c i r c l e number of programs actually used: favourite(s): 1) roughly equal 4 0 1 2 2) muc h superior much superior much inferior 9) Social Studies 1 2 G c i r c l e number of programs actually used: f avour i t e Cs): 1) roughly equal 4 o i ; 2) muc h superior 6 4 If there are any other items of software which you have found particularly useful in the classroom please l i s t them below. 1) name: application: :) name: application: Appendix B / 82 P r o f e s s i o n a l use OUTSIDE OF CLASS P l e a s e l i s t one or two of your f a v o u r i t e programs for each of the f o l l o w i n g n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l a p p l i c a t i o n s . Do not f ee l o b l i g a t e d to f i l l i n a l l the boxes. Only l i s t programs you have p e r s o n a l l y used and found to be worthwhi le . 1) word p r o c e s s i n g (eg. p repar ing handouts) program names + + r i ) i + • + 12) ! + + + 2) mark book 11) H 3) i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s g e n e r a t i o n . . . (eg. math d r i l l s , c rosswords , t e s t s ) 1) 12) If there are any other i tems of sof tware which you have found p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l o u t s i d e of c l a s s p l e a s e l i s t them below. 1) name: a p p l i c a t i o n : 2) name: a p p l i c a t i o n : 3) name: a p p l i c a t i o n : Appendix B / 83 D) STYLES OF USE Rank the following alternative styles of computer use in descending order of educational value in your actual experience by placing one of the digits from 1 to 4 in the space provided opposite each description. REGULAR INSTRUCTION: the use of the computer to communicate knowledge or concepts to students as an alternative to other methods of instruction. I m p l i e s us* w i t h a l l s t u d e n t s . SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION: the use of the computer to enhance or supplement regular classroom instruction. I m p l i e s u s* wit h a l l atudentm. REMEDIATION: the use of the computer to provide extra help as necessary for students who require assistance beyond the bounds of regular instruction. I m p l i e s o c c a s i o n a l use wi t h some s t u d e n t s o n l y , not supplemental instruction for a l l . ENRICHMENT: the use of the computer to provide additional learning., experiences for students beyond the bounds of regular instruction. I m p l i e s o c c a s i o n a l us* wi t h some students o n l y , not supplemental instruction for a l l . 5? REASONS FOR U8IN9 THE COMPUTER IN THE CLASSROOM Other than the fact that students generally like to use computers and parents  applaud their introduction, why do you use computers in your classroom. What educational advantages do they offer? Please l i s t the three most important ones with a brief explanation i f necessary. 1) APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS FOR RESPONDENTS Appendix C / 85 INTERMEDIATE COMPUTER USE: a review of the nature and extent of computer use i n Intermediate classrooms i n B r i t i s h Columbia with summary conclusions. In order to define the nature and extent of computer use i n Intermediate classrooms i n B r i t i s h Columbia as a part of his Masters' thesis work the author recently undertook a province-wide mail survey. In December 1985 a seven-page questionnaire was sent to 471 randomly selected members of the 620 strong Intermediate PSA of the BCTF and a l l 29 members of the Computer Using Educators PSA with an intermediate-level inte r e s t . There were 198 responses. Of these, 167 were v a l i d and 31 were i n v a l i d because the addressee was not an intermediate teacher, r e t i r e d , s t i l l at University, unemployed, a non-teaching supervisor or had moved. The responses came from across the province and represented grade levels 4 through 7 equally. Results of the Questionnaire Apple computer users represented 63% of the respondents, Commodore 64 users 25% and various other models the remainder. The number of computers available to the class was not reported by 19% of the respondents. Of those reporting, 11% had no access of any kind, 29% had access to a single computer, 16% to two and 11% to three. The results ranged up to nineteen. However, the actual number of computers available to the average classroom i s d i f f i c u l t to guage since they are often shared between classes or organized into labs which rotate throughout a d i s t r i c t over the course of the year and consequently the numbers reported do not represent permanently resident machines i n a l l cases. The results can s t i l l be seen to indicate that the " t y p i c a l " classroom contains one computer or no computers on a regular basis. Teachers were asked both how long they had been using a computer i n the classroom and how long they had been using i t outside of class. The vast majority indicated less personal use than professional use which probably indicates that the i r f i r s t introduction to computers came through the classroom. The average of the two indicators of length of computer experience ranged from 0.0 years (14%) to 5.5 years (one person) with an average of 1.8 years and a median of 1.5 years. Teacher trai n i n g was analyzed using an arbitrary c o e f f i c i e n t assigned as follows: 0 - no s p e c i f i c training at a l l 1 - up to 5 days of trai n i n g i n t o t a l 2 - more than 5 days and up to one semester 3 - more than one semester and up to two semesters 4 - more than two semesters Appendix C / 86 This training c o e f f i c i e n t was based purely on time and may include any combination of l o c a l in-service a c t i v i t i e s , education courses or computer programming courses. No attempt was made to determine the relevance or value of the trai n i n g to actual intermediate classroom use. The results showed that 33% of the respondents had no s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g of any kind whatsoever and a further 38% had 5 days or less. There were four respondents with more than two semesters of computer training of one type or another. The average value was 1.2 and the median was 1. Since both training and actual experience i n the classroom are important factors i n developing expertise, an additional c o e f f i c i e n t of expertise was calculated as follows: expertise = (yrs of use + trai n i n g coeff) * (# of programs used) / 5 In essence t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t equates one week of inservice, one year of classroom contact and actual experience with f i v e different programs i n terms of developing expertise. A teacher who had attended two non-instructional days concerning computers and used f i v e different programs i n her classroom over the period of one year would have an expertise c o e f f i c i e n t of 2.0. Two years of use involving eight different programs combined with a one semester course would y i e l d a coe f f i c i e n t of 6.4. The results ranged from 0.0 up to 48.0 with an average of 8.4 and a median of 2.4 for 95 individuals. Respondents were asked to rate the computer as an i n s t r u c t i o n a l tool i n comparison to more t r a d i t i o n a l media using a Likert scale on which 4 represented rough equality and 7 a s i g n i f i c a n t superiority. The most frequently rated areas were language arts and mathematics and the highest rated areas were problem solving and language arts as shown i n the following table. + + + + | Instructional Area | respondents | average rating | + + + + Problem solving / Logic 25 5.3 (s = 1.15) Language Arts 46 5.1 (s = 1.11) Mathematics 48 4.6 (s = 1.43) Social Studies 22 4.5 (s = 1.44) Science 22 4.5 (s = 1.44) + + + + Appendix C / 87 The programs which enjoyed the best combination of frequency of use and reporting as a "favourite" program were: The author would caution that the presence of a program i n the preceding l i s t does not necessarily imply that i t i s of particular i n s t r u c t i o n a l value but only that i t i s widely distributed and f a i r l y well received. This data r e f l e c t s the pattern of use i n classrooms as i t now exists but does not constitute either an evaluation or an endorsement of the software. F i n a l l y , respondents were asked what reasons they had for using computers i n their classroom "other than the fact that students generally l i k e to use computers and parents applaud t h e i r introduction". The results were widely varied but several d i s t i n c t categories of response were evident. These are l i s t e d along with their frequency of appearance. 28 valuable as a word processor 22 useful for motivation / fun / generates interest 19 promotes "computer l i t e r a c y " 13 useful for d r i l l and practice 10 useful for enrichment 9 useful for reinforcement of inst r u c t i o n 9 allows student to control pace / allows i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n 8 useful for remediation Summary of the data F i r s t , i t i s s t a r t l i n g to see just how rare computers r e a l l y are i n the intermediate classroom. Despite the fact that much i s made of the "computer revolution" and the potential for t h i s new educational tool we see that the t y p i c a l BC classroom has one computer or no computer. This fact i n i t s e l f precludes useful application of any potential which the computer may possess. Moreover, i t e f f e c t i v e l y prevents expertise from developing i n the teaching force. The computer i s , consequently, s t i l l an essenti a l l y unknown entity i n our intermediate classrooms. Logo Moptown Hotel Bank Street Writer Oregon T r a i l Fay, That Math Woman M i l l i k e n Math Sequences Math Blaster Math A c t i v i t i e s 5 Odell Lake Language Arts Social Studies Mathematics Problem Solving Science Appendix C / 88 Few teachers had received s p e c i f i c training i n the use of computers before they entered the profession and most have had very l i t t l e useful in-service. Given the dearth of computers and the generally poor quality of software t h i s i s hardly surprising. The net result i s a median experience c o e f f i c i e n t of 2.4 which indicates less than 5 days of in-service, less than one and one-half years of use and experience with approximately 5 different programs. This indicates that despite some s t a r t l i n g counter-examples the teaching force i s p r a c t i c a l l y devoid of expertise with computer-based education. There i s l i t t l e variety i n the software available and most of i t i s of poor i n s t r u c t i o n a l quality. The computer i s used most successfully as a tool for word processing but seldom with any success as a tutor. Of the few CAI packages which teachers find useful by far the predominant use i s for d r i l l and practice i n mathematics or language ar t s . The one innovative application seems to be Logo which teachers ranked extremely highly for i t s value i n teaching problem solving s k i l l s . However, the l i t e r a t u r e has recently begun to question the v a l i d i t y of even t h i s previously treasured a r t i c l e of f a i t h , (journal c i t a t i o n s to be inserted here) ...continues with personal observations... (C) Copyright J . A. B. Beairsto 1986 i Appendix C / 89 File: software Report: POPULAR SOFTWARE FREQ TITLE Page 1 PUBLISHER DESCRIPTION 64 46 45 38 31 29 27 24 20 20 19 19 19 18 18 17 16 14 14 13 12 12 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 BANK STREET WRITER APPLE LOGO PRINT SHOP, THE APPLE PRESENTS APPLE TERRAPIN LOGO TYPIN6 TUTOR FAY THAT HATH WOMAN ELEMENTARY V.l: HATH ELEMENTARY V.4: HATH/SCI ROCKY'S BOOTS ELEMENTARY V.3: SOC ST ELEMENTARY V.6: SOC ST HASTERTYPE ALLIGATOR MIX DRAGON MIX MOPTONN HOTEL HATH BLASTER ALIEN ADDITION BASIC NUMBER FACTS MATH SEQUENCES CROSSWORD MAGIC DEMOLITION DIVISION GERTRUDE'S PUZZLES METEOR MULTIPLICATION EZ LOGO SHELL GAMES APPLE WRITER HE CHESS FACTORY GERTRUDE'S SECRETS APPLE LOGO II SCHOOL UTILITIES V.2 WORD ATTACK EXPLORING L060 GULP!!ARROW 6RAPHICS MATH ACTIVITIES 5 MOPTOWN PARADE POND, THE SNOOPER TROOPS 11 BANK STREET SPELLER BASIC ARITHMETIC DRAGON'S KEEP H-SS-NG L-NKS, ENGLISH E OH, DEER! ALLIGATOR ALLEY DELTA DRAWING FRENZY/FLIP FLOP MUSIC THEORY SCIENCE V.3 BUMBLE PLOT SCHOLASTIC WORD PROCESSOR APPLE STUDENTS LEARN STRUCTURED PROGRAMMING CONCEPTS THR0U6H GRAPHICS BRODERBUND CREATES POSTERS, GREETING CARDS, LETTER HEAD ETC. APPLE SIMPLE INTRODUCTION TO APPLE KEYBOARD AND COMPUTER TERRAPIN A VERSION OF M.I.T. LOGO MICROSOFT INSTRUCTION ON FINGER PLACEMENT, DRILL ON SPEED AND ACCURACY DIDATECH PRACTICES BASIC NO FACTS THROUGH 19, MISSED PROB GRAPHICALLY ILLUS MECC INCLUDES HURKLE, BAGELS It TAXMAN NECC INCLUDES ESTIMATE, MATH GAME, ODELL LAKE, ODELL WOODS 4 SOLAR DIST TLC ANALYZE 4 BUILD SIMPLE ELECTRNIC CIRCUITS WITH COMPONENTS GIVEN MECC ECONOMIC SUHULATNS INCLUDING SELL APPLES, PLANTS, LEMONADE 4 BIKES NECC WELL-KNOWN GAMES NOMAD 4 OREGON TRAIL SCARABORQU ARCADE-STYLE KEYB0ARDIN6 DRILL, CAN CREATE OWN LESSONS DLH ADD AND SUB DRILL IN ARCADE FORMAT GAME DLH DIFFICULT MULTIPLICATION 4 DIVISION PROBLEMS IN ARCADE GAME FORMAT TLC USERS CREATE ATTRIBUTE PATTERNS IN A COMPETITIVE LOGIC GAME DAVIDSON 600 PROBLEMS IN THE 4 BASIC ARITHMETIC OPERATIONS DLH ADDITION DRILL USING GRAPHICS IN ARCADE FORMAT CNTRL DATA PRACTICE IN BASIC WHOLE NO OPERATIONS (0-10) IN GAME FORMAT NILLIKEN NUMBER READINESS 4 4 ARITHMETIC OPERN WITH INTEGERS, TRACT 4 DEC MINDSCAPE GENERATES CROSSWORD PUZZLES FROM USERS WORDS DLH DIVISION DRILL IN ARCADE GAME FORMAT TLC STUDENTS SOLVE PUZZLES INVOLVING RECOGNTN OF COLOR k SHAPE PATTERN DLM BUILDS SKILLS IN MULTIPLYING WHOLE NUMBERS, ARCADE GAME FORMAT MECC TWO PROGRAMS FORM A SUBSET OF LOGO COMMANDS APPLE DRILL STRUCTURES INTO WHICH TEACHERS CAN ENTER INFORMATION APPLE FULL-FUNCTION WORD PROCESSOR ODESTA PLAY CHESS AT 17 LEVELS OF DIFFICULTY, WITH BOOK ON STRATEGY SUNBURST CREATE 6E0N PRODUCTS: TEST A PROG, BUILD A FACTRY i t MAKE A PRODUCT TLC STUDENTS DEVELOP CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AS THEY FIND PATTERNS APPLE IMPROVED VERSION OF APPLE LOGO MECC READABILITY ANALYSIS PROGRAM DAVIDSON 4 ACTIVITIES USIN6 VOCABULARY WORDS IN CONTEXT, CAN ADD, MANY LANG SUNBURST PRACTICE DIVIDING PROBLEMS INTO COMPONENT PARTS NILLIKEN BASIC HATH FACTS DRILL FOR ADDITION k MULTIPLICATION HOUGHTON 15 PR06 REINFORCE A VARIETY OF HATH k PROBLEM S0LVIN6 SKILLS TLC 7 6AHES TEACH LOGICAL THINKING, STRATEGY AND PATTERN RECOGNITION SUNBURST DISCOVER PATTERNS k IMPROVE PERCEPTION BY ANALYZIN6 FROG JUMPS SPINNAKER DETECTIVE PLAYERS INTERVIEW, MAP, STUDY CLUES k COMPUTE TO SOLVE SCHOLASTIC SPELLING CHECKER FOR BANK STREET WRITER MECC BASE TEN, MATH GAME, SPEED DRILL, ROUND, ESTIMATE, CHANGE SIERRA PRACTICE READING SKILLS WHILE SEARCHING DRAGON'S TERRITORY SUNBURST READING GAMES TO DEVELOP USE OF CONTEXT CLUES, CAN ADD PASSAGES MECC SIMULATES THE 5-YR MANAGEMENT OF A LARGE HERD OF DEER DLH HATH DRILL PROGRAMS WITH TEACHER CONTROL OF PARAMETERS MECC STUDENTS PROGRAM BY USING SIMPLE COMMANDS TO CREATE COLORED DESIGN NILLIKEN GAME FORMAT FOR PRACTICING ADD k SUB/SLIDES,TURNS k FLIPS MECC DRILL ON TERMS AND NOTATN, RHYTHH, PITCH, INTERVALS, SCALES 4 CHRD MECC PROG FOR EARTH SC 4 LIEF SC: FISH, MINERALS, ODELL LAKE TLC PRACTICE PLOTTING AND GRAPHING SKILLS (-5 TO +5 ON GRID) 90 APPENDIX D COVERING LETTERS FOR THE TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS NOTE: The templates i n t h i s appendix were merged with a mailing l i s t to create personalized l e t t e r s . The labels "$$STATUS", "$$FIRST", "$$LAST", "$$SCH00L", "$$ADDRESS", "$$CITY", and "$$P0STAL" refer to the contents of that data base. Appendix D / 92 Letter for Subjects from School D i s t r i c t No. 38 (Richmond) 1986/04/07 $$STATUS $$FIRST $$LAST $$SCH00L Dear $$FIRST, Re: Survey of Intermediate Computer Use I am conducting some research into the use of computers i n intermediate classrooms throughout B r i t i s h Columbia. Part of t h i s research involves interviewing teachers from across the province whose experience varies from a bare minimum to extensive. I t has been suggested to me by Doug Super that I might be able to gain valuable information by talking to you. I would l i k e to telephone you at a convenient time and ask you to give me approximately f i v e minutes of your time to answer a few further questions. I w i l l be phoning your school during the week of A p r i l 7th to ask the o f f i c e s t a f f when might be a convenient time to contact you. I f there i s some particular time you would l i k e me to c a l l perhaps you could leave that information with the person most l i k e l y to answer the o f f i c e telephone. The purpose of t h i s interview i s to s o l i c i t your opinions with respect to the value of certain educational software. I am trying to determine both what programs are most widely used and why these programs are popular. In addition to the interview I would l i k e to ask your assistance i n completing the enclosed checklist and returning i t to me using the s e l f addressed envelope enclosed. (You may simply put t h i s envelope i n the school board mail pouch at your school.) Thank you i n advance for your kind assistance with t h i s project. Yours t r u l y , Bruce Beairsto, Richmond Senior Secondary Encl. "Software You Have Seen" checklist Appendix D / 94 B) SOFTWARE YOU HAVE SEEN P l e a s e indicate the programs you have used at least once in the classroom placing a tick in the appropriate box. The programs l i s t e d are those contained in the 1985 Educational Software Preview Guide. TITLE PUBLISHER TITLE PUBLISHER ADDITION MAGICIAN TLC — DISCOVERY LAB MECC ADVENTUREURITER CQDEURITER DISCRIM ATRB k RULES SUNBURST ALIEN ADDITION DLM DIVIDE FRACTIONS CBS ALLIGATOR ALLEY DLM DIVISION SKILLS MILT BRAD ALLIGATOR NIX DLM DRAGON HIX DLM ALPHABETIC KEYBOARDING SW PUB DRAGON'S KEEP SIERRA ALPHABETIZE JMH EASY GRAPH GROLIER ANALOGIES PRO DESIGN ELEM MATH CLSRH LAN6 SYSTEM STER SWIFT APPLE LOGO APPLE ELEMENTARY LIB MEDIA SKL COHBASE APPLE LOGO II APPLE ELEMENTARY V.l: MATH MECC APPLE PRESENTS APPLE APPLE ELEMENTARY V.3: SOC ST MECC APPLE SPRITE LOGO LCSI ELEMENTARY V.4: MATH/SCI HECC APPLE SUPER PILOT APPLE ELEMENTARY V.G: SOC ST MECC APPLE WRITER HE APPLE ENERGY SEARCH MCGRAW HIL ARCHON ELECTR ART EXPEDITIONS HECC ARISTOTLE'S APPLE STONEWARE EXPLORER METROS SUNBURST ARITH-HAGIC QED EXPLORING LOGO SUNBURST ARITHHETIC-TAC-TOE EDUTEK EZ LOGO MECC BANK STREET SPELLER SCHOLASTIC FACT AND FICTION TOOLKIT SCHOLASTIC BANK STREET WRITER SCHOLASTIC FACTORY SUNBURST BASIC ARITHMETIC MECC FANTASY LAND LEARN WELL BASIC NUMBER FACTS CNTRL DATA FAY THAT HATH WOMAN DIDATECH BATTLING 8U6S/C0NCENTRATN MILLIKEN FRACTIONS PRACTICE CNTRL DATA. BLAZING THE BASIC TRAIL SUNBURST FRENZY/FLIP FLOP MILLIKEN BUMBLE GAMES TLC FRIENDLY COMPUTER MECC BUMBLE PLOT TLC FRIENDLY FILER 6R0LIER CAUSE k EFFECT LEARN WELL FUN HOUSE NAZE SUNBURST COIN LEVEL A SRA FUNDAMENTAL NATH II RANDON COIN LEVEL B SRA GALAXY NATH FACTS 6AME RANDOM COIN LEVEL C SRA GENETICS TIES CHALLENGE MATH SUNBURST GEOLOGY SEARCH MCGRAW HIL CHARACTRSTCS OF A SCNTST CYGNUS GEOMETRIC CONCEPTS: AREA JOSTENS CHECKERS ODESTA GEOMETRIC CONCEPTS: PERIMETER JOSTENS CHESS ODESTA GERTRUDE'S PUZZLES TLC CODE QUEST SUNBURST GERTRUDE'S SECRETS TLC COMMUNITY SEARCH MCGRAW HIL GLOBAL PROGRAM LINE EDTR BEAGLE BRO CORP LIT ADV OF LOL DRA6N SVE GOLF CLASSIC/COHPUBAR MILLIKEN COHP-U-SOLVE ED'L ACTV GRAND PRIX RANDOM COMPREHENSION POWER MILLIKEN GREAT CREATOR, THE GESSLER COHPU-POEN SCWRIP GULP"ARROW GRAPHICS MILLIKEN COMPUTER GENERATD NTH V.2 MECC HEY, TAXI! HILT BRAD CONPUTER LIT INST PRGH ED'L ACTV HIGH RISE MICRO LAB CREATIVE PLAY LAWR HALL HINKY PINKY 22ND AVE CROSSWORD MAGIC MINDSCAPE HOMEWORD SIERRA CRYPTO CUBE DESIGNWARE ' HOT DOG STAND SUNBURST CUT AND PASTE ELECTR ART IDEA INVASION DLM DARK CRYSTAL SIERRA IN SEARCH OF HOST AMAZING SPINNAKER DECIMAL SKILLS MILT BRAD INCREDIBLE LABORATORY SUNBURST DELTA DRAWING MECC INTERPRETING GRAPHS CONDUIT DEMOLITION DIVISION DLM INTRO TO MICRO COMPUTERS MC6RAW HIL Appendix D / 95 Please indicate the programs you have used at least once in the classroom placing a tick in the appropriate box. The programs li s t e d are those contained in the 1985 Educational Software Preview Quide. TITLE PUBLISHER INTRO TO HICROCHP KEYBD ED AUDIO ISLE OF HEM SROLIER JISSAU ISL SOFTMR JINX/WELTER ISL SOFTMR KAREL SIMULATOR CYBERTRON KING'S RULE SUNBURST LEARNING ABOUT NUMBERS C & C SOFT LIBRARY USAGE SKILLS JHC LONG DIVISION NIC URKSHP H-SS-NG L-NKS, ENGLISH ED SUNBURST H-SS-NG L-NKS, YG PPLS LT SUNBURST MAGIC SLATE SUNBURST HANA6IN6 LIFESTYLES SUNBURST MASTER HATCH ADV ID MASTER HATCH (DLH) DLH HASTERTYPE SCARABOROU MATH ACTIVITIES 4 HOUGHTON MATH ACTIVITIES 5 HOUGHTON HATH ACTIVITIES 6 HOUGHTON MATH ACTIVITIES 7 HOUGHTON HATH BASEBALL ED'L ACTV MATH BLASTER DAVIDSON HATH CONCEPTS I k II HARTLEY MATH SEQUENCES NILLIKEN MATHUARE ESSERTIER MEDALISTS: BLACK AMERICANS HARTLEY MEDALISTS: CONTINENTS HARTLEY MEDALISTS: WOMEN IN HISTORY HARTLEY MEMORY CASTLE SUNBURST MEMORY: THE FIRST STEP SUNBURST METEOR MISSION DLH METEOR MULTIPLICATION DLH METRIC k PROBLEM SOLVING MECC NILLIKEN WORD PROCESSOR NILLIKEN MINUS MISSION DLH NIX AND HATCH APPLE HOPTOWN HOTEL TLC NOPTOUN PARADE TLC HOUSE PAINT APPLE MULTIPLYING FRACTIONS NIC WRKSHP HUSIC THEORY HECC NUMBER WORDS-LEVEL 18.2 HARTLEY OH, OEER! NECC PIC.BUILDER WEEK READ PINBALL CONSTRUCTION SET ELECTR ART POND, THE SUNBURST PRINT SHOP, THE BRODERBUND PROFESSIONAL SIGN MAKER SUNBURST PUZZLE TANKS SUNBURST PUZZLER, THE SUNBURST TITLE PUBLISHER ! PUZZLES AND POSTERS HECC ! QUILL DC HEATH i READ k SOLVE HATH PRQBS ED'L ACTV ! ROCKY'S BOOTS TLC ! SAR60N III HAYDEN I SCHOOL UTILITIES V.2 HECC i SCIENCE V.3 NECC ! SENSIBLE SPELLER IV SENSIBLE S SHELL GAMES APPLE I SKILLS MAKER LIB SOFT i SNOOPER TROOPS tl SPINNAKER ! SNOOPER TROOPS 12 SPINNAKER I! S0N6WRITER SCARBOROUG ! SPECIAL NEEDS V.l MECC li SPOTLIGHT APPLE S SQUARE PAIRS SCHOLASTIC il STORY TREE SCHOLASTIC S SURVIVAL MATH SUNBURST i TEASERS BY TOBBS SUNBURST ! TEMPERATURE LAB HAYDEN S TERRAPIN L060 TERRAPIN ! THAT'S HY STORY LEARN WELL i THREE R'S OF HCROCHPTNG NECC ! TIC TAC SHOW ADV ID !! TRAFFIC JAM ISL SOFTWA : TROLL'S TALE SIERRA !! TURTLE TRACKS SCHOLASTIC i TUTORIAL COHPR; NN ID RANDOM ii TYPE ATTACK SIRIUS i: TYPING TUTOR MICROSOFT !: VOYAGE OF NIHI:HPS&NVGTN HOLT, R&W ! WHATSIT CORPORATION SUNBURST ! WHOLE NUMBERS: PRACTICE CNTRL DATA ! WIZ WORKS DLH ! WIZARD OF WORDS ADV ID ! UORD ATTACK DAVIDSON ! WORD NAN DLH ! WORD SPINNER TLC I WRITE CHOICE ROGER UAGN ! URITE STUFF HARPER ROW ! ZORK I k II INFOCON APPENDIX E TELEPHONE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Appendix E / 97 PART ONE: OBJECTIVES: a) I w i l l v e r i f y s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s . - use of Apples - years of experience with computers i n the classroom - nature and extent of trai n i n g TEXT: Hello, . This i s Bruce Beairsto c a l l i n g . Did you receive my l e t t e r concerning the Intermediate Computer Use survey? ( I f appropriate ... Thankyou for completing and returning the questionnaire for the f i r s t part of my research. As my l e t t e r explained, you were one of the most experienced respondents and I would l i k e to get further information from you.) Can you spare me about f i v e minutes? Good. Do you have paper and a pencil handy? (If not ... Can you get both? I ' l l wait.) I would l i k e to confirm that you do use Apple or Apple compatible computers? And how long have you been using computers i n the classroom i n one way or another? Do you use the computer yourself outside of class? How long have you been doing that? ...verify nature and extent of t r a i n i n g . . (I f necessary...Please remember to return the checklist of programs to me as i s forms an important part of my research and w i l l help me to analyze the responses I receive during these interviews.) Appendix E / 98 PART TWO: OBJECTIVES: a) The subject w i l l be asked to describe how he/she uses computers. - what i s the student/computer r a t i o i n actual use - how much time does each student have with the computer i n one week - how i s the use distributed through a week TEXT: Now I wonder i f you can help me to understand how you use computers by answering the following questions. What i s the t y p i c a l size of your class when you are using the computer? How many computers do you have available for that class? How much time would each student spend i n class i n interaction with a computer i n an average week? 15 min or less 15 min to 30 min 30 min to 45 min 45 min to 60 min more than 60 min How i s t h i s time distributed through the week, a l i t t l e every day or one or two s p e c i f i c times? Appendix E / 99 PART THREE: OBJECTIVES: a) I w i l l v e r i f y experience with the s p e c i f i c programs of intere s t . - Bank Street Writer, Magic Window or equivalent - Logo (any version) - Math Blaster, M i l l i k e n Math, Fay, MAC or Demolition Division - Getrude's Secrets, Moptown Hotel or Factory - Odell Lake, Odell Woods or Oregon T r a i l b) I w i l l ask the subject to rank order the programs above i n terms of their educational value, i n descending order of merit. TEXT: I would l i k e to consider some s p e c i f i c items of software. Which of the following have you actually used with your class(es)? Bank Street Writer? Logo Math d r i l l program Science processes program MECC simulation program If you had to i d e n t i f y one of these programs as having the most educational merit which one would you choose? I ' l l repeat the i r names. Which one of the other four programs do you consider to have the least educational merit? I ' l l repeat the four remaining names. So you f i n d to have the most educational merit of the programs i n t h i s group and to have the least merit. Which one of the remaining three would you rank second i n terms of educational merit? I w i l l l i s t the remaining names. Of the remaining two, which one have you found to have the most educational merit? Appendix E / 100 PART FOUR: OBJECTIVES: a) The seven major educational motivations for the use of computers as reported i n part one of the survey w i l l be revealed to the respondent and he/she w i l l be asked to rank order these motivations. TEXT: In conclusion, I would l i k e to find out what i t i s that you pa r t i c u l a r l y value about each of these programs. In the f i r s t part of my research I asked what educational advantages teachers f e l t computers had to off e r . I have collected the responses into groups and I would l i k e you to rank order the seven most common categories or reasons for me. I w i l l read them to you and then ask you to select the most s i g n i f i c a n t reason, the second most s i g n i f i c a n t and so on. Perhaps you could make a note of the categories on a piece of paper as I read them to you. (Read categories i n random order.) Now, i f you were preparing a brief requesting more funds for computers i n your school which one of these educational advantages would you stress above a l l the others? (Read category names i n same random order.) Which would you rank second i n importance? And which would you rank third? (Repeat the preceding battery of questions for each program.) Note: I w i l l thank the subject for his/her p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Append i x E / 101 M o t i v a t i o n a l C a t e g o r i e s The r e s p o n d e n t s were r e a d t he f o l l o w i n g l i s t o f t h e s e v en m o t i v a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e p r e l i m i n a r y q u e s t i o n n a i r e and a s ked t o make a n o t e o f t h e k e y w o r d s . The l i s t was p r e s e n t e d i n an o r d e r d i c t a t e d by a random l i s t o f t h e d i g i t s 1 t h r o u g h 7. 1) U T I L I T Y : The compute r i s a p o w e r f u l t o o l and s t u d e n t s s h o u l d l e a r n t o use i t f o r t h e same r e a s o n t h a t t h e y l e a r n t o use a c a l c u l a t o r o r a t e l e p h o n e . I t enhances t h e i r a b i l i t y t o e x p l o r e , t o r e a s o n and t o c ommun i ca t e . 2) INTEREST: S t u d e n t s l i k e t o u n d e r t a k e c ompu t e r - ba s ed t a s k s and c o n s e q u e n t l y a r e m o t i v a t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y i n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s p r e s e n t e d by t h e s o f t w a r e . I t a r o u s e s i n t e r e s t and h o l d s a t t e n t i o n . 3) L ITERACY: Compute r s a r e an i m p o r t a n t i t e m o f modern t e c h n o l o g y . S t u d e n t s need t o become f a m i l i a r enough w i t h t h e i r u se t h a t t h e y a r e c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h them and can r e a l i s t i c a l l y a s s e s s t h e i r power and t h e i r l i m i t a t i o n s . A) DRILL : Compute rs a r e v e r y good f o r m e c h a n i c a l d r i l l and p r a c t i c e a c t i v i t i e s . They a r e p a t i e n t and n o n - t h r e a t e n i n g , and c an a d j u s t t h e l e v e l and pace o f t h e d r i l l t o t h e s t u d e n t s d e m o n s t r a t e d p r o g r e s s . 5) ENRICHMENT: Compute r s make e x t r a i n f o r m a t i o n and a c t i v i t i e s a v a i l a b l e t o s t u d e n t s who have mas t e r ed c o r e t o p i c s . They can e x p l o r e new i d e a s and a c t i v i t i e s w h i l e t h e t e a c h e r c o n t i n u e s t o work w i t h t h e r e s t o f t h e c l a s s . 6) REINFORCEMENT: Computer s o f t w a r e i s a n o t h e r way t o i l l u s t r a t e and r e i n f o r c e t h e c u r r i c u l u m . I t o f f e r s t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r a c t i c e s k i l l s and a p p l y c o n c e p t s l e a r n e d t h r o u g h c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n . 7) INDIVIDUALIZATION: The computer can make a w i de v a r i e t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o s t u d e n t s . M o r e o v e r , t h e y can s e l e c t t h e s e m a t e r i a l s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r needs and p r o ceed a t t h e i r own p a c e . Appendix E / 102 DATA SHEET for NAME: PHONE: PART ONE: Uses Apples : Y N Using computers in the classroom for years Training coefficient: PART TWO: Class size : Number of computers : Student time per week : 0-15 15-30 30-45 45-60 60+ Distribution : spread concentrated PART THREE: Rank order : Language Arts : Logo : Math : Science : MECC Appendix E / 103 Mot iva t iona l Rating Scale The following data sheet was used to record the educational motivations reported by the respondents. A rank ordered l i s t of three motivations was sought but i f the respondent found i t d i f f i c u l t to quote three meaningful responses from the l i s t provided then less than three motivations were accepted. Motivation Ranking Software Category Ranking -+ + + + Word Process. 1 2 Logo Math D r i l l 1 2 3 4 5 Science Process 1 2 3 Simulat'n 1 2 3 most 1) important motivation l a lb l c Id le — + -2) 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e least 3) important motivation 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e APPENDIX F EXPLANATION OF THE EXPERIENCE MEASURES AND WEIGHTING PROCEDURE Appendix F / 105 F . l EXPLANATION OF THE EXPERIENCE MEASURES One goal of t h i s study was to determine whether or not the educational motivations reported by teachers for their use of computers i n the classroom showed any developmental pattern. This was done by looking for a correlation between the importance attached to each of the motivations i d e n t i f i e d i n the preliminary survey and the teacher 1s expertise. Measuring expertise i s , however, somewhat problematic. Expertise may be the result of actual experience, or training or both. Moreover, experience may be measured as the length of time over which the teacher has used computers i n the classroom or the number of educational programs with which he/she has had experience. I t was not clear at the outset which one of these measures of expertise would be the most important, and i n fact i t seemed l i k e l y that they would a l l have some eff e c t . Consequently, i t was determined to record a l l three measures: - degree of training i n computer-based in s t r u c t i o n , - years of computer use, and - number of programs actually used. The degree of trai n i n g was measured on an ordinal scale ranging from 0 to 4 as described i n Chapter 3. The years of use was recorded as the average of the teacher's use i n the classroom and his/her years of personal use, either with the school computer or a personal computer. The number of programs actually used was determined through the use of a standard checklist of programs derived from the 1985 Educational Appendix F / 106 Software Preview Guide developed by the Educational Software Evaluation Consortium. In addition, an attempt was made to develop a co e f f i c i e n t of expertise which might summarize the net effect of these three separate measures. The co e f f i c i e n t was calculated as follows: expertise = (yrs of use + train i n g coeff) * (# of programs used / 5) The two factors involved i n the coeffic i e n t are both necessary components of expertise and were therefore multiplied. Thus, a low value for either would result i n a low value for the c o e f f i c i e n t . The f i r s t factor i s the sum of two of the measures which are l o g i c a l alternatives, since the insight gained over time through one's personal r e f l e c t i o n can y i e l d the same results as inst r u c t i o n . An attempt was made to give each of the component measures an appropriate weight. The arbitrary values assigned to the training c o e f f i c i e n t were defined i n a way that the author f e l t gave approximately equal significance to a period of use and a degree of traini n g which might lead to equivalent insight. S i m i l a r l y , the number of programs actually used was divided by 5 i n an attempt to give t h i s factor a weight approximately equivalent to the f i r s t . The c o e f f i c i e n t of expertise being a purely arbitrary creation i t was determined to record each of the component measures independently i n addition. A correlation c o e f f i c i e n t was calculated between the significance attached to a particular educational motivation and each Appendix F / 107 component measure as well as the combined measure i n case there were some symbiotic effect between the individual components of expertise. In the event, no clear developmental pattern emerged using any of the measures. F.2 EXPLANATION OF THE WEIGHTING PROCEDURE As part of the telephone interviews, respondents were asked to rank order the i r three primary motivations for the use of each of f i v e different categories of educational software. These motivations were chosen from a l i s t of seven i d e n t i f i e d i n the preliminary survey. In order to assign a numerical value to the importance which each respondent attached to each of the seven educational motivations, the frequency of c i t a t i o n was recorded for each. This frequency could range between 0 and 5. In many cases, however, the respondents did not have experience with a l l f i v e categories of software and were therefore unable to offer a ranking of their motivations i n some categories. This meant that the straight frequency of c i t a t i o n of a motivation was not a r e l i a b l e indicator of i t s r e l a t i v e importance; especially when the results from different respondents were collated and analyzed. In order to compensate for th i s incomplete reporting the reported frequencies were normalized: that i s , they were adjusted to represent the frequency of c i t a t i o n which would have been recorded i f the respondent had reported on a l l the software categories i n the same manner as he/she had reported on a subset. This normalization Appendix F / 108 was accomplished by converting each frequency to a percentage of the t o t a l of a l l motivations reported and multiplying that percentage by 15. The result was that the cumulative normalized frequency was 15 for a l l respondents whether or not they actually reported on a l l f i v e software categories. I t was also recognized that the rank ordering of the software categories and the motivations within each software category may be s i g n i f i c a n t . To convert t h i s information into a numerical form, a system of weighting was devised. The weighted value assigned to a particular c i t a t i o n of a motivational category was determined by multiplying the inverse rank order of the software category and the inverse rank order of the three motivations within that category. The result was that the primary motivation for the use of the most favoured software category received a weight of 15 and the least s i g n i f i c a n t motivation for the use of the least popular software category received a weight of 1. The weights are summarized i n the following table. Matrix of Weightings + + + Motivation | Software Category Ranking | Ranking + + + + + + | 1 I 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | I 1 | 15 | 12 | 9 | 6 | 3 | + + + + : + + + | 2 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 I _ "I- ^  "j- z T 3 T ^ T i T + + + + + + + Appendix F / 109 These weighted frequencies were also normalized using an algorithm similar to that for the raw frequencies with the effect that each respondent's normalized weighted frequencies t o t a l l e d 90. The reason for recording a l l these variations on the raw frequency was the same as the reason for recording the four different measures of experience: i t was not clear at the outset which would be the most meaningful measure. Consequently, frequency data was recorded for the motivational categories i n each of the four possible forms: - raw frequency of reporting, - normalized frequency, - weighted frequency, and - normalized weighted frequency. In the event, the four measures seem to have conveyed the same information within the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054709/manifest

Comment

Related Items