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 P h y s i c s ) , The U n i v e r s i t y of Calgary, 1970 M. Sc. ( P h y s i c s ) , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972 P.D.P., Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y , 1973  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the ifequired standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1986  (C) Copyright James Atley Bruce B e a i r s t o , 1986  *0  Ln  In p r e s e n t i n g  this thesis  r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an of  British  it  freely available  in partial  advanced degree at  Columbia,  understood for  that  Library  s h a l l make  for reference  and  study.  I  f o r extensive copying of  h i s or  be  her  g r a n t e d by  shall  not  the  be  of  further this  thesis  head o f  representatives.  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  f i n a n c i a l gain  University  the  f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may by  the  the  I agree that  agree that permission department or  f u l f i l m e n t of  this  It is thesis  a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  written  permission.  Department  of  C>///  Cl4ll4'/frrVT)  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1Y3  Date  /</  PC  7~  Columbia /  my  <U?* -V  ABSTRACT  The use of computers at a l l l e v e l s i n the educational system i n B r i t i s h Columbia has been expanding r a p i d l y despite a noticeable lack of p r o v i n c i a l d i r e c t i o n and support.  With i n c r e a s i n g funding t h i s  expansion can be expected to continue and even to a c c e l e r a t e . As computer-based i n s t r u c t i o n becomes more prevalent the need f o r programs of i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g becomes i n c r e a s i n g l y important. This study reports the r e s u l t s 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 d e s c r i p t i v e baseline data necessary to design an i n - s e r v i c e program.  The study also examines the educational  motivations f o r computer-based i n s t r u c t i o n c i t e d by teachers. Data was c o l l e c t e d using a province-wide mail questionnaire d i s t r i b u t e d i n December 1985 and a s e r i e s of telephone interviews i n A p r i l , May and June of 1986. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e 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 t r a i n i n g 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 t r a i n i n g i n the educational use of computers.  - ii -  In general, intermediate teachers have very l i m i t e d experience with computers. The most widely used programs i n intermediate classrooms are Bank Street W r i t e r , Logo, typing t r a i n i n g programs, mathematics programs and various materials from the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium (MECC). The respondents ranked computer-based s t r a t e g i e s superior to t r a d i t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s i n teaching language a r t s and problem solving. The educational motivations c i t e d by the respondents f e l l i n t o seven major categories c h a r a c t e r i z e d , i n descending order of frequency of c i t a t i o n , by the f o l l o w i n g 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 f o r computer use c i t e d by the respondents. The c o r r e l a t i o n s which do e x i s t i n d i c a t e that with increased t r a i n i n g and increased length of time using computer-based i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s 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 o b j e c t i v e s of r e i n f o r c i n g 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 editing. - i i i -  TABLE OF CONTENTS  page ABSTRACT •••«•  «••••  •••••  •••••  •••••  TABLE OF CONTENTS  •••••  •••••  '  LIST OF TABLES  .... •  .. •..  •••••  xi iv  •••  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  ..... v i i viii  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  2.  The Preliminary Survey  7  1.4.2 The Structured Interviews  8  1.5  Background Information  9  1.6  The S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study  11  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  - iv -  3.  THE METHOD OF STUDY 3*1  Introductxon  3.2  The Preliminary P r o v i n c i a l Survey  3.3  5.  6.  •••••  •••••  •••••  •••••  3A  3.2.1  Development of the Questionnaire  36  3.2.2  A p p l i c a t i o n of the Questionnaire  37  3.2.3  Analysis of the Responses  37  The Telephone Interviews 3.3.1  4.  •«••  Development of the Interview Schedule  39  3.3.2 Conduct of the Interviews  40  3.3.3  41  Analysis of the Results  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  DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS 5.1  Introduction .....  58  5.2  The E f f e c t of Expertise  59  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6*1  Cone X visions •••••  6.2  L i m i t a t i o n s of the Conclusions  6.3  •••••  ••••»  •••••  •••••  6A-  6.2.1  S e l e c t i o n of the Sample  67  6.2.2  E x t r a p o l a t i o n of the Results  67  Recommendations f o r Further Research  - v -  68  BIBLIOGRAPHY »  •••••  »* • • •  »•»••  »• •»•  •»•••  70  APPENDICES A.  Covering L e t t e r f o r the Preliminary Questionnaire  74  B.  The Preliminary Questionnaire  76  C.  Summary of Questionnaire Results f o r Respondents  84  D.  Covering L e t t e r s f o r the Telephone Interviews  90  E.  Telephone Interview P r o t o c o l  96  F.  Explanation of the Experience Measures  - vi -  104  LIST OF TABLES  Table 1:  Rating of Computer-Based I n s t r u c t i o n i n Comparison to T r a d i t i o n a l Strategies i n Various C u r r i c u l a r Areas  Table 2:  47  Most Frequently Reported T i t l e s From the Software C h e c k l i s t  48  Table 3:  Teachers' Favourite Software  47  Table 4:  Students' Computer Contact Time  50  Table 5:  R e l a t i v e Merit of Selected Software  52  Table 6:  M o t i v a t i o n a l Categories  53  Table 7:  O v e r a l l R e l a t i v e Importance of M o t i v a t i o n a l Categories 54  Table 8:  R e l a t i v e Importance of M o t i v a t i o n a l Categories With Reference to Selected Software  Table 9:  56  C o r r e l a t i o n Between Measures of Experience and Frequency of C i t a t i o n of Various M o t i v a t i o n a l Categories •  •••••  »••••  - v i i-  •••••  •••••  •••••  •••••  57  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  this thesis. F i r s t , my h e a r t f e l t thanks to my wife who has been so c o n s i s t e n t l y patient and accommodating over the past year and my c h i l d r e n who have been understanding when Daddy had to work and could not  play. Second, my gratitude to Dr. C. J . Anastasiou, my t h e s i s  for h i s wise counsel, patience and f r i e n d l y encouragement.  advisor, Thanks  also to the other member of my committee, Dr. M. Westrom, f o r help i n d e f i n i n g the t h e s i s t o p i c and f o r valuable e d i t o r i a l comment and proofreading; and to Dr. H. R a t z l a f f f o r h i s very useful c r i t i c i s m of my research instruments and i n s t r u c t i o n 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 p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the telephone interviews. c o n s i s t e n t l y w i l l i n g response and a f f a b l e manner made l i g h t of an arduous task.  - viii -  Their  1 Chapter 1  THE PROBLEM  1.1  IPRODUCTION The i n t r o d u c t i o n of microcomputers i n t o education was neither  planned nor coordinated and continues to be e s s e n t i a l l y a grassroots movement.  Very few j u r i s d i c t i o n s have had the f o r e s i g h t 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 r a p i d l y across the continent as w e l l as i n B r i t i s h Columbia and the p u b l i c demand f o r t h e i r i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o classrooms continues to be strong. The broad p u b l i c support behind the computer's i n f u s i o n i n t o the educational system gives a unique status to t h i s p a r t i c u l a r innovation.  C e r t a i n l y there was no corresponding lobby f o r open area  classrooms, continuous progress or overhead p r o j e c t o r s . The general increase i n awareness of and i n t e r e s t i n educational matters among the public i s not the only explanation f o r 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 f a c t that the computer has  generated a s o c i e t a l r e v o l u t i o n as w e l l as educational innovations must c o n t r i b u t e to i t s t o p i c a l i t y . This s o c i e t a l r e v o l u t i o n has not only contributed to the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t 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 i m p l i c a t i o n s for education i n one way or another f o r the i n d e f i n i t e f u t u r e . Even i f one could foresee the passing of i n t e r e s t i n i t s 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 the computer would remain an important object of study i n i t s own r i g h t .  In f a c t , i n t e r e s t 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  s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of software designers develops, the importance of the computer i n the classroom should grow.  C l e a r l y t h i s i s not j u s t  another educational fad. However, we must recognize i n the rapid emergence of computer-based education some of the unfortunate c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 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 l a r g e l y l a c k i n g . From massive e a r l y p r o j e c t s such as P l a t o on mainframe computers to the plethora of more recent one-shot software packages designed f o r microcomputers we f i n d an apparent absence of the understanding that the impressive t e c h n o l o g i c a l 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 r e s u l t e d i s responsible for r e t a r d i n g the development of computer-based education and f o r c r e a t i n g a c e r t a i n  The Problem / 3 backlash of skepticism on the part of many teachers and educational organizations. The computer " r e v o l u t i o n " i n education has survived despite these p i t f a l l s because the machine has become of such c e n t r a l importance i n our s o c i e t y and because i t s a c c e s s i b i l i t y to i n d i v i d u a l s 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 r e a c t i o n 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 i n t e r e s t and support on a large s c a l e . The lessons of the past decade are forming the foundation f o r a new wave of support for the educational a p p l i c a t i o n s 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 c l e a r v i s i o n f o r the f u t u r e .  We are  beginning to do the things we previously f a i l e d to do more s u c c e s s f u l l y but there does not seem to be a l i v e l y and informed forum for the development of new d i r e c t i o n s .  The educational community as a  whole seems poised f o r a second foray i n t o the jungle of computer innovations but we possess neither a map nor a compass.  We need a  c l e a r set of goals, a d e f i n i t e v i s i o n of the f u t u r e , and techniques for measuring our success i n achieving the goals.  Without these  n a v i g a t i o n a l 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 v i 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 s o p h i s t i c a t i o n and c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s .  Teachers have evolved t h e i r  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 with l i t t l e supervisory assistance i n developing a mature and informed conception of the r o l e of the microcomputer i n t h e i r classroom.  The energetic leaders of the  computer movement have often been hardware enthusiasts. The emergence of the microcomputer postdates most teachers' preservice t r a i n i n g and i n s e r v i c e o p p o r t u n i t i e s have normally focussed on simple software sampling.  D i s t r i c t and p r o v i n c i a l d i r e c t i o n has u s u a l l y been l i m i t e d  to f i s c a l and purchasing g u i d e l i n e s . In order t o consolidate the gains which have been made to the present time and b u i l d a s o l i d foundation f o r the future development of computer-based education we must begin to provide e f f e c t i v e inservice.  This w i l l require a s o p h i s t i c a t e d understanding of the  process of innovation and change, a mature v i s i o n of the appropriate use of microcomputers i n education and a r e a l i s t i c a n a l y s i s of the e x i s t i n g s t a t e of a f f a i r s .  One aspect of t h i s a n a l y s i s must be a  survey of the s t a t e of development of teachers i n t h e i r emerging understanding of the r o l e of the microcomputer i n t h e i r classrooms. This "what i s " knowledge i s the necessary f i r s t step i n any i n s e r v i c e needs a n a l y s i s .  Teachers may have valuable i n s i g h t s i n t o 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 t h e i r a t t i t u d e s may provide u s e f u l d i r 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 e s s e n t i a l foundation f o r badly needed i n s e r v i c e . 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 p r e c i s e l y how the microcomputer true extent of i t s use.  i s a c t u a l l y being used or even the  Without such a well-developed snapshot of the  classroom s i t u a t i o n we cannot devise s t r a t e g i e s f o r improving and expanding computer-based education.  P a r t i c u l a r l y at the p r o v i n c i a l  l e v e l there i s a need f o r a thorough reconnaissance of the classroom. One might expect the p r o v i n c i a l s p e c i a l i s t s a s s o c i a t i o n of the BCTF to provide t h i s information but i n f a c t 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 a v a i l a b l e 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. s p e c i f i c a l l y address the question:  It will  The Problem / 6 How do intermediate teachers i n B r i t i s h Columbia use the microcomputer i n classrooms a t 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 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s of teachers w i l l be examined as a secondary focus but the main o b j e c t i v e i s to i d 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 t h i s l e v e l than at any other.  Since there i s no c u r r i c u l a r d i r e c t i o n from the  m i n i s t r y , 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 e f f i c a c y of computer-based instruction. Once the primary a p p l i c a t i o n s of the computer are determined the study w i l l examine the question: What a p p l i c a t i o n s 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 f o r the popularity of the most common a p p l i c a t i o n s .  Since i t would be  d i f f i c u l t t o e l i m i n a t e obviously important f a c t o r s such as the a v a i l a b i l i t y and p r i c e 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 f o r the most popular classroom uses of the microcomputer? An e f f o r t w i l l be made to determine the e f f e c t 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 f o r computer use.  In order t o eliminate computer hardware  The Problem / 7 as a v a r i a b l e the study w i l l focus e x c l u s i v e l y 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 i n t o 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 first. The preliminary survey took the form of a mailed questionnaire intended to i d e n t i f y the most popular c u r r i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n s of computers and the second h a l f of the study involved structured telephone interviews of a sample of intermediate computer users. 1.4.1  The P r e l i m i n a r y 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  a c c e s s i b l e to intermediate teachers, the t r a i n i n g and experience of teachers, the software programs a c t u a l l y used i n the classroom and the reported motivation f o r these a p p l i c a t i o n s . The questionnaire was developed i n c o n s u l t a t i o n with several colleagues, p i l o t e d i n two Richmond schools, r e v i s e d , and d i s t r i b u t e d  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 ' A s s o c i a t i o n (PSA) of the B r i t i s h Columbia  Teachers' A s s o c i a t i o n (BCTF).  There were 198 responses by A p r i l .  these, 167 represented v a l i d data.  Of  The response rate was 100% from  members of CUEBC and 36% from members of the Intermediate PSA g i v i n g an o v e r a l l rate of 40%. The r e s u l t s of t h i s questionnaire were analyzed to i d e n t i f y the computer hardware used, the most frequently used software programs and the types of educational motivations c i t e d by teachers f o r t h e i r use of these programs. 1.4.2  The Structured Interviews  The structured telephone interviews focussed on r a t i n g the seven most common educational motivations f o r the f i v e most popular types of computer a p p l i c a t i o n s .  Subjects were asked to rank the f i v e most  popular c l a s s e s of software i d e n t i f i e d i n the preliminary survey. They were then asked to s e l e c t i n p r i o r i t y order the three most important motivations f o r the use of each c l a s s of software with which they had experience i n the classroom.  The motivations were t o 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 districts. The r e s u l t s were analyzed to determine the importance of the seven major motivations f o r each of the f i v e classes of software and to i d e n t i f y any e f f e c t which t r a i 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 i n c l u d i n g 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 Victoria.  The remainder of the population i s t h i n l y d i s t r i b u t e d 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 p r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t r y of Education i s responsible f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g curriculum and providing funding.  At the time of the  survey there was no branch of the M i n i s t r y s p e c i f i c a l l y responsible f o r guiding or supporting computer-based i n s t r u c t i o n . M i n i s t r y d i d e s t a b l i s h a s p e c i f i c agency, J.E.M.,  In 1980 the  t o i n v e s t i g a t e the  p o t e n t i a l f o r computers i n the classroom and conduct a p i l o t study i n v o l v i n g 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 i n t r o d u c t i o n of computers  i n t o classrooms proceeded e n t i r e l y a t the expense and d i r e c t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l d i s t r i c t s from that time on. Despite the lack of  The Problem / 10 p r o v i n c i a l 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 d i s t 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 f o r 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 i n d i c a t e the precise l e v e l of hardware a c q u i s i t i o n . In r e c o g n i t i o n of the r a p i d l y expanding base of computers and l o c a l l y developed courses the M i n i s t r y undertook to introduce a p r o v i n c i a l Computer Studies 11 course i n September 1984 and a Computer Science 12 course i n September 1985.  An e x i s t i n g course c a l l e d  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 been r e v i s e d .  but has not yet  Thus, the only two p r o v i n c i a l 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 M i n i s t r y has had on the d i r e c t i o n of  computer-based  i n s t r u c t i o n has been through these two courses and the  personnel involved i n t h e i r  development.  In January of 1985 the M i n i s t r y 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 M i n i s t r y announced a s p e c i a l fund to which d i s t r i c t s could apply f o r funding f o r s p e c i a l projects i n c l u d i n g computer p r o j e c t s .  At the time of  w r i t i n g 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 i n t o the hands of l o c a l school boards would be f o r computer r e l a t e d p r o j e c t s . There i s s t i l l no department of the M i n i s t r y providing funding, p o l i c y or assistance to l o c a l boards i n t h e 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 c e r t a i n l y  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 f a c t that the educational community had no c l e a r understanding of what might be appropriate and e f f e c t i v e uses of the computer i n the classroom despite t h e i r strong b e l i e f that i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n 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 i n t e g r a t e computers i n t o 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 b e l i e f that the computer i s somehow important towards a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d 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 a p p l i c a t i o n s has  strengthened  the computer movement and made i t demonstrably  educational.  D i s t r i c t s which may have been r e l u c t a n t or s k e p t i c a l are  now beginning to appreciate the importance of funding computer-based i n s t r u c t i o n and increase i t s p r i o r i t y i n t h e i r l i m i t e d budgets. Increased p r o v i n c i a l funding f o r computers v i a the Fund f o r Excellence i n Education creates the p o t e n t i a l f o r a dramatic a c c e l e r a t i o n 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 e s s e n t i a l to accompany t h i s increase with expanded o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r appropriate i n s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s .  The r e s u l t s of the present  should be u s e f u l i n guiding such i n s e r v i c e e f f o r t s .  study  The r e s u l t s may  provide a c l e a r p i c t u r e of the present state of a f f a i r s from a p r o v i n c i a l perspective and give some i n d i c a t i o n of the e f f e c t s of i n s e r v i c e e f f o r t s t o date.  I f coupled with a mature image of what  computer-based i n s t r u c t i o n should be the information obtained i n t h i s study w i l l be of great value i n designing i n s e r v i c e f o r 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 e x p l o r a t i o n of the l i t e r a t u r e the author  would l i k e t o 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 i n s t r u c t i o n (CAI), computer-assisted  learning (CAL), computer-enriched  i n s t r u c t i o n (CEI),  computer-integrated i n s t r u c t i o n ( C I I ) , computer-managed i n s t r u c t i o n (CMI), computer-based t r a i n i n g (CBT), and computer-based education (CBE) t o name a few.  While some of these terms are intended to imply  s p e c i f i c s t y l e s of use and shades of difference do e x i s t between them, for the most part t h e i r profusion i s simply due to a lack of standardization on the part of various authors.  This author can f i n d  no commonly accepted term which would subsume a l l of the various classroom l e v e l a p p l i c a t i o n s of the computer. The issues which surround the young but surging f i e l d of educational computing are at l e a s t as diverse as the terms which describe i t . I n order to make t h i s amorphous mass manageable, a u n i f y i n g taxonomy i s proposed.  A t t e n t i o n 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 t o appropriate hardware s e l e c t i o n and equity of access are  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 14 not addressed.  These issues w i l l decrease r a p i d l y i n importance as  the i n e v i t a b l e "shakedown" i n the computer industry and computer access f o r students increases. major categories:  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , adoption, software evaluation and  development, implementation  • 2.2  What remains may be divided i n t o f i v e  and process evaluation.  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 p o t e n t i a l areas  of a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the computer i n education.  Consideration of t h i s  issue has been intense and some concensus has been reached. not to say, however, that the question i s answered.  That i s  As with any  r a d i c a l l y new t o o l or process i t w i l l take time to appreciate the f u l l range of p o t e n t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the computer i n education. Consider, f o r instance the continuing process of change i n i t i a t e d by the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the microwave oven.  The eating patterns of an  e n t i r e hemisphere are i n the process of changing and the e f f e c t s 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 e s p e c i a l l y f o r a device which was o r i g i n a l l y used only to warm l e f t - o v e r s .  Whole new i n d u s t r i e s are  emerging to e x p l o i t the p o t e n t i a l 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 p o t e n t i a l areas of a p p l i c a t i o n of any t e c h n o l o g i c a l 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 L i t e r a t u r e / 15 to use a new t o o l f o r an o l d job.  I t i s only as our s o p h i s t i c a t i o n  grows through use that we begin to develop fundamentally  new  a p p l i c a t i o n s and the true impact of the innovation begins to become evident. This tendency has c e r t a i n l y been present during the i n t r o d u c t i o n of computers i n t o education.  P r e d i c t a b l y , one of the f i r s t areas of  a p p l i c a t i o n to be e x p l o i t e d has been i n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . This has occurred not only because the administrators c o n t r o l the finances but a l s o because the a p p l i c a t i o n i s easy to conceptualize.  Similarly, in  the classroom many of the e a r l i e s t a p p l i c a t i o n s consisted of the p r o v e r b i a l ' e l e c t r o n i c page-flippers'; programs which emulated a t e x t book by presenting endless screens of t e x t u a l information which can be ' f l i p p e d ' by pressing the spacebar.  The next generation of software  attempted to emulate the process of i n s t r u c t i o n by i n c o r p o r a t i n g some questionning of the student i n order to r e i n f o r c e the i n s t r u c t i o n and c o n t r o l the rate of progress.  F i n a l l y , there emerged a p p l i c a t i o n s  such as Logo which were q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from t r a d i t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s 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 e x p l o i t i n g the p o t e n t i a l of the hardware i n c r e a t i v e and r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t ways should continue.  However, i f past  experience i s any guide we can expect the majority of a p p l i c a t i o n s to be simply adaptations of o l d s t r a t e g i e s f o r some time to come. The presently recognized areas of c u r r i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n may conveniently organized according to a taxonomy f i r s t proposed by  be  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 16 Taylor i n The Computer i n the School: Tool, Tutor, Tutee (1980).  The  great v i r t u e 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 s t r a t e g y , 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 a p p l i c a t i o n s 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 a l t e r n a t i v e 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 f u n c t i o n as a t o o l , the computer must have some u s e f u l c a p a b i l i t y such as text e d i t i n g , graphics generation or music synthesis programmed i n t o i t .  This use "can pay o f f handsomely i n  saving time and preserving i n t e l l e c t u a l energy by t r a n s f e r r i n g necessary but routine c l e r i c a l tasks of a tedious, mechanical kind to the computer" T a y l o r , 1980, p. 3 ) .  The t o o l a p p l i c a t i o n s of the  computer have been developed e x t e n s i v e l y f o r business and s c i e n t i f i c applications.  Some of these, such as text e d i t i n g , have been adapted  for educational use with great success.  Others, such as t e s t i n g and  classroom management, are being developed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r educators. To f u n c t i o n as a t u t o r , the computer must be programmed so that: The computer presents some subject m a t e r i a l , the student responds, the computer evaluates the response, and, from the r e s u l t s of the e v a l u a t i o n , 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 d i s p o s a l 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 t e s t and then lead the student through the m a t e r i a l . (Taylor, 1980, p. 3)  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 17 The term computer-assisted i n s t r u c t i o n (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 a p p l i c a t i o n s have the  p o t e n t i a l to accommodate i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s but have been c r i t i c i z e d because they do not allow f o r spontaneous improvisation and can, i f used improperly, decrease the human content of i n s t r u c t i o n with a l l of i t s a d v e n t i t i o u s personal and s o c i a l b e n e f i t s . The tutor category i s the most diverse i n t h i s taxonomy and i s , consequently, often divided i n t o various subcategories.  These may  include, i n a d d i t i o n to the t u t o r i a l s t y l e previously described, d r i l l and p r a c t i c e , educational gaming, simulation and modelling, problem-solving, and i n q u i r y and dialogue.  Moreover, the various  types of software may be used i n standard i n s t r u c t i o n or as a supplemental technique of reinforcement f o r the general population; or i n various i n d i v i d u a l i z e d modes f o r s p e c i f i c students such as remediation, enrichment or s p e c i a l education.  I t i s t h i s c l a s s of  computer a p p l i c a t i o n , 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 n e c e s s a r i l y the area of greatest impact or success. To use the computer as a tutee i s to reverse the r o l e s of the computer and the student i n the tutor a p p l i c a t i o n s ; hence the derived term "tutee". For t h a t , the student doing the t u t o r i n g must l e a r n to program. Logo.  In most cases, t h i s type of a p p l i c a t i o n i m p l i e s the use of  Proponents of t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n contend that "because you can't  teach what you don't understand, the human tutor w i l l l e a r n what he or she i s t r y i n g to teach the computer...[and, more importantly] learners  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 18 gain new i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e i r own t h i n k i n g through l e a r n i n g to program" (Taylor, 1980, p. 4 ) .  2.3  Neither of these b e l i e f s i s uncontested.  ISSUES OF ADOPTION The taxonomy of a p p l i c a t i o n s 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 a p p l i c a t i o n s which cannot be conveniently subsumed by any e x i s t i n g content area.  Consequently, educators need to be  concerned with examining the areas of p o t e n t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n to determine whether they are appropriate f o r the educational system to adopt.  Tetenbaum and Mulkeen (1984) suggest, f o r example, that  "before tens of thousands more c h i l d r e n are taught Logo, i t seems advisable to give serious consideration to i t s purpose" (p. 19). Even those a p p l i c a t i o n s which have a c l e a r l y defined and appropriate purpose may be problematic, however, since whenever we introduce new t o p i c s and a c t i v i t i e s i n t o the school system we must i n e v i t a b l y d i s p l a c e some e x i s t i n g 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 n e c e s s a r i l y 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 t o p i c or strategy we must simultaneously discard another.  An example of such  comparative a n a l y s i s i s given by Levin and Meister (1986) who  found  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 19 that "CAL.was more c o s t - e f f e c t i v e than adult t u t o r i n g , reducing c l a s s s i z e , or i n c r e a s i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l time...[but] considerably l e s s c o s t - e f f e c t i v e than peer t u t o r i n g i n mathematics and s l i g h t l y l e s s c o s t - e f f e c t i v e than peer t u t o r i n g i n reading" (p. 749). There are, of course, also human costs as w e l l 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 r i g h t to experiment with the teaching/learning process....But there are r i s k s : a f a i l e d experiment may r e s u l t i n more or l e s s severe damage to the l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n . . . [ a n d ] new t e c h n o l o g i c a l developments such as the microcomputer present an e s c a l a t i o n of the r i s k s , both i n number and s e v e r i t y , and may therefore require greater caution i n our approach to classroom experimentation, (p. 36) DeKoven (1984) i n d i c a t e s other human costs i n commenting that "although l e a r n i n g admirably, the k i d playing with the computer i s playing alone...[moving] f u r t h e r away from s o c i a l awareness, becoming l e s s and l e s s responsive to the outside world" (p. 64).  Carmichael,  Burnett, Higginson, Moore and P o l l a r d (1985) support t h i s contention i n t h e i r two-year study of c h i l d r e n from Kindergarten to Grade 8. I t was found that s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n 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 a l s o a c r i t i c a l component i n the f u r t h e r i n g of c o g n i t i v e development and of c r e a t i v e expression. This strong need f o r s o c i a l contact expressed by c h i l d r e n would suggest that any future scenario that sees only the s i n g u l a r c h i l d happily engaged i n f r o n t of a computer over extended periods of time away from any human contact, i s e i t h e r u n r e a l i s t i c or, i f i t i s forced on c h i l d r e n , w i l l lead to serious d i s l o c a t i o n s i n t h e i r normal development, (p. 365) On the other hand, they found that the teaching of Logo could contribute to c r e a t i n g an environment which encouraged e x p l o r a t i o n and led to increased s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and w i l l i n g n e s s to share, r e f i n e and r e v i s e ideas i f the teacher managed the s i t u a t i o n s k i l l f u l l y .  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 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 e x c i t i n g p o t e n t i a l f o r t h e i r use and so f r e n z i e d to keep up with the pace of t e c h n o l o g i c a l change that fundamental issues have been overlooked.  The computer i s changing not only our s t y l e of  i n s t r u c t i o n 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 d i r e c t i o n and with the b l i n d f a i t h that the changes represent progress.  There seem to be  some important issues r e l a t e d 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 t h i 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 p o t e n t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n f o r computers and adopt these as part of the educational system we must concern ourselves with the problem of developing these a p p l i c a t i o n s to be e f f e c t 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 f o r small p r o j e c t s d i r e c t e d by educational researchers. However, with the advent of the microcomputer the process became much more d e c e n t r a l i z e d . Hardware began to become a v a i l a b l e 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 L i t e r a t u r e / 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 p u b l i s h i n g 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 r e s u l t i s a flood of one-shot  software of highly v a r i a b l e q u a l i t y . In order to cope with the i n i t i a l rush of software and to remove the overburden of poor m a t e r i a l 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 p r o j e c t s were intended to evaluate software but i n f a c t they were barely able to cope with the volume of m a t e r i a l which was being produced and, consequently, were content to catalog and describe as much of i t as p o s s i b l e .  Evaluation was confined to i d e n t i f y i n g  software which d i d not run without crashing and was not manifestly inappropriate.  In f a c t , according to Lathrop, i n 1982 l e s s than 5  percent of the a v a i l a b l e educational software had been reviewed i n print. There i s a l a r g e 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 v a r i a t i o n s to the c h e c k l i s t 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; K l o p f e r , 1984; Schug, 1984.) Wager (1982) suggests four major concerns from which software evaluation p r a c t i c e s may be u s e f u l l y derived:  t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t y , content accuracy, i n s t r u c t i o n a l q u a l i t y ,  and learner type.  Cohen (1983) points out that two types of  a t t r i b u t e s need to be considered:  those that are generic to a l l types  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 22 of media and those that are unique to computer software.  Rothe (1983)  reminds us that the " s o c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s 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 s e l e c t i o n , ideology, c u l t u r a l assumptions and value assumptions.  A f t e r surveying current  t h i n k i n g on design and e v a l u a t i o n , 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 l a c k s the touches of the c r e a t i v e mind - spontaneity, humor, v a r i e t y , and p i z a z z " (p. 217).  Chomsky (1984) comes to a  s i m i l a r conclusion when reviewing software f o r language a r t s . I t ' s r e l a t i v e l y easy to f i n d programs that work e f f e c t i v e l y f o r i s o l a t e d 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 p r a c t i c e . I t ' s another matter to f i n d programs that help with such i n t a n g i b l e s as comprehension, inference and appreciation of s t y l e , and that i n s p i r e students to i n t e r a c t imaginatively with sentences, paragraphs and p l o t . (p. 61) Good c h e c k l i s t 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 i n t a n g i b l e s through the s u b j e c t i v e judgement of the reviewer.  A l l of  t h i s presumes, of course, the existence of a pool of t r a i n e d , experienced and talented reviewers. The Evaluator's Guide For Microcomputer-Based I n s t r u c t i o n a l 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  p r i m a r i l y d e s c r i p t i v e . Although there i s a c h e c k l i s t of a t t r i b u t e s 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 e f f e c t i v e use of feedback, the a c t u a l evaluation i s confined to a  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 23 personal judgement on the part of the reviewer as to whether the package should be recommended f o r purchase, recommended with changes or not recommended.  There i s no component which requires a c t u a l  classroom use although t h i s may occur i f the reviewer wishes. i s no component which c a l l s f o r student r e a c t i o n .  There  There i s no  component which s p e c i f i c a l l y examines the d e t a i l s of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l design.  There i s a s i n g l e c h e c k l i s t item which asks i f "the content  presents a balanced view of any s o c i a l consideration" (p. 12) but no d e t a i l e d 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 i m p l i c a t i o n s of the material.  I t would, of course, be u n r e a l i s t i c to expect a more  d e t a i l e d review f o r 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 a i d f o r teachers who are charged with the s e l e c t i o n of software. Not a l l evaluative e f f o r t s are of the c h e c k l i s t v a r i e t y however. In reviewing three B r i t i s h case studies r e l a t e d to reading development and comparing them t o c h e c 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 c h e c k l i s t s and on transactions i n the case studies...[but] neither c h e c k l i s t s nor case studies devoted great a t t e n t i o n to e m p i r i c a l l y measured outcomes" (p.221).  In the case of c h e c k l i s t s , Harrison found  the emphasis on antecedents hardly s u r p r i s i n g since teachers usually have to s e l e c t software without the opportunity to a c u t a l l y use i t beforehand.  In a d d i t i o n he noted that the apparent i n a t t e n t i o n t o  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 24 empirically-determined outcomes even i n the case studies might be explained by the f a c t that: ...when teachers evaluate m a t e r i a l , t h e i r a t t e n t i o n i s d i r e c t e d 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 e i t h e r long-term pedagogical or p h i l o s o p h i c a l i s s u e s , (p. 231) Empirically-determined outcomes w i l l i n e v i t a b l y require student input and Signer (1983) has observed that "students and teachers have d i f f e r e n t perceptions of q u a l i t y software, with the students being the stronger c r i t i c s " (p. 35). Her i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s f a c t 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 s p 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 i n t e r e s t , c l a r i t y and t h e i r l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . (Signer, 1983, p. 35) We must conclude, t h e r e f o r e , 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  e n t i r e l y i m p r a c t i c a l f o r the immense volume of small packages c u r r e n t l y 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 a v a i l a b l e m a t e r i a l .  A l l i s not l o s t however, f o r as the e d i t o r i a l  column i n Educational Technology f o r June, 1984, so cogently observes: I t would appear, then, that we have anarchy i n the schools when i t comes to software s e l e c t i o n . I t ' s every teacher f o r himself. But...does anyone r e a l l y believe that the majority of teachers s e l e c t t h e i r other classroom m a t e r i a l s based on c a r e f u l , l o g i c a l , d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of a l t e r n a t i v e media?... You w i l l f i n d that the l a r g e s t s i n g l e c r i t e r i o n , s o - c a l l e d , i s simply "gut r e a c t i o n " , with "recommendations of a f r i e n d " a close second. Reading of software reviews published i n  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 25 respected journals? Come now! Teachers don't read such journals. (TECHnically Speaking, 1984) 2.4.2  Software Development  I f the evaluative e f f o r t s of the past few years have not been successful i n a c t u a l l y 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 e n t i r e l y wasted either.  I f nothing e l s e , they have made the r o l e of i n s t r u c t i o n a l  theories i n evaluation a t o p i c of discussion i n the l i t e r a t u r e . C r i s w e l l and Swezey (1984) point out that "the t o p i c which appears to be omitted from previous nonexperimental courseware evaluations i s an assessment of the l e a r n i n g p r i n c i p l e s , derived from behavioural learning theory" (p. 43).  Four months l a t e r i n the same j o u r n a l  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 ( i n s t r u c t i o n ) materials (during the s i x t i e s ) . That i s , d e s c r i p t i v e c h e c k l i s t s , employing a v a r i e t y 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 t h a t , u n l i k e the f i r s t technology r e v o l u t i o n ( a f t e r Sputnik), a knowledge base now e x i s t s from which to develop sound evaluative c r i t e r i a . That knowledge base, r e f e r r e d 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 r e s u l t 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 s t a r t e d i n the s i x t i e s , one of  the e a r l i e s t a p p l i c a t i o n s to educational computing was made by Gagne, Wager and Rojas i n 1981 and again by Gagne i n 1982.  The a p p l i c a t i o n  of Gagne's theory of i n s t r u c t i o n to computer-based materials has been followed by f u r t h e r 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 L i t e r a t u r e / 26 Theories Can Teach the Designer of Computer-Based T r a i n i n g " (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 u n i f i e d 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 p r i n c i p l e s of r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e l e a r n i n g and communication t h e o r i e s " (p. 16). Margaret B e l l (1985) has surveyed the c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e educational theories and considered t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r CBI. At the present time, i n s t r u c t i o n a l psychology includes s e v e r a l theories that address d i f f e r e n t issues i n classroom l e a r n i n g . B. F. Skinner's technology of teaching, f o r example, emphasizes the r o l e of reinforcement i n behavioural change, while information-processing theories delineate important c o g n i t i v e stages i n the l e a r n i n g process. Some other current approaches are Robert Gagne's conditions of l e a r n i n g , Jean Piaget's c o g n i t i v e development theory, A l b e r t Bandura's observational l e a r n i n g theory, and Bernard Weiner's a t 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 e x i s t s i n which basic p r i n c i p l e s of i n s t r u c t i o n a l design have been researched and a r t i c u l a t e d " (p. 738). In a d d i t i o n to l e a r n i n g 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 f a c t o r s which make computer use a t t r a c t i v e to students whether they l e a r n anything or not.  Kearsley (1985) suggests a set of such guidelines and i n Down  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 27 with Green Lambs; Creating Quality Software f o r 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 i n t e g r a t e f a c t s i n t o these games" (p. 275).  She i d e n t i f i e s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of such games as i n c l u d i n g  singleness of purpose, a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , 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 f o r i t s own sake and does not require external motivation to e l i c i t and sustain i n t e r e s t . ) 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 p u b l i c a t i o n there i s a  set of c r i t e r i a f o r i d e n t i f y i n g e f f e c t i v e software. 1. The i n s t r u c t i o n i s s u i t e d to a computer presentation... 2. The software accomplishes the purpose(s) f o r 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 t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l knowledge of how people l e a r n . . . 4. The content of the program i s accurate, w e l l organized, appropriate f o r i t s intended users, and appropriate to the Ontario school curriculum. 5. The software i s t e c h n i c a l l y r e l i a b l e under normal conditions of use. 6. The software i s easy to use f o r i n d i v i d u a l s with a minimum of computer e x p e r t i s e . 7. The intended users (teachers, c o u n s e l l o r s , 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 i n v e s t to use it. 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 c h e c k l i s t s - with the d i f f e r e n c e that items 1,2 and 3  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 28 seldom i f ever appeared.  The existence of such a document would  i n d i c a t e that the lessons of the l i t e r a t u r e have i n f a c t been learned, at l e a s t 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 e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l t o o l at a l l l e v e l s of i n s t r u c t i o n , vendors continue to s t r e s s the " b e l l s and w h i s t l e s " 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 p o t e n t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n and develop e f f e c t i v e 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 f o r " i t must r e f l e c t an a c t i v i t y which t h r i v e s 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 i n n o v a t i o n s . . . i s not a b i p o l a r use/nonuse phenomenon" ( H a l l and Loucks, 1977, p. 265) and "represents a process rather than a d e c i s i o n - p o i n t " ( H a l l and Loucks, 1975, p. 52).  Consequently, they have i d e n t i f i e d , a f t e r  extensive case s t u d i e s , eight Levels of Use i n the developmental  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 29 growth continuum.  These are: non-use, o r i e n t a t i o n , preparation,  mechanical use, routine use, refinement, i n t e g r a t i o n and renewal. While d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s may s t a r t at d i f f e r e n t points and progress through the l e v e l s a t d i f f e r e n t rates - perhaps even i n a non-linear fashion - we should note Huberman's caution that "saving time by s h o r t - c u t t i n g the t r i a l phase i s a catastrophic s t r a t e g y " (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.  I n t h i s regard, the  conservative nature of teachers described by L o r t i e (1975) and Reid's observation that "change involves the abandonment of p r a c t i c e s as w e l l as t h e i r adoption" (Reid, 1975, p. 247) are c r u c i a l .  I n order to  embrace and use CBI teachers must not only be convinced of i t s e f f i c a c y but they must also abandon some of t h e i r present i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s and approach a f o r e i g n technology which they may w e l l f i n d confusing and even threatening.  I f we neglect t h i s f a c t  then i t w i l l be a long time before computer a p p l i c a t i o n s are implemented whether we succeed i n supplying s u f f i c i e n t hardware and e f f e c t i v e software or not.  One key to e f f e c t i v e implementation  i s the  observation by C i c c h e l l i and Baecher (1985) that " a t t e n t i o n must be given to the involvement of i n d i v i d u a l s i n the change process f o r change w i l l occur only when i n d i v i d u a l s change" (p. 56).  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 30 The v e h i c l e f o r promoting and supporting change i s i n s e r v i c e . This i n s e r v i c e must be designed i n the knowledge that the teacher and not the hardware i s the appropriate focus of a t t e n t i o n , that change i s a p o t e n t i a l l y 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 i n d i v d u a l i s the c e n t r a l i s s u e , the school i s the u n i t of change. That i s , change w i l l be g r e a t l y f a c i l i t a t e d i f the e n t i r e school community i s involved cooperatively rather that as i n d i v i d u a l s . Consequently,  i n s e r v i c e 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 I f i n f a c t we do provide s u f f i c i e n t hardware and e f f e c t i v e  software f o r appropriate c u r r i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n s , and i f we f u r t h e r r e a l i z e s i g n i f i c a n t change through c a r e f u l l y designed i n s e r v i c e then i t w i l l become important that we evaluate the consequences of t h i s process.  We must know u l t i m a t e l y whether computer-based s t r a t e g i e s  are having the desired consequences. In a meta-analysis of 42 c o n t r o l l e d evaluations Bangert-Drowns et a l . found that "computer-based education (CBE) has had p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s on achievement of students i n j u n i o r and senior high schools" (Bangert-Drowns, K u l i k , J . , & K u l i k , C ,  1985, p 59).  They a l s o found  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 31 that "more recent studies found stronger e f f e c t s on student achievement" (p. 66) which may i s improving.  i n d i c a t e that the q u a l i t y of software  An e a r l i e r study by Bright (1983) had not found such a  p o s i t i v e e f f e c t but did conclude that CBI r e s u l t e d i n "equivalent l e a r n i n g i n l e s s t o t a l student time" (p. 146). may  He concluded that t h i s  be due to the f a c t that CBI " a c t i v i t i e s increase both the  absolute  engaged time as w e l l as the rate of engagement...[and] the r a t i o of high success w i t h i n the engaged time" (p. 149). These r e s u l t s are encouraging but i n other areas there are some doubts emerging about computer-based s t r a t e g i e s . The Bangert-Drowns (1985) study found, f o r instance, that "programs of  computer-assisted  i n s t r u c t i o n and computer-managed i n s t r u c t i o n were generally quite e f f e c t i v e ... (but) programs of computer-enrichment, on the other hand, d i d not add anything s u b s t a n t i a l to student l e a r n i n g " (p. 65). By "computer-enrichment" the authors meant programming i n languages such as BASIC and Logo.  They found that "the c h i l d r e n who  taught  computers undoubtedly learned to w r i t e computer programs, but mastery of t h i s a c t i v i t y did not seem to a f f e c t other aspects of t h e i r c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g " (p. 66). body of Logo boosters who  This i s a severe blow to the large  "view LOGO as a c o g n i t i v e a m p l i f i e r (Pea  c a l l s i t the 'Wheaties of the Mind')...[and believe] that i t i s a language f o r learning how to t h i n k " (Tetenbaum & Mulkeen, p. 17).  1984,  Tetenbaum and Mulkeen (1984) have c a l l e d f o r a moratorium on  the teaching of Logo as a general problem-solving claims can be substantiated.  model u n t i l such  They point out that " i n general,  theory  A Review of the L i t e r a t u r e / 32 and research i n the f i e l d of c o g n i t i v e science suggest that there i s not a s i n g l e 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, i d i o s y n c r a t i c to the task"  (p. 17). While t h i s f a v o u r i t e son of the computer r e v o l u t i o n i s taking some l i c k s there i s emerging some respect f o r the Rodney Dangerfield of software: d r i l l and p r a c t i c e programs.  M e r r i l l and S a l i s b u r y  (1984) contend that "there i s much evidence today, a r i s i n g from recent research, i n modern c o g n i t i v e theory, which suggests that the r o l e of d r i l l and p r a c t i c e i n l e a r n i n g has been unwarrantably downgraded" (p. 19).  They point out that " i n order f o r 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 p r a c t i c e 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 e f f e c t s of computer-based i n s t r u c t i o n and that ongoing research and evaluation w i l l be c r u c i a l .  U n t i l the r e s u l t s of that  research are known we might do w e l l to heed the warning of John Ohles (1985) . A high-powered computer industry i s o v e r - s e l l i n g i t s merchandise to a degree that makes the hucksters of f i l m , r a d i o , t e l e v i s i o n , language l a b o r a t o r i e s 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 r h e t o r i c of the past...But what a waste, what a tragedy i f another highly u s e f u l (even i f not miraculous) educational t o o l 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  Chapter 3  THE METHOD OF STUDY  3.1  INTRODUCTION  This study represents d e s c r i p t i v e r e s e a r c h .  It  is  intended  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 a n be u s e d i n t h e d e s i g n o f activities i n the  for  intermediate teachers  on t h e u s e o f  the  classroom.  survey through the m a i l , s e l e c t e d sample of  What i 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  to  questions:  computer a c c e s s  for  teachers?  t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f  the experience  i n t e r m e d i a t e teachers w i t h computer-based  programs are used i n  Which s p e c i f i c  d)  W h i c h p r o g r a m s a r e f a v o u r e d by i n t e r m e d i a t e  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 programs a r e most e f f e c t i v e  intermediate  feel  r e l a t i v e to  of  instruction?  c)  strategies?  province-wide  interviews with a smaller  t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f  intermediate  What i s  and t e l e p h o n e  teachers.  answer the f o l l o w i n g  b)  inservice  microcomputer  The s t u d y was c o n d u c t e d a s two s e p a r a t e s u r v e y s : a  a)  to  that  classrooms?  teachers?  the  available  traditional  The Method of Study / 35 f)  Other than the f a c t that students generally l i k e to use computers and parents applaud t h e i r i n t r o d u c t i o n , 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 f o r 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 c l a s s e s of software i d e n t i f i e d as being most popular i n the p r o v i n c i a l  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 f o r the use of t h i s software as i d e n t i f i e d i n the p r o v i n c i a l  survey?  The motives referred  to the computer's value f o r u t i l i t y use as a word processor, i n t e r e s t generation, computer l i t e r a c y , d r i l l and p r a c t i c e , enrichment, reinforcement and  individualization.  The Method of Study / 36 3.2  THE PRELIMINARY PROVINCIAL SURVEY 3.2.1  Development of the Questionnaire  The questionnaire was developed i n c o n s u l t a t i o n with Dr. C. J . Anastasiou and revised over a s e r i e s of meetings.  I t was then  c r i t i c a l l y reviewed by Dr. H. R a t z l a f f and s i g n i f i c a n t l y revised on the basis of h i s observations. One component of the questionnaire was a c h e c k l i s t of software. This l i s t was developed by e x t r a c t i n g 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 i n t e r a c t i v e basis to t e s t f o r c l a r i t y .  Minor  revisions resulted. F i n a l l y , the questionnaire was d i s t r i b u t e d t o 6 intermediate teachers i n two d i f f e r e n t schools with the i n v i t a t i o n to comment on the time required t o complete the instrument and the c l a r i t y of i t s questions.  As a r e s u l t of t h 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 e l i m i n a t i n g an open-ended concluding question.  The Method of Study / 37 3.2.2  A p p l i c a t i o n 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 ' A s s o c i a t i o n (PSA) of the B r i t i s h Columbia Teachers' Federation (BCTF).  The 471 members were  selected by omitting every f o u r t h name from an a l p h a b e t i c a l mailing list. 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. represented v a l i d data.  Of these, 167  The remainder were from i n d i v i d u a l s 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  A n a l y s i s of the Responses  The items on the questionnaire were analyzed through the c a l c u l a t i o n of means, medians and standard d e v i a t i o n s . Teacher t r a i n i n g was rated according to the f o l l o w i n g a r b i t r a r y scale f o r the purpose of numerical a n a l y s i s .  The Method of Study / 38 0 1 2 3 4  -  no s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g at a l l up to 5 days of t r a i n i n g i n t o t a l more than 5 days and up to one semester more than one semester and up to two semesters 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 i n - s e r v i c e 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 t r a i n i n g to a c t u a l intermediate classroom practice.  Only four respondents reported more than two semesters of  training. Since both t r a i n i n g and a c t u a l experience i n the classroom are important f a c t o r s i n developing e x p e r t i s e , an a d d i t i o n a l  coefficient  of expertise which combines the three component measures was calcuated as f o l l o w s : expertise = (yrs of use + t r a i n i n g c o e f f ) * (# 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 i n s e r v i c e , one year of classroom contact and actual experience with f i v e d i f f e r e n t programs i n terms of developing e x p e r t i s e .  A teacher who had attended two days  of l o c a l i n - s e r v i c e and used f i v e d i f f e r e n t 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 i n v o l v i n g ten d i f f e r e n t programs combined with  a one semester course would y i e l d a c o e f f i c i e n t of 8.0.  (See Appendix  F f o r 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 i n s t r u c t i o n a l t o o l 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  The Method of Study / 39 which 4 represented rough equality and 7 a s i g n i f i c a n t s u p e r i o r i t y . The rest of the questionnaire involved c h e c k l i s t s and open-format questions. The f i n a l item asked what reasons the respondent had f o r using computers i n the classroom "other than the f a c t that students generally l i k e to use computers and parents applaud t h e i r introduction".  There was room f o r three d i f f e r e n t responses.  were l i s t e d i n f u l l f o r the f i r s t t h i r t y questionnaires.  These  At that time  an abbreviated system f o r 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 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on the part of the author but i n most cases t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n seemed c l e a r .  The purpose of the question was to  i d e 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 r e s u l t s was mailed to the 23 persons who had requested such a summary when returning t h e i r questionnaire.  3.3  THE TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS 3.3.1  Development of the Interview Schedule  The interview protocol was developed, reviewed and revised over a s e r i e s of meetings with Dr. C. J . Anastasiou. I t was then reviewed by  The Method of Study / 40 Dr. H. R a t z l a f f and revised according to h i s recommendations. F i n a l l y , the i n t e r v i e w was p i l o t e d 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 s i x t e e n most experienced respondents on the preliminary survey were a l l sent a summary of the r e s u l t s (Appendix C) and a l e t t e r (Appendix D) requesting t h e i r assistance i n providing more information through a b r i e f telephone i n t e r v i e w . A s i m i l a r 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 c r o s s - s e c t i o n of the intermediate s t a f f and a v a r i e t y of experience. The telephone i n t e r v i e w followed a d e t a i l e d o u t l i n e (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 c o r r e l a t i o n 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 c h e c k l i s t 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 f a c t o r i n determining t h e i r 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 c h e c k l i s t and i t was necessary to f o l l o w up with a telephone request f o r i t s return i n several cases.  A number of subjects never d i d return the  c h e c k l i s t and were consequently discarded.  not interviewed or the interview was  The coincidence of the survey with the Stanley Cup hockey  championships was a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n p r o t r a c t i n g the time required to complete the survey.  3.3.3  Analysis of the Results  The r e s u l t s were analyzed to rank order the f i v e a p p l i c a t i o n s surveyed and the l i s t e d motivations f o r the use of the computer i n the intermediate classroom.  An attempt was also made to determine whether  there was any c o r r e l a t i o n between the s i g n i f i c a n c e of each motivational category t o an i n d i v i d u a l and that i n d i v i d u a l ' s background.  S p e c i f i c a l l y , the c o r r e l a t i o n with years of use, the  t r a i n i n g c o e f f i c i e n t , the number of programs from the c h e c k l i s t 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 f o r the importance attached to a p a r t i c u l a r motivation by i t s being the primary motivation f o r the use of a respondent's f a v o u r i t e program as opposed to a secondary motivation f o r a l e s s popular program or the f i n a l motivation f o r the l e a s t favoured program a weighting system was devised. motivation was given a weight as f o l l o w s :  Each  The Method of Study / 42 weight = (6 - program rank) * (4 - motivation rank f o r program) Thus, the primary motivation f o r the top ranked program out of the f i v e received a weight of 15, whereas the second motivation f o r the t h 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. for a more complete explanation of the weighting  (See Appendix F  algorithm.)  In a d d i t i o n , a scheme was devised to account f o r the f a c t that not a l l respondents had experience with a l l programs.  In f a c t , 23% of  the data matrix was l e f t blank due t o a lack of experience with a particular  program on the part of the respondents.  In order that each  respondent's m o t i v a t i o n a l perspective should rate equally the frequency of each motivation reported was normalized as f o l l o w s : normalized frequency or r e p o r t i n g f o r a motivation  =  a c t u a l frequency of reporting f o r a motivation  *  5  /  number of programs reported on  The e f f e c t 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 f o r that motivation would be 3.3.  (See Appendix F f o r a more complete explanation of the  normalization algorithm.) The frequency of occurrence of each motivation was then c a l c u l a t e d f o r each respondent according to a s t r a i g h t frequency, a  The Method of Study / 43 normalized s t r a i g h t frequency, a weighted frequency and a normalized weighted frequency. Scattergrams were p l o t t e d showing the frequency of each motivation as a f u n c t i o n of the experience of the respondent. Frequency was c a l c u l a t e d using each of the four techniques j u s t described and experience was c a l c u l a t e d as years of use, the t r a i n i n g c o e f f i c i e n t , the number of programs from the c h e c k l i s t reported as having been used and the e x p e r t i s e c o e f f i c i e n t .  This gives a t o t a l of  sixteen d i f f e r e n t p l o t s f o r each m o t i v a t i o n a l category.  In a d d i t i o n ,  a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each r e l a t i o n .  Both the  scattergrams and the c a l c u l a t i o n s were produced from the raw data using a computer program w r i t t e n by the author f o r that purpose and executed on an Apple l i e  microcomputer.  The normalized weighted frequency was judged to give the best i n d i c a t i o n 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 p o t e n t i a l f o r r e v e a l i n g d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s 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 o b j e c t i v e  d e s c r i p t i o n of the nature and extent of computer use i n intermediate classrooms and second to examine the reasons reported by teachers f o r the use of computers i n intermediate classrooms.  The main r e s u l t s 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 r a t e was 39.6% of a sample of 500. I t i s  reasonable to assume that the respondents are on average more e n t h u s i a s t i c about and involved with computers than those who d i d not respond so that the r e s u l t s reported may be skewed i n favour of t h e i r school s i t u a t i o n s . Apple computer users represented 63% of the respondents, Commodore 64 users 25% and various other models the remainder. The number of computers a v a i l a b l e to the c l a s s was not reported by 19% of the respondents.  Of those r e p o r t i n g , 11% had no access of  any k i n d , 29% had access to a s i n g l e computer, 16% to two and 11% to three.  The r e s u l t s ranged up to nineteen.  However, the a c t u a l number  Results of the Study / 45 of computers a v a i l a b l e 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 i n t o 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 r e s u l t s can s t i l l be seen to  i n d i c a t e 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 t r a i n i n g 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 t r 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 o r d i n a l 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 c l a s s the vast majority of teachers reported l e s s personal use than p r o f e s s i o n a l use.  This probably i n d i c a t e s that t h e i r f i r s t i n t r o d u c t i o n to  computers came through the classroom.  The average of the two  i n d i c a t o r s 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 a c t u a l l y used at l e a s t once i n the classroom ranged from 1 to 43 with a median of 7, an average of 9.8 and a standard d e v i a t i o n 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 a c t u a l experience i n the classroom are important f a c t o r s i n developing e x p e r t i s e , an a d d i t i o n a l c o e f f i c i e n t of e x p e r t i s e which combines the three component measures of experience was c a l c u l a t e d as f o l l o w s : expertise = (yrs of use + t r a i n i n g c o e f f ) * (# of programs used / 5) The r e s u l t s ranged from 0.0 up to 48.0 with an average of 8.4 and a median of 2.4 f o r 95 i n d i v i d u a l s .  This median value would, f o r  example, be assigned to a teacher with one year of i n - c l a s s computer experience who a l s o used the school's computer f o r 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 d i f f e r e n t programs with h i s c l a s s . Respondents were asked to r a t e the computer as an i n s t r u c t i o n a l t o o l 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 e q u a l i t y and 7 a s i g n i f i c a n t s u p e r i o r i t y . The most frequently rated areas were language a r t s and mathematics and the highest rated areas were problem s o l v i n g and language a r t s as shown i n Table 1. The most frequently reported t i t l e s from the software c h e c k l i s t are l i s t e d i n Table 2 and the programs which enjoyed the best combination of frequency of use and r e p o r t i n g as a " f a v o u r i t e " program are l i s t e d i n Table 3.  The a p p l i c a t i o n area i s that w i t h i n which the  respondents included the program most f r e q u e n t l y .  Results of the Study / 47  Table 1 Rating of Computer-Based  I n s t r u c t i o n i n Comparison to  T r a d i t i o n a l Strategies i n Various C u r r i c u l a r Areas +  +  +  +  | I n s t r u c t i o n a l Area | respondents | average r a t i n g | + + + + 5.3 (s = 1.15) Problem s o l v i n g / Logic 25 Language Arts 46 5.1 (s = 1.11) Mathematics 4.6 ( s = 1.43) 48 S o c i a l Studies 22 4.5 (s = 1.44) 4.5 (s = 1.44) Science 22 + + + +  Table 3 Teachers' Favourite Software ++-  Program Name  |  Logo Moptown Hotel  +I Bank Street Writer + - Oregon T r a i l I  Problem Solving |  Language Arts  |  S o c i a l Studies  +- Fay, That Math Woman  M i l l i k e n Math Sequences Math B l a s t e r Math A c t i v i t i e s 5 Odell Lake  A p p l i c a t i o n Area  |  -+ ! -+  -+ I -+ I  Mathematics  -+  Science  -+ I -+  Results of the Study / 48 Table 2 Most Frequently Reported Titles From The Software Checklist + + | Frequency | Software Title 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  Note.  BANK STREET WRITER APPLE LOGO THE PRINT SHOP APPLE PRESENTS APPLE TERRAPIN LOGO TYPING TUTOR FAY THAT MATH WOMAN ELEMENTARY V . l : MATH ELEMENTARY V.4: MATH/SCI ROCKY'S BOOTS ELEMENTARY V.3: SOC ST ELEMENTARY V.6: SOC ST MASTERTYPE ALLIGATOR MIX DRAGON MIX MOPTOWN HOTEL MATH BLASTER ALIEN ADDITION BASIC NUMBER FACTS MATH SEQUENCES CROSSWORD MAGIC DEMOLITION DIVISION GERTRUDE'S PUZZLES METEOR MULTIPLICATION EZ LOGO SHELL GAMES APPLE WRITER H E CHESS FACTORY GERTRUDE'S SECRETS  + | Category  + |  WP CP, PS CA.GG SI.TU CP, PS DP..TU DP DP,EG,PS,SI DP,EG,SI CA.PS.SI EG, SI EG, SI DP.EG.TU DP, EG DP, EG EG, PS DP, EG DP, EG DP, EG DP CA,EG,IM DP, EG EG, PS DP, EG CP, PS DP.EG.SH WP EG EG,PS,SI EG, PS  Software Category Abbreviations: CA Creative Activity PS Problem Solving/Logic CP Computer Programming SH Shell/Mini-authoring System DP D r i 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 n e c e s s a r i l y imply that i t i s of p a r t i c u l a r i n s t r u c t i o n a l value but only that i t i s widely d i s t r i b u t e d and f a i r l y w e l l received. This data r e f l e c t s the pattern of use i n classrooms as i t now e x i s t s but does not c o n s t i t u t e e i t h e r an evaluation or an endorsement of the software. F i n a l l y , respondents were asked what reasons they had f o r using computers i n t h e i r classroom "other than the f a c t that students generally l i k e to use computers and parents applaud t h e i r i n t r o d u c t i o n " . The r e s u l t s were widely v a r i e d but s e v e r a l d i s t i n c t categories of response were evident. These are l i s t e d below along with t h e i r frequency of appearance. 28 22 19 13 10 9 9  valuable as a word processor u s e f u l f o r motivation / fun / generates i n t e r e s t promotes "computer l i t e r a c y " u s e f u l f o r d r i l l and p r a c t i c e u s e f u l f o r enrichment u s e f u l f o r reinforcement of i n s t r u c t i o n allows student to c o n t r o l 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 f a c t that computer use "promotes neatness and p r e c i s i o n " and "encourages c a r e f u l reading and f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s " to "promotes small group sharing" and " b u i l d s 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 c r o s s - s e c t i o n of the population rather than a representative sample.  I n 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 t r a i n i 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 c a l c u l a t e d 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 v a r i e t y of hardware s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g combinations of permanently assigned machines, mobile machines, school labs and r o t a t i n g 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 s i t u a t i o n can only be characterized by two f a c t s : 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 a v a i l a b l e . The average time per student per week i n i n t e r a c t i o n with a computer e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a l l y or i n a group of two ranged from l e s s than 15 minutes to more than 4 hours. o u t - o f - c l a s s use.  This includes both i n - c l a s s and  In many s i t u a t i o n s the students were making  extensive use of time before and a f t e r 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 f o r those teachers who were prepared to make such an estimate. The e f f e c t of r o t a t i n g labs which are i n the school f o r 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  j  9  12  9  |  1  |  7  |  Results of the Study / 51  The author would caution that t h i s table i s not representative of the p r o v i n c i a l s i t u a t i o n .  The teachers interviewed are f a r more  experienced than average and i t i s reasonable to assume that t h e i r students have f a r 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 l e s s computers f o r t h e i r class.  With t h i s degree of access i t i s u n l i k e l y that an i n d i v i d u a l  student would have more than 15 minutes of computer time. The respondents ranked f i v e c l a s s e s of computer software i n descending order according to t h e i r opinion of i t s educational merit. In cases where a respondent d i d not have experience with a l l f i v e classes of software the rankings were s h i f t e d so that the highest rank was a f i v e .  This was done so that a teacher's rankings d i d not carry  undue weight as a r e s u l t of l i m i t e d experience. i n Table 5.  The r e s u l t s are shown  Results of the Study / 52 Table 5 R e l a t i v e Merit of Selected Software (as ranked by respondents to the survey) | Software Category +  Word Processing - Bank Street Writer, Magic Window, Magic Slate or M i l l i k e n  +  | +  +  n 41  •+  | Logo - any version  |  33  •+  Note.  +  | average + 2.59  | +  +  +  |  3.09  1-  | +  Math S k i l l s - Math B l a s t e r , 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  39  3.56  Science S k i l l s - Gertrude's Secrets, Moptown Hotel, Moptown Parade, The Factory  18  3.72  Simulations - Odell Lake, O d e l l Woods, or Oregon T r a i l  36  4.67  The f i v e software categories were i d e n t i f i e d as the most common classroom a p p l i c a t i o n s i n the preliminary survey. In the telephone interviews respondents were asked to rank-order these f i v e categories according to t h e i r "educational merit". The value "n" i s the number of teachers who reported a r a t i n g f o r each software category.  A f t e r they had ranked the software according to preference the respondents were asked to "imagine that you are w r i t i n g a b r i e f f o r your board requesting more time and money f o r the use of [software name] i n your school".  The three educational motivations which they  would c i t e i n support of t h e i 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 M o t i v a t i o n a l Categories  1) DRILL: Computers are very good f o r mechanical 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 are p a t i e n t and non-threatening, and can adjust the l e v e l and pace of the d r i l l t o the students demonstrated progress. 2) ENRICHMENT: Computers a v a i l a b l e to students explore new ideas and work with the r e s t of  make extra information and a c t i v i t i e s who have mastered core t o p i c s . They can a c t i v i t i e s while the teacher continues t o the c l a s s .  3) INDIVIDUALIZATION: The computer can make a wide v a r i e t y of information and i n s t r u c t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o students. Moreover, they can s e l e c t these materials according to t h e i r needs and proceed at t h e i r own pace. 4) INTEREST: Students l i k e to undertake computer-based tasks and consequently are motivated to p a r t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y i n the educational a c t i v i t i e s presented by the software. I t arouses i n t e r e s t and holds a t t e n t i o n . 5) LITERACY: Computers are an important item of modern technology. Students need t o become f a m i l i a r enough with t h e i r use that they are comfortable with them and can r e a l i s t i c a l l y assess t h e i r power and t h e 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 r e i n f o r c e the curriculum. I t o f f e r s the opportunity to p r a c t i c e 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 f o r the same reason that they learn to use a c a l c u l a t o r or a telephone. I t enhances t h e i r a b i l i t y t o explore, t o reason and to communicate.  Note.  The categories are l i s t e d i n a l p h a b e t i c a l order.  Results of the Study / 54 The motivations i n Table 6 were read to the respondents i n random order with the i n s t r u c t i o n to w r i t e down the key word f o r 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 w e l l as the normalized and normalized weighted forms previously explained. Table 7 O v e r a l l R e l a t i v e Importance of M o t i v a t i o n a l Categories +  + | Enrichment  + | Frequency of C i t a t i o n + + + | Raw | Normalized | Weighted and Normalized + + + | 106 | 147.0 | 894.6  | + | + j  +  +  +  Motivational Category  | Interest + | Reinforcement  +  | + | + | + | +  Literacy  +  | 107 |  +  +  | + Utility | + Individualization | + Drill | +  |  842.6  +  | 70 |  +  +  153.7  +  52 | + 42 | + 67 | + 23 | +  92.5 79.3 62.0 91.2 34.3  +  |  +  |  537.1  | + | + | + | +  530.1  +  523.2 460.0 172.5  j  +  | + | + | + | +  In i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s 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 r e s u l t s 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 s e l e c t i o n from the seven m o t i v a t i o n a l categories under consideration.  Also, the respondents were required to c i t e a  motivation f o r each of the classes of software with which they had experience.  had  The data has been weighted to account f o r the teachers'  perceived importance of each program but the previous data may better represent the a c t u a l time spent i n pursuing each goal or a c t i v i t y .  As  a p a r t i c u l a r example we may note that the computer's importance as a word processor was c l e a r l y the major reason f o r 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 f a c t that word processing was only one of the f i v e software categories considered and the only one f o r 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 r e s u l t s shown  represent the frequency of c i t a t i o n weighted to i n d i c a t e  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 f o r the primary motivation, 2 f o r the second motivation and 1 f o r the l a s t motivation of the three requested.  Again,  these  r e s u l t s are not representative of the population as a whole but do i n d i c a t e the r e l a t i v e importance of the m o t i v a t i o n a l categories i n each software category f o r t h i s experienced sample of teachers.  Results of the Study / 56 Table 8 R e l a t i v e Importance of M o t i v a t i o n a l Categories With Reference to Selected Software + Motivational  + |  Percentage of Weighted C i t a t i o n Frequency text editor  Logo  math process  + |  MECC simulation  science process  | 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  |  12.3  |  10.9  |  ] Literacy | Utility  {  j  18.6  { 13.4 |  3.4  | 33.9  | 4.6 |  1.3  |  0.0  |  3.8  |  9.4  | 20.8  |  10.9  |  |  |  0.5  |  | Individualization {  6.6  | 17.5 |  | Drill  0.0  | 0.0 | 18.5  |  0.9  The c o r r e l a t i o n 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 " t r a i n i n g l e v e l " i s measured on an o r d i n a l s c a l e , Pearson's product moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t has been used for the two former sets of data while a rank c o r r e l a t i o n has been c a l c u l a t e d f o r the l a t t e r data and both combined measures.  The  "product" measure i s j u s t 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 i n d i v i d u a l measures of experience.  Results of the Study / 57 Table 9 C o r r e l a t i o n Between Measures of Experience and Frequency of C i t a t i o n of Various M o t i v a t i o n a l Categories +  +  Motivational Category  .  -+  Experience Measure  | +training level  years of use  -+  programs | combined measure I used + + | sum | product I  + | Enrichment  +| +0.06  | +0.21 | +0.02  | +0.10  +0.11  I  | Interest  | -0.06  | -0.27 | -0.07  | -0.03 | -0.03  I  | Reinforcement  | +0.03  | +0.33*| +0.25  | +0.37*| +0.37* I  | Literacy  | -0.34*  | -0.38*| -0.23  | -0.37*| -0.35*  I  | Utility  | +0.30*  | +0.18 | +0.05  | +0.20 | +0.16  I  | I n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n | +0.35*  | +0.31*| +0.06  | +0.19 | +0.18  I  | Drill  | -0.38*| -0.06  | -0.16 | -0.15  I  | -0.10  j  -+  *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 r e s u l t s 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 t r a i n 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 s c a r c i t y of  computer resources i s a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r i n retarding the development of e x p e r t i s e 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 s o p h i s t i c a t i o n .  A c l o s e r look a t the  r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e s that there i s l i t t l e evidence f o r a developmental pattern associated with increases i n e i t h e r t r a i n i n g or experience. The d e s c r i p t i v e r e s u l t s up to and i n c l u d i n g Table 7 probably speak f o r themselves. interpretation.  Tables 8 and 9, on the other hand, require some  Discussion of the Results / 59 5.2  THE EFFECT OF EXPERTISE Detailed i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s i n Table 8, which shows  the r e l a t i v e importance of the various motivational categories f o r each of the software categories, would be l a r g e l y s p e c u l a t i v e . However, the author w i l l venture a couple of observations. may  F i r s t , we  see that the motivation f o r using Logo and the various science  processes programs i s p r i m a r i l y "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 f a c t that the value of the a c t i v i t y i n promoting l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s and problem s o l v i n g s k i l l s does not f i n d any convenient c u r r i c u l a r l a b e l and thus teachers may h e s i s t a t e to claim to be r e i n f o r c i n g 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 w i t h i n these programs with science and therefore are without a convenient c u r r i c u l a r l a b e l once again.  The author can, however, o f f e r no explanation f o r the strong  showing of the " i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n " motivation f o r t h i s c l a s s of software which would seem i n c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s l i n e of argument. The c o r r e l a t i o n 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 c o r r e l a t i o n s between any of the v a r i a b l e s . 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 i n d i c a t i v e of a  Discussion of the Results / 60 s i t u a t i o n where concensus i s weak and leadership i s sporadic. The casual observer of the p r o v i n c i a l scene would c e r t a i n l y 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  c o r r e l a t i o n between "reinforcement" and o v e r a l l experience and a s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n between " l i t e r a c y " and o v e r a l l experience.  There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between o v e r a l l  experience and any other m o t i v a t i o n a l category.  Among the component  measures we f i n d a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n 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 c o r r e l a t i o n 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 c o r r e l a t i o n i s between " l i t e r a c y " and the various measures of experience.  The importance  attached t o the promotion of computer l i t e r a c y decreases with both t r a i n i n g and length of use.  This developmental  pattern can probably  be a t t r i b u t e d l a r g e l y to the f a c t 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 e m p i r i c a l evidence that i n c i d e n t a l 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 .  It is  e s s e n t i a 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 t h e i r  Discussion of the Results / 61 l i v e s simply by v i r t u e 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 b e 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 t r a i n i n g or as the length of t h e i r 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 g l o b a l goal to more s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s i n t h e 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 p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between several other goals and the various measures of experience.  I t would seem that t h e i r t r a i n i n g shows  teachers the p o t e n t i a l of the computer f o r 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 t o o l i n the w r i t i n g process.  ( A n a l y s i s of the  data shows that 76% of the times " u t i l i t y " was c i t e d i t was i n connection with word processing.)  As the length of t h e i r exposure to  computer-based education increases teachers show a heightened appreciation of the use of the computer f o r 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 f o r r e i n f o r c i n g the curriculum.  As the p o t e n t i a l of  the computer f o r these more s p e c i f i c educational goals increases the importance of promoting the vague and more g l o b a l 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 f o r d r i l l and p r a c t i c e .  This s h i f t i n  emphasis i s probably a l s o due to a dawning r e c o g n i t i o n of other areas of p o t e n t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n .  Discussion of the Results / 62 One f i n a l pattern of i n t e r e s t i n the data i s the absence of c o r r e l a t i o n between some m o t i v a t i o n a l categories and p a r t i c u l a r measures of experience where a c o r r e l a t i o n does e x i s t with another measure of experience.  For example, teachers tend to attach increased  s i g n i f i c a n c e to the a b i l i t y of the computer to provide r e i n f o r c i n g educational experiences i n general and l e s s to d r i l l and p r a c t i c e a c t i v i t i e s i n p a r t i c u l a r as the length of t h e i r exposure increases. However, there i s no such c o r r e l a t i o n with t r a i n i n g .  Are the various  courses and workshops a v a i l a b l e 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 c u r r i c u l a r a p p l i c a t i o n s of computers?  It is  a l s o s t r i k i n g to note the complete absence of any c o r r e l a t i o n between the number of programs used and the various motivations.  The data  shows that teachers' perspectives on computer-based education do i n f a c t change through t r a i n i n g and over time but they do not change purely as a r e s u l t of increased exposure.  This i s probably due to the  f a c t that the various educational motivations are c l o s e l y r e l a t e d 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 e i t h e r behaviour or b e l i e f s .  A course of  i n s t r u c t i o n may be u s e f u l i n i n i t i a t i n g or a c c e l e r a t i n g such a change but i t w i l l s t i l l take time to accomplish. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n data should be mitigated by r e c o g n i t i o n 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  attached to the goal of enrichment than to any other but there was  was no  Discussion of the Results / 63 developmental  pattern associated with i t .  Does t h i s i n d i c a t e 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 f o r t h i s purpose?  The necessity to attach a s i n g l e  d e s c r i p t i v e key word to each m o t i v a t i o n a l category i n order to conduct the telephone interview may p o s s i b l y have introduced such a confounding f a c t o r i n t o the data.  Such a f a c t o r should, however,  apply uniformly across the spectrum of experience and should not s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t any trends which e x i s t i n the data.  64 Chapter 6  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  6.1  CONCLUSIONS The f o l l o w i n g 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 a v a i l a b l e to a c l a s s  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 t r a i n i n g of teachers.  Classroom experience varied from none to more than  6 years and a v a r i e t y of educational backgrounds were reported ranging from no t r a i n i n g 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 s i n g l e computer, 16% reported access to two and 11% reported access to three computers.  Conclusions / 65 d)  In general, intermediate teachers have minimal t r a i n i n g 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 l e s s than f i v e days of i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g . e)  In general, intermediate teachers have had only b r i e f experience i n using computers. The median value f o r the length of the respondents' experience with the computer was 1.5 years.  The f o l l o w i n g conclusions concerning the p a r t i c u l a r 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  list  were Bank Street W r i t e r , Logo (various v e r s i o n s ) , typing t r a i n i n g programs, mathematics programs and various materials from the Minnessota Educational Computing Consortium (MECC). g)  The respondents ranked computer-based s t r a t e g i e s superior to t r a d i t i o n a l techniques i n teaching language a r t s and problem solving.  The f o l l o w i n g conclusions concerning the f a c t o r s which motivate intermediate teachers i n B r i t i s h Columbia to apply computer-based i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s 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 i n t o  Conclusions / 66 seven major categories. These may be c h a r a c t e r i z e d , 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 , interest, literacy, d r i l l ,  reinforcement and i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n .  enrichment,  (These motivations are  defined more f u l l y i n Appendix E.) The educational motivations c i t e d by the respondents show l i t t l e evidence of any clear developmental with an increase i n experience.  pattern associated  The importance attached to  the seven motivations i d e n t i f i e d i s only dependent on o v e r a l l expertise i n two cases:  l i t e r a c y and reinforcement.  c o r r e l a t i o n i n these two cases i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y  The  significant  but not strong. The c o r r e l a t i o n s  which do e x i s t i n d i c a t e that with increased  t r a i n i n g and increased length of time using computer-based instructional strategies  teachers tend to devalue the  o b j e c t i v e of promoting computer l i t e r a c y and i n f l a t e the objectives of r e i n f o r c i n g 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  t o o l f o r 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 e f f e c t i n modifying the importance attached to the seven educational motivations examined.  Conclusions / 67 6.2  LIMITATIONS OF THE CONCLUSIONS 6.2.1  S e l e c t i o n of the Sample  The return r a t e , although t y p i c a l of mail questionnaires, was high.  not  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 s e l e c t i o n 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 i n t e r e s t i n the t o p i c 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 s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i o n . These two f a c t o r s 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 i n t e r e s t i n the educational use of computers.  6.2.2  E x t r a p o l a t i o n of the Results  Since the s e l e c t i o n process may be flawed and the data d i s p l a y s great v a r i a b i l i t y , the r e s u l t s 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 e x t r a p o l a t i o n to a l a r g e r population should be done with caution. Moreover, the e n t i r e 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 a v a i l a b l e to teachers  i s probably i n c r e a s i n g r a p i d l y , p a r t i c u l a r l y with the recent awards  Conclusions / 68 from the Fund f o r Excellence i n Education.  This complicates the  process of g e n e r a l i z i n g any of the s p e c i f i c numeric data. In a d d i t i o n , the q u a l i t y of the a v a i l a b l e software i s changing. Introduction of a s i n g l e package of high t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t y 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 q u i c k l y .  A previous example of such a s h i f t would be the  i n t r o d u c t i o n of Logo.  The very youth and vigour of educational  computer use makes i t necessary to extrapolate i n t o the future with caution.  6.3  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The r e s u l t s 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 f o l l o w i n g f u r t h e r studies may be of value. a)  R e p l i c a t e 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 o f f e r e d by the various p r o f e s s i o n a l 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 t o promote development of the p a r t i c i p a n t ' s appreciation of and p r o f i c i e n c y i n the educational use of computers.  The r e s u l t s of the present study would tend to  i n d i c a t e that the t r a i n i n g being received by teachers i s having a minimal e f f e c t on t h e i r perspective.  Conclusions / 69 c)  Conduct a more detailed study of the b e l i e f s held by teachers concerning the motivations for and consequences of educational computer use with s p e c i f i c reference to a particular application such as text editing or i n s t r u c t i o n i n Logo to determine the degree to which they are focussing on a global concern for computer l i t e r a c y or more s p e c i f i c c u r r i c u l a r objectives. The study should s p e c i f i c a l l y attempt to i d e n t i f y any developmental  pattern which may e x i s t .  70 REFERENCE LIST  Bangert-Drowns, R. L., K u l i k , J . A., & K u l i k C. C. Effectiveness of Computer-Based Education i n Secondary Schools. Journal of Computer-Based I n s t r u c t i o n , Summer 1985, 12_(3), 59-68. B e l l , M. E. The Role of I n s t r u c t i o n a l 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. B r i g h t , G. W. Explaining the E f f i c i e n c y of Computer Assisted I n s t r u c t i o n . A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Educational Data Systems Journal , 1983, 16(3), 144-152. Carmichael, H. W., Burnett, J . D., Higginson, W. C , Moore, B. G., & P o l 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 C h i l d r e n. Ontario: M i n i s t r y 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 i n t o 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 f o r 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 . Mid-October 1984, 3(13), 61-64.  Popular Computing,  Evaluator's Guide f o r Microcomputer-Based I n s t r u c t i o n a l Packages ( o r i g i n a l d r a f t 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: P r o v i n c i a l Educational Media Centre, 1983. F l o d i n , N. B.C. P u b l i c 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., & G e i s e r t , P. S e l e c t i n g Computer Software - We Take I t S e r i o u s l y . The Computing Teacher, 1985, 12(2), 63-64. Gagne, R. M. Developments i n Learning Psychology: Implications f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l Design; and E f f e c t s of Computer Technology on I n s t r u c t i o n a l Design and Development. An Interview. Educational Technology, 1982, 22(6), 11-15. Gagne, R. M., Wager, W., & Rojas, A. Planning and Authoring Computer-Assisted I n s t r u c t i o n a l Lessons. Educational Technology, 1981, V o l . 21, pp. 17-26. G i l l i s , L. A Formative Evaluation Plan f o r Exemplary Software. Ontario Educational Software Service ( d i s t r i b u t e d by TVOntario), 1984. Gorth, W. P., & N a s s i f , P. M. A Comparison of Microcomputer-Based, Computer-Managed I n s t r u c t i o n (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 f o r Analyzing Innovation Adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 1975, 26(1), 52-56. H a l l , G. E., & Loucks, S. F. A Developmental Model f o r Determining whether the Treatment i s A c t u a l l y Implemented. American Educational Research J o u r n a l , 1977, 14.(3), 263-276. Harrison, C. C r i t e r i a f o r Evaluating Microcomputer Software f o r 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. M i c r o a n a l y s i s 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., P o r t e r , D., & Rubis, R. A Survey of Microcomputers i n B.C. Schools. Burnaby: Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y , 1983. Kearsley, G. Microcomputer Software: Design and Development P r i n c i p l e s . Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1985, 209-220.  1_(2),  K l o p f e r , 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 T r a i n i n g . Educational Technology, J u l y 1985, 25(7), 16-19. —  Lathrop, A. Microcomputer Software f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l 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: M i n i s t r y of Education, 1985. Levin, H. M., & Meister G. I s CAI C o s t - E f f e c t i v e ? June 1986, 67(10), 745-749. Lewin, A. W. Children.  P h i Delta Kappan,  Down With Green Lambs: Creating Quality Software f o r Theory Into P r a c t i c e , F a l l 1983, 22(24), 272-280.  L o r t i e , D. School: A S o c i o l o g i c a l Study. Chicago Press, 1975.  Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of  McLaughlin, M., & Marsh D. S t a f f Development and School Change. Teachers College Record, 1978, 80(1), 69-94. M e r r i l l , P. F., S a l i s b u r y , D. Research on D r i l l and P r a c t i c e S t r a t e g i e s . Journal of Computer-Based I n s t r u c t i o n , 1984, 11(1), 19-21. Ohles, J . F. The Microcomputer: Don't Love I t to Death. Technological Horizons i n Education J o u r n a l , August 1985, 13(1), 49-53. : ~~ Reid, W. A. The Changing Curriculum: Theories and P r a c t i c e . 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 S o c i a l 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 S o c i a l Studies. S o c i a l Studies, September-October 1984, 75(5), 211-215. Senn, P. R. S i x C h e c k l i s t s to Prepare Your Classroom f o r Technology. S o c i a l 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. Computer, 1983, 11(3), pp. 15-16; 37.  Educational  S t e f f i n , S. A. A Suggested Model f o r E s t a b l i s h i n g the V a l i d i t y of Computer-Assisted I n s t r u c t i o n M a t e r i a l s . 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). 1984, 24(6), 6.  Educational Technology, June  Tetenbaum, T. J . , & Mulkeen, T. A. LOGO and the Teaching of Problem Solving: A C a l l f o r 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 D i j k , T. A. M., Gastkemper, F., & Romeijn, W. Motives f o r CAI i n Post-Secondary Education. Journal of Computer-Based I n s t r u c t i o n , 1985, 12(1), 8-11. Vargas, J . S. I n s t r u c t i o n a l Design Flaws i n Computer-Assisted I n s t r u c t i o n . P h i Delta Kappan, June 1986, 67(10), 738-744. Wager, W. Design considerations f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l computing programs. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 1982, V o l . 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 t h e s i s work at the U n i v e r s i t y 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 f o r both experienced and inexperienced computer users. In f a c t , i f you have no access to computers or simply have not had the time to use whatever resources may be a v a i l a b l e t h i s f a c t i n i t s e l f c o n s t i t u t e s u s e f u l information. I am i n t e r e s t e d 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 l e s s than 15 minutes to complete. Please t r y to f i n d a l i t t l e time i n your busy schedule to a s s i s t me i n t h i s study. A stamped self-addressed envelope i s enclosed f o r your convenience i n returning the completed questionnaire. I f you are interested i n r e c e i v i n g a summary of the r e s u l t s , i n c l u d i n g a l i s t of the most popular software, please i n d i c a t e t h i s by enclosing your own stamped self-addressed envelope with your return. Thank you f o r your valuable assistance.  J . A. B. B e a i r s t o  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 D i s t r i c t  No:  School name:  ITeacher's name (please p r i n t ) : + ' 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 a v a i l a b l e to your c l a s s :  II + :  He:  lie:  What i s the usual s i z e of your c l a s s when you are using the computers? How are the computers in your school d i s t r i b u t e d ? in separate classrooms: i n a designated "lab":  mobile:  If the preceding questions cannot be answered unambiguously please explain the s p e c i a l circumstances in your school below.  How  long have you been using computers with students in the 1 yr:  2 yr:  3 yr:  4 yr:  classroom?  5 yr:  £ yr +:  How long have you been using computers yourself for n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes such as p r i v a t e 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 s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g in the use of computers? If yes, please explain.  yes  no  .  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 t h i s much. Thankyou.  Appendix B / 78  B)  SOFTWARE YOU HAVE USED AT LEAST ONCE  Please i n d i c a t e the programs you have used at least once i n the classroom by placing a t i c k i n the appropriate box. TITLE ADDITION MAGICIAN ADVENTUREWRITER ALIEN ADDITION ALLIGATOR ALLEY ALLIGATOR HIX ALPHABETIC KEYBOARDIN6 ALPHABETIZE ANALOGIES APPLE LOGO APPLE LOGO II APPLE PRESENTS APPLE APPLE SPRITE L060 APPLE SUPER PILOT APPLE WRITER HE ARCHON ARISTOTLE'S APPLE ARITH-HA6IC ARITHHETIC-TAC-TOE BANK STREET SPELLER BANK STREET WRITER BASIC ARITHMETIC BASIC NUMBER FACTS BATTLING BUGS/CONCENTRATN BLAZING THE BASIC TRAIL BUMBLE GAMES BUMBLE PLOT CAUSE & EFFECT COIN LEVEL A CDIM LEVEL B CDIH LEVEL C CHALLENGE MATH CHARACTRSTCS OF A SCNTST CHECKERS CHESS CODE QUEST COMMUNITY SEARCH COMP LIT ADV OF LOL DRA6N COMP-U-SOLVE COMPREHENSION POWER COMPU-POEM COMPUTER GENERATD MTH V.2 CONPUTER LIT INST PR6M CREATIVE PLAY CROSSWORD MAGIC CRYPTO CUBE CUT AND PASTE DARK CRYSTAL DECIMAL SKILLS DELTA DRAWING DEMOLITION DIVISION  TITLE  PUBLISHER TLC CODEURITER DLN DLH DLN SW PUB JMH PRO DESI6N APPLE APPLE' APPLE LCSI APPLE APPLE ELECTR ART STONEWARE QED EDUTEK SCHOLASTIC SCHOLASTIC HECC CNTRL DATA MILLIKEN SUNBURST TLC TLC LEARN WELL SRA SRA SRA SUNBURST CYGNUS QDESTA 0DE5TA SUNBURST MCGRAW HIL SVE ED'L ACTV MILLIKEN SCURIP MECC ED'L ACTV LAWR HALL MINDSCAPE DESIGNWARE ELECTR ART SIERRA MILT BRAD MECC DLM  —  i : ; ! ! : ! ! ; ! :  ! DISCOVERY LAB DISCRIH ATRB & RULES ! DIVIDE FRACTIONS DIVISION SKILLS ! DRAGON HIX DRAGON'S KEEP I EASY GRAPH : ELEM MATH CLSRH LANG SYSTEM 1 ELEMENTARY LIB MEDIA SKL ELEMENTARY V.l: MATH ' ELEMENTARY V.3: SOC ST : ELEMENTARY V.4: HATH/SCI ! ELEMENTARY V.6: SOC ST ENERGY SEARCH ' EXPEDITIONS EXPLORER METROS , EXPLORING LOGO : EZ LOGO FACT AND FICTION TOOLKIT FACTORY FANTASY LAND FAY THAT HATH WOMAN FRACTIONS PRACTICE FRENZY/FLIP FLOP FRIENDLY COMPUTER FRIENDLY FILER FUN HOUSE NAZE FUNDAMENTAL MATH II GALAXY HATH FACTS SAME GENETICS GEOLOGY SEARCH GEOMETRIC CONCEPTS: AREA GEOMETRIC CONCEPTS: PERIMETER GERTRUDE'S PUZZLES GERTRUDE'S SECRETS GLOBAL PROGRAM LINE EDTR GOLF CLASSIC/COHPUBAR GRAND PRIX GREAT CREATOR, THE GULP!!ARROW GRAPHICS HEY, TAXI! HIGH RISE HINKY PINKY HOMEWORD HOT DOG STAND IDEA INVASION IN SEARCH OF MOST AMAZING INCREDIBLE LABORATORY INTERPRETING GRAPHS INTRO TO MICRO COMPUTERS  PUBLISHER MECC SUNBURST CBS MILT BRAD DLM SIERRA GROLIER STER SWIFT COMBASE MECC MECC MECC MECC MCGRAW HIL MECC SUNBURST SUNBURST HECC SCHOLASTIC SUNBURST LEARN WELL DIDATECH CNTRL DATA MILLIKEN MECC GROLIER SUNBURST RANDOM RANDOM TIES MCGRAW HIL JOSTENS JOSTENS TLC TLC BEAGLE BRO MILLIKEN RANDOM GESSLER MILLIKEN MILT BRAD MICRO LAB 22ND AVE SIERRA SUNBURST DLM SPINNAKER SUNBURST CONDUIT MCGRAW HIL  Appendix B / 79  Please i n d i c a t e the programs you have used at least once in the classroom by placing a t i c k i n the appropriate box. TITLE  PUBLISHER  INTRO TO NICROCHP KEYBD ISLE OF MEN JISSAU JINX/WELTER KAREL SIMULATOR KING'S RULE LEARNING ABOUT NUMBERS LIBRARY USAGE SKILLS LONG DIVISION H-SS-NG L-NKS, ENGLISH ED H-SS-NG L-NKS, YG PPLS LT MAGIC SLATE MANAGING LIFESTYLES MASTER MATCH MASTER MATCH (DLH) HASTERTYPE HATH ACTIVITIES 4 HATH ACTIVITIES 5 HATH ACTIVITIES 6 MATH ACTIVITIES 7 MATH BASEBALL MATH BLASTER HATH CONCEPTS I k II MATH SEQUENCES MATHUARE MEDALISTS: BLACK AMERICANS MEDALISTS: CONTINENTS MEDALISTS: WOMEN IN HISTORY MEMORY CASTLE MEMORY: THE FIRST STEP METEOR MISSION METEOR MULTIPLICATION METRIC 4 PROBLEM SOLVING NILLIKEN WORD PROCESSOR MINUS MISSION MIX AND MATCH MOPTOHN HOTEL MOPTOUN PARADE HOUSE PAINT MULTIPLYING FRACTIONS MUSIC THEORY NUMBER WORDS-LEVEL 18.2 OH, DEER! PIC.BUILDER PINBALL CONSTRUCTION SET POND, THE PRINT SHOP, THE PROFESSIONAL SIGN MAKER PUZZLE TANKS PUZZLER. THE  ED AUDIO SROLIER ISL SOFTWR ISL SOFTMR CYBERTRON SUNBURST C 4 C SOFT JHC NIC URKSHP SUNBURST SUNBURST SUNBURST SUNBURST ADV ID DLH SCARABORQU HOUGHTON HOUGHTON HOUGHTON HOUGHTON ED'L ACTV DAVIDSON HARTLEY NILLIKEN ESSERTIER HARTLEY HARTLEY HARTLEY SUNBURST SUNBURST DLH DLH NECC NILLIKEN DLH APPLE TLC TLC APPLE NIC URKSHP NECC HARTLEY NECC MEEK READ ELECTR ART SUNBURST BRODERBUND SUNBURST SUNBURST SUNBURST  TITLE  -  PUZZLES AND POSTERS QUILL READ 4 SOLVE MATH PROBS ROCKY'S BOOTS SAR60N III SCHOOL UTILITIES V.2 SCIENCE V.3 SENSIBLE SPELLER IV SHELL GAMES SKILLS MAKER SNOOPER TROOPS 11 SNOOPER TROOPS 12 SONGWRITER , SPECIAL NEEDS V. 1 , SPOTLIGHT ; SQUARE PAIRS STORY TREE SURVIVAL MATH TEASERS BY TOBBS TEMPERATURE LAB . TERRAPIN LOGO THAT'S MY STORY THREE R'S OF HCROCHPTNG TIC TAC SHOU TRAFFIC JAM TROLL'S TALE . TURTLE TRACKS TUTORIAL COMPRj MN ID TYPE ATTACK TYPING TUTOR VOYAGE OF NIHI:HPS4NV6TN WHATSIT CORPORATION UHOLE NUMBERS: PRACTICE UIZ WORKS UIZARD OF UORDS UORD ATTACK UORD MAN UORD SPINNER WRITE CHOICE URITE STUFF ZORK I 4 II  PUBLISHER MECC DC HEATH ED'L ACTV TLC HAYDEN MECC MECC SENSIBLE APPLE LIB SOFT SPINNAKER SPINNAKER SCARB0R0U6 MECC APPLE SCHOLASTIC SCHOLASTIC SUNBURST SUNBURST HAYDEN TERRAPIN LEARN WELL MECC ADV ID ISL SOFTUA SIERRA SCHOLASTIC RANDOM SIRIUS MICROSOFT HOLT, R4U SUNBURST CNTRL DATA DLM ADV ID DAVIDSON DLM TLC POSER UA6N HARPER ROU INFOCOM  Appendix B / 80  C?  YOUR FAVOURITE SOFTWARE  Professional  use IN CLASS  Rate the value of the computer software which you have a c t u a l l y used i n the classroom in each of the following a p p l i c a t i o n areas by comparing i t to more t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques. If you have not used any software in an a p p l i c a t i o n area simply skip over i t . +Example of how t o complete the table much inferior 1) A r t i f i c i a l  intelligence  1  roughly equal 2  3  4  c i r c l e number of programs a c t u a l l y useds 0  1 2  much superior 5  7  (T) 4  5  6  f a v o u r i t e ( s ) : 1)  much inferior 1) Art  1  r ough1y equal 2  3  4  c i r c l e number of programs a c t u a l l y used: 0 favourite(s):  1)  1  2) roughly equal  much inferior 2) French  1  2  3  c i r c l e number of programs a c t u a l l y used: 0 favourite(s):  1)  1  2  3  1)  1  1)  1  4  much super i or  4  6  1  4  r ough1y equal 2  3  4  c i r c l e number of programs a c t u a l l y used: 0 favourite(s):  6  2) much inferior  4) Mathematics  4  roughly equal  c i r c l e number of programs a c t u a l l y used: 0 favour i t e ( s ) :  much super i or  2) much inferior  3) Language Arts  much super i or  2)  1  much superior  b  4  Appendix B / 81  much inferior 5) Music  1  roughly equal 2  c i r c l e number of programs a c t u a l l y used:  o  f a v o u r i t e ( s ) : 1)  2) much inferior  6) Physical Education  1  muc h super i or  4  6  i  4  3  c i r c l e number of programs a c t u a l l y used: 0  5  6  much superior  roughly equal 2  7  4  &  1  4  7 5  6  f a v o u r i t e ( s ) : 1)  7) Problem S o l v i n g / L o g i c . . .  1  2  c i r c l e number of programs a c t u a l l y used: 0  1  2  c i r c l e number of programs a c t u a l l y  used: 0  1  2  2) much inferior 1  muc h superior  roughly equal 2  c i r c l e number of programs a c t u a l l y 1)  4  3  f a v o u r i t e ( s ) : 1)  f avour i t e Cs):  much superior  roughly equal  much inferior  9) Social Studies  1  2)  f a v o u r i t e ( s ) : 1)  3) Science  muc h superior  roughly equal  much inferior  4  G used:  o  i  6 ;  2)  If there are any other items of software which you have found p a r t i c u l a r l y useful i n the classroom please l i s t them below. 1) name: application: :) name: application:  4  Appendix B / 82  Professional  u s e 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 f o r each of t h e f o l l o w i n g non-instructional applications. Do not f e e l o b l i g a t e d t o f i l l i n a l l t h e boxes. O n l y l i s t programs you have p e r s o n a l l y used and found t o be worthwhile. program names  + 1)  2)  word p r o c e s s i n g (eg. p r e p a r i n g handouts)  mark book  ri)  +•  12) + + 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 . . . ( e g . math d r i l l s , c r o s s w o r d s , t e s t s )  1) 12)  If t h e r e a r e any o t h e r i t e m s o f s o f t w a r e 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 b e l o w .  1)  name: application:  2)  name: application:  3) name: application:  +  i +  ! +  Appendix B / 83  D)  STYLES OF USE  Rank the following a l t e r n a t i v e s t y l e s of computer use i n descending order of educational value i n your actual experience by placing one of the d i g i t s from 1 t o 4 i n the space provided opposite each d e s c r i p t i o n .  REGULAR INSTRUCTION: the use of the computer to communicate knowledge or concepts t o students as an a l t e r n a t i v e to other methods of i n s t r u c t i o n . Implies us* with a l l students. SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION: the use of the computer t o enhance or supplement regular classroom i n s t r u c t i o n . Implies u s * w i t h a l l atudentm. REMEDIATION: the use of the computer t o provide extra help as necessary for students who require assistance beyond the bounds of regular i n s t r u c t i o n . I m p l i e s o c c a s i o n a l use w i t h some s t u d e n t s o n l y , not supplemental i n s t r u c t i o n for a l l . ENRICHMENT: the use of the computer t o provide a d d i t i o n a l 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 u s * w i t h some s t u d e n t s o n l y , not supplemental i n s t r u c t i o n for a l l .  5? REASONS FOR U8IN9 THE COMPUTER IN 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, why do you use computers i n your classroom. What educational advantages do they o f f e r ? Please l i s t the three most important ones with a b r i e f 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 h i s Masters' t h e s i s 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 i n t e 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 U n i v e r s i t y , unemployed, a non-teaching supervisor or had moved. The responses came from across the province and represented grade l e v e l s 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 a v a i l a b l e to the c l a s s was not reported by 19% of the respondents. Of those r e p o r t i n g , 11% had no access of any kind, 29% had access to a s i n g l e computer, 16% to two and 11% to three. The r e s u l t s ranged up to nineteen. However, the actual number of computers a v a i l a b l e 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 i n t o labs which r o t a t e 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 r e s u l t s can s t i l l be seen to i n d i c a t e that the " t y p i c a l " classroom contains one computer or no computers on a regular b a s i s . 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 c l a s s . The vast majority indicated l e s s personal use than p r o f e s s i o n a l use which probably i n d i c a t e s that t h e i r f i r s t i n t r o d u c t i o n to computers came through the classroom. The average of the two i n d i c a t o r s 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 t r a i n i n g was analyzed using an a r b i t r a r y c o e f f i c i e n t assigned as f o l l o w s : 0 1 2 3 4  -  no s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g at a l l up to 5 days of t r a i n i n g i n t o t a l more than 5 days and up to one semester more than one semester and up to two semesters more than two semesters  Appendix C / 86 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 i n - s e r v i c e 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 t r a i n i n g to actual intermediate classroom use. The r e s u l t s 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 l e s s . There were four respondents with more than two semesters of computer t r a i n i n g of one type or another. The average value was 1.2 and the median was 1. Since both t r a i n i n g and actual experience i n the classroom are important f a c t o r s i n developing e x p e r t i s e , an a d d i t i o n a l c o e f f i c i e n t of expertise was c a l c u l a t e d as f o l l o w s : expertise = ( y r s of use + t r a i n i n g c o e f f ) * (# 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 i n s e r v i c e , one year of classroom contact and a c t u a l experience with f i v e d i f f e r e n t programs i n terms of developing e x p e r t i s e . A teacher who had attended two n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l days concerning computers and used f i v e d i f f e r e n t 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 i n v o l v i n g eight d i f f e r e n t programs combined with a one semester course would y i e l d a c o e f f i c i e n t of 6.4. The r e s u l t s ranged from 0.0 up to 48.0 with an average of 8.4 and a median of 2.4 f o r 95 i n d i v i d u a l s . Respondents were asked to rate the computer as an i n s t r u c t i o n a l t o o l 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 e q u a l i t y and 7 a s i g n i f i c a n t s u p e r i o r i t y . The most frequently rated areas were language a r t s and mathematics and the highest rated areas were problem s o l v i n g and language a r t s as shown i n the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e .  +  +  +  | I n s t r u c t i o n a l Area | respondents | + + + Problem s o l v i n g / Logic 25 Language Arts 46 Mathematics 48 22 S o c i a l Studies Science 22 +  +  +  +  average r a t i n g 5.3 5.1 4.6 4.5 4.5  (s (s (s (s (s  = = = = =  | +  1.15) 1.11) 1.43) 1.44) 1.44) +  Appendix C / 87 The programs which enjoyed the best combination of frequency of use and r e p o r t i n g as a " f a v o u r i t e " program were: 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 B l a s t e r Math A c t i v i t i e s 5 Odell Lake  Problem Solving Language Arts S o c i a l Studies Mathematics  Science  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 p a r t i c u l a r i n s t r u c t i o n a l value but only that i t i s widely d i s t r i b u t e d and f a i r l y w e l l received. This data r e f l e c t s the pattern of use i n classrooms as i t now e x i s t s but does not c o n s t i t u t e e i t h e r an evaluation or an endorsement of the software. F i n a l l y , respondents were asked what reasons they had f o r using computers i n t h e i r classroom "other than the f a c t that students generally l i k e to use computers and parents applaud t h e i r i n t r o d u c t i o n " . The r e s u l t s were widely varied but s e v e r a l d i s t i n c t categories of response were evident. These are l i s t e d along with t h e i r frequency of appearance. 28 22 19 13 10 9 9 8  valuable as a word processor u s e f u l f o r motivation / fun / generates i n t e r e s t promotes "computer l i t e r a c y " u s e f u l f o r d r i l l and p r a c t i c e useful f o r enrichment u s e f u l f o r reinforcement of i n s t r u c t i o n allows student to c o n t r o l pace / allows i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n u s e f u l f o r 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 j u s t how rare computers r e a l l y are i n the intermediate classroom. Despite the f a c t that much i s made of the "computer r e v o l u t i o n " and the p o t e n t i a l f o r t h i s new educational t o o l we see that the t y p i c a l BC classroom has one computer or no computer. This f a c t i n i t s e l f precludes useful a p p l i c a t i o n of any p o t e n t i a l 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 e s s e n t i a l l y unknown e n t i t y i n our intermediate classrooms.  Appendix C / 88 Few teachers had received s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g i n the use of computers before they entered the profession and most have had very l i t t l e u s e f u l i n - s e r v i c e . Given the dearth of computers and the generally poor q u a l i t y of software t h i s i s hardly s u r p r i s i n g . The net r e s u l t i s a median experience c o e f f i c i e n t of 2.4 which i n d i c a t e s l e s s than 5 days of i n - s e r v i c e , l e s s than one and one-half years of use and experience with approximately 5 d i f f e r e n t programs. This i n d i c a t e s 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 v a r i e t y i n the software a v a i l a b l e and most of i t i s of poor i n s t r u c t i o n a l q u a l i t y . The computer i s used most s u c c e s s f u l l y as a t o o l f o r word processing but seldom with any success as a t u t o r . Of the few CAI packages which teachers f i n d u s e f u l by f a r the predominant use i s f o r d r i l l and p r a c t i c e i n mathematics or language a r t s . The one innovative a p p l i c a t i o n seems to be Logo which teachers ranked extremely highly f o r i t s value i n teaching problem s o l v i n g s k i l l s . However, the l i t e r a t u r e has r e c e n t l y 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 , ( j o u r n a l c i t a t i o n s to be i n s e r t e d here) ...continues with personal observations... (C) Copyright J . A. B. Beairsto 1986  i  Appendix C / 89  File: software Report: POPULAR SOFTWARE FREQ TITLE 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  Page  PUBLISHER DESCRIPTION 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 it 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)  1  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 l a b e l s "$$STATUS", "$$FIRST", "$$LAST", "$$SCH00L", "$$ADDRESS", "$$CITY", and "$$P0STAL" r e f e r to the contents of that data base.  Appendix D / 92 L e t t e r f o r Subjects from School D i s t r i c t No. 38 (Richmond)  1986/04/07 $$STATUS $$FIRST $$LAST $$SCH00L Dear $$FIRST, Re: Survey of Intermediate Computer Use I am conducting some research i n t o 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 i n t e r v i e w i n g teachers from across the province whose experience v a r i e s 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 t a l k i n g 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 f u r t h e r 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 p a r t i c u l a r 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 c e r t a i n educational software. I am t r y i n g to determine both what programs are most widely used and why these programs are popular. In a d d i t i o n to the interview I would l i k e to ask your assistance i n completing the enclosed c h e c k l i s t 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 f o r your kind assistance with t h i s p r o j e c t . Yours t r u l y ,  Bruce B e a i r s t o , Richmond Senior Secondary Encl.  "Software You Have Seen" c h e c k l i s t  Appendix D / 94  B)  SOFTWARE YOU HAVE SEEN  P l e a s e i n d i c a t e t h e programs you have used at least once in the classroom placing a t i c k i n the appropriate box. The programs l i s t e d are those contained i n the 1985 Educational Software Preview Guide. TITLE  PUBLISHER  ADDITION MAGICIAN ADVENTUREURITER ALIEN ADDITION ALLIGATOR ALLEY ALLIGATOR NIX ALPHABETIC KEYBOARDING ALPHABETIZE ANALOGIES APPLE LOGO APPLE LOGO II APPLE PRESENTS APPLE APPLE SPRITE LOGO APPLE SUPER PILOT APPLE WRITER HE ARCHON ARISTOTLE'S APPLE ARITH-HAGIC ARITHHETIC-TAC-TOE BANK STREET SPELLER BANK STREET WRITER BASIC ARITHMETIC BASIC NUMBER FACTS BATTLING 8U6S/C0NCENTRATN BLAZING THE BASIC TRAIL BUMBLE GAMES BUMBLE PLOT CAUSE k EFFECT COIN LEVEL A COIN LEVEL B COIN LEVEL C CHALLENGE MATH CHARACTRSTCS OF A SCNTST CHECKERS CHESS CODE QUEST COMMUNITY SEARCH CORP LIT ADV OF LOL DRA6N COHP-U-SOLVE COMPREHENSION POWER COHPU-POEN COMPUTER GENERATD NTH V.2 CONPUTER LIT INST PRGH CREATIVE PLAY CROSSWORD MAGIC CRYPTO CUBE CUT AND PASTE DARK CRYSTAL DECIMAL SKILLS DELTA DRAWING DEMOLITION DIVISION  TLC CQDEURITER DLM DLM DLM SW PUB JMH PRO DESIGN APPLE APPLE APPLE LCSI APPLE APPLE ELECTR ART STONEWARE QED EDUTEK SCHOLASTIC SCHOLASTIC MECC CNTRL DATA MILLIKEN SUNBURST TLC TLC LEARN WELL SRA SRA SRA SUNBURST CYGNUS ODESTA ODESTA SUNBURST MCGRAW HIL SVE ED'L ACTV MILLIKEN SCWRIP MECC ED'L ACTV LAWR HALL MINDSCAPE DESIGNWARE ' ELECTR ART SIERRA MILT BRAD MECC DLM  —  TITLE  PUBLISHER  DISCOVERY LAB DISCRIM ATRB k RULES DIVIDE FRACTIONS DIVISION SKILLS DRAGON HIX DRAGON'S KEEP EASY GRAPH ELEM MATH CLSRH LAN6 SYSTEM ELEMENTARY LIB MEDIA SKL ELEMENTARY V.l: MATH ELEMENTARY V.3: SOC ST ELEMENTARY V.4: MATH/SCI ELEMENTARY V.G: SOC ST ENERGY SEARCH EXPEDITIONS EXPLORER METROS EXPLORING LOGO EZ LOGO FACT AND FICTION TOOLKIT FACTORY FANTASY LAND FAY THAT HATH WOMAN FRACTIONS PRACTICE FRENZY/FLIP FLOP FRIENDLY COMPUTER FRIENDLY FILER FUN HOUSE NAZE FUNDAMENTAL NATH II GALAXY NATH FACTS 6AME GENETICS GEOLOGY SEARCH GEOMETRIC CONCEPTS: AREA GEOMETRIC CONCEPTS: PERIMETER GERTRUDE'S PUZZLES GERTRUDE'S SECRETS GLOBAL PROGRAM LINE EDTR GOLF CLASSIC/COHPUBAR GRAND PRIX GREAT CREATOR, THE GULP"ARROW GRAPHICS HEY, TAXI! HIGH RISE HINKY PINKY HOMEWORD HOT DOG STAND IDEA INVASION IN SEARCH OF HOST AMAZING INCREDIBLE LABORATORY INTERPRETING GRAPHS INTRO TO MICRO COMPUTERS  MECC SUNBURST CBS MILT BRAD DLM SIERRA GROLIER STER SWIFT COHBASE MECC MECC HECC MECC MCGRAW HIL HECC SUNBURST SUNBURST MECC SCHOLASTIC SUNBURST LEARN WELL DIDATECH CNTRL DATA. MILLIKEN MECC 6R0LIER SUNBURST RANDON RANDOM TIES MCGRAW HIL JOSTENS JOSTENS TLC TLC BEAGLE BRO MILLIKEN RANDOM GESSLER MILLIKEN HILT BRAD MICRO LAB 22ND AVE SIERRA SUNBURST DLM SPINNAKER SUNBURST CONDUIT MC6RAW HIL  Appendix D / 95  Please i n d i c a t e the programs you have used at least once i n the classroom placing a t i c k i n the appropriate box. The programs l i s t e d are those contained i n the 1985 Educational Software Preview Quide. TITLE INTRO TO HICROCHP KEYBD ISLE OF HEM JISSAU JINX/WELTER KAREL SIMULATOR KING'S RULE LEARNING ABOUT NUMBERS LIBRARY USAGE SKILLS LONG DIVISION H-SS-NG L-NKS, ENGLISH ED H-SS-NG L-NKS, YG PPLS LT MAGIC SLATE HANA6IN6 LIFESTYLES MASTER HATCH MASTER HATCH (DLH) HASTERTYPE MATH ACTIVITIES 4 MATH ACTIVITIES 5 HATH ACTIVITIES 6 MATH ACTIVITIES 7 HATH BASEBALL MATH BLASTER HATH CONCEPTS I k II MATH SEQUENCES MATHUARE MEDALISTS: BLACK AMERICANS MEDALISTS: CONTINENTS MEDALISTS: WOMEN IN HISTORY MEMORY CASTLE MEMORY: THE FIRST STEP METEOR MISSION METEOR MULTIPLICATION METRIC k PROBLEM SOLVING NILLIKEN WORD PROCESSOR MINUS MISSION NIX AND HATCH HOPTOWN HOTEL NOPTOUN PARADE HOUSE PAINT MULTIPLYING FRACTIONS HUSIC THEORY NUMBER WORDS-LEVEL 18.2 OH, OEER! PIC.BUILDER PINBALL CONSTRUCTION SET POND, THE PRINT SHOP, THE PROFESSIONAL SIGN MAKER PUZZLE TANKS PUZZLER, THE  PUBLISHER ED AUDIO SROLIER ISL SOFTMR ISL SOFTMR CYBERTRON SUNBURST C & C SOFT JHC NIC URKSHP SUNBURST SUNBURST SUNBURST SUNBURST ADV ID DLH SCARABOROU HOUGHTON HOUGHTON HOUGHTON HOUGHTON ED'L ACTV DAVIDSON HARTLEY NILLIKEN ESSERTIER HARTLEY HARTLEY HARTLEY SUNBURST SUNBURST DLH DLH MECC NILLIKEN DLH APPLE TLC TLC APPLE NIC WRKSHP HECC HARTLEY NECC WEEK READ ELECTR ART SUNBURST BRODERBUND SUNBURST SUNBURST SUNBURST  ! ! i ! ! I i ! S I i ! I! ! li S il S i ! S ! i ! !! : !! i ii i: !: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I ! !  TITLE  PUBLISHER  PUZZLES AND POSTERS QUILL READ k SOLVE HATH PRQBS ROCKY'S BOOTS SAR60N III SCHOOL UTILITIES V.2 SCIENCE V.3 SENSIBLE SPELLER IV SHELL GAMES SKILLS MAKER SNOOPER TROOPS tl SNOOPER TROOPS 12 S0N6WRITER SPECIAL NEEDS V.l SPOTLIGHT SQUARE PAIRS STORY TREE SURVIVAL MATH TEASERS BY TOBBS TEMPERATURE LAB TERRAPIN L060 THAT'S HY STORY THREE R'S OF HCROCHPTNG TIC TAC SHOW TRAFFIC JAM TROLL'S TALE TURTLE TRACKS TUTORIAL COHPR; NN ID TYPE ATTACK TYPING TUTOR VOYAGE OF NIHI:HPS&NVGTN WHATSIT CORPORATION WHOLE NUMBERS: PRACTICE WIZ WORKS WIZARD OF WORDS UORD ATTACK WORD NAN WORD SPINNER WRITE CHOICE URITE STUFF ZORK I k II  HECC DC HEATH ED'L ACTV TLC HAYDEN HECC NECC SENSIBLE APPLE LIB SOFT SPINNAKER SPINNAKER SCARBOROUG MECC APPLE SCHOLASTIC SCHOLASTIC SUNBURST SUNBURST HAYDEN TERRAPIN LEARN WELL NECC ADV ID ISL SOFTWA SIERRA SCHOLASTIC RANDOM SIRIUS MICROSOFT HOLT, R&W SUNBURST CNTRL DATA DLH ADV ID DAVIDSON DLH TLC ROGER UAGN HARPER ROW INFOCON  APPENDIX E  TELEPHONE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL  Appendix E / 97  PART ONE: OBJECTIVES: a) I -  w i l l verify specific details. use of Apples years of experience with computers i n the classroom nature and extent of t r a i n i n g  TEXT: Hello, . This i s Bruce B e a i r s t o 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 f o r completing and returning the questionnaire f o r 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 p e n c i l handy? both? I ' l l wait.)  ( I f not ... Can you get  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? . . . v e r i f y nature and extent of t r a i n i n g . . ( I f necessary...Please remember to return the c h e c k l i s t 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 d i s t r i b u t e d through a week TEXT: Now I wonder i f you can help me to understand how you use computers by answering the f o l l o w i n g questions. What i s the t y p i c a l s i z e of your c l a s s when you are using the computer? How many computers do you have a v a i l a b l e f o r that class? How much time would each student spend i n c l a s s i n i n t e r a c t i o n with a computer i n an average week? 15 min or l e s s 30 min to 45 min more than 60 min  15 min t o 30 min 45 min to 60 min  How i s t h i s time d i s t r i b u t e d 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 interest. Division -  v e r i f y experience with the s p e c i f i c programs of Bank Street W r i t e r , Magic Window or equivalent Logo (any version) Math B l a s t e r , M i l l i k e n Math, Fay, MAC or Demolition Getrude's Secrets, Moptown Hotel or Factory Odell Lake, O d e l l 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 t h e i r 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 f o l l o w i n g have you a c t u a l l y 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 t h e i r names. Which one of the other four programs do you consider to have the l e a s t 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 l e a s t 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 f o r 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 f i n d out what i t i s that you p a 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 o f f e r . I have c o l l e c t e d the responses i n t o groups and I would l i k e you to rank order the seven most common categories or reasons f o r me. I w i l l read them t o 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 b r i e f requesting more funds f o r computers i n your school which one of these educational advantages would you s t r e s s 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 t h i r d ? (Repeat the preceding battery of questions f o r each program.)  Note:  I w i l l thank the subject f o r his/her p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  Appendix E /  Motivational  101  Categories  The r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e r e a d t h e f o l l o w i n g l i s t o f t h e s e v e n 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 a n d a s k e d t o make a n o t e of the keywords. The l i s t was p r e s e n t e d i n a n o r d e r d i c t a t e d by a r a n d o m 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 c o m p u t e r i s a p o w e r f u l t o o l a n d s t u d e n t s s h o u l d l e a r n t o u s e 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 u s e a c a l c u l a t o r or a telephone. I t enhances t h e i r a b i l i t y to e x p l o r e , to reason and t o c o m m u n i c a t e . 2) I N T E R E S T : S t u d e n t s l i k e t o u n d e r t a k e c o m p u t e r - b a s e d t a s k s a n d consequently are motivated to p a r t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y i n the 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 arouses 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 I T E R A C Y : C o m p u t e r s a r e a n i m p o r t a n t i t e m o f m o d e r n t e c h n o l o g y . S t u d e n t s n e e d t o become f a m i l i a r e n o u g h w i t h t h e i r u s e 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 a n d c a n 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) D R I L L : C o m p u t e r s a r e v e r y g o o d f o r m e c h a n i c a l d r i l l a n d p r a c t i c e activities. 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 can a d j u s t t h e l e v e l and pace of 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 progress. 5) ENRICHMENT: C o m p u t e r s available to students e x p l o r e new i d e a s a n d work w i t h the r e s t of 6)  make e x t r a i n f o r m a t i o n a n d a c t i v i t i e s who h a v e m a s t e r e d c o r e t o p i c s . They can a c t i v i t i e s w h i l e the teacher continues to the c l a s s .  REINFORCEMENT: C o m p u t e r 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 a n d r e i n f o r c e the c u r r i c u l u m . I t o f f e r s the opportunity to 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) I N D I V I D U A L I Z A T I O N : The c o m p u t e r c a n make a w i d e 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 . Moreover, they 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 c e e d 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 Distribution :  spread  15-30  30-45  concentrated  PART THREE: Rank order :  Language Arts  :  Logo  :  Math  :  Science  :  MECC  45-60  60+  Appendix E / 103  Motivational Rating  Scale  The f o l l o w i n g 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 t o quote three meaningful responses from the l i s t provided then l e s s than three motivations were accepted.  Motivation Ranking Word Process. 1 2 most 1) important motivation  -+  Software Category Ranking + + Math Science Logo Drill Process 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3  Simulat'n 1 2 3  la  lb  lc  Id  le  2a  2b  2c  2d  2e  3a  3b  3c  3d  3e  —+-  2) least 3) important motivation  +  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 f o r t h e i r use of computers i n the classroom showed any developmental  pattern. This was  done by looking f o r a c o r r e l a t i o n 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 s expertise. 1  Measuring expertise i s , however, somewhat problematic.  Expertise  may be the r e s u l t of a c t u a l experience, or t r a i n i n g 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  c l e a r at the outset which one of these measures of expertise would be the most important, and i n f a c t i t seemed l i k e l y that they would a l l have some e f f e c t . Consequently,  i t was determined to record a l l three measures:  - degree of t r a i n i n g i n computer-based i n s t r u c t i o n , - years of computer use, and - number of programs a c t u a l l y used. The degree of t r a i n i n g was measured on an o r d i n a l 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, e i t h e r with the school computer or a personal computer. The number of programs a c t u a l l y used was determined through the use of a standard c h e c k l i s t of programs derived from the 1985 Educational  Appendix F / 106 Software Preview Guide developed by the Educational Software Evaluation Consortium. In a d d i t i o n , an attempt was made to develop a c o e f f i c i e n t of expertise which might summarize the net e f f e c t of these three separate measures.  The c o e f f i c i e n t was calculated as follows:  expertise = (yrs of use + t r a i n i n g c o e f f ) * (# of programs used / 5) The  two factors involved i n the c o e f f i c i e n t are both necessary  components of expertise and were therefore m u l t i p l i e d .  Thus, a low  value for e i t h e r would r e s u l t i n a low value for the c o e f f i c i e n t . f i r s t factor i s the sum of two of the measures which are  The  logical  a l t e r n a t i v e s , since the i n s i g h t 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 r e s u l t s as i n s t r u c t i o n . An attempt was made to give each of the component measures an appropriate weight.  The a r b i t r a r y values assigned to the t r a i n i n g  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 s i g n i f i c a n c e to a period of use and a degree of t r a i n i n g which might lead to equivalent i n s i g h t .  S i m i l a r l y , the  number of programs a c t u a l l y used was divided by 5 i n an attempt to give t h i s f a c t o r a weight approximately equivalent to the f i r s t . The was  c o e f f i c i e n t of expertise being a purely a r b i t r a r y creation i t  determined to record each of the component measures independently  in addition.  A c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was calculated between the  s i g n i f i c a n c e attached to a p a r t i c u l a r educational motivation and each  Appendix F / 107 component measure as w e l l as the combined measure i n case there were some symbiotic e f f e c t between the i n d i v i d u a l components of e x p e r t i s e . In the event, no c l e a r developmental pattern emerged using any of the measures.  F.2  EXPLANATION OF THE WEIGHTING PROCEDURE As part of the telephone i n t e r v i e w s , respondents were asked to  rank order t h e i r three primary motivations f o r the use of each of f i v e d i f f e r e n t 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 f o r each. range between 0 and 5.  This frequency could  In many cases, however, the respondents d i d  not have experience with a l l f i v e categories of software and were therefore unable to o f f e r a ranking of t h e i r motivations i n some categories.  This meant that the s t r a i g h t frequency of c i t a t i o n of a  motivation was not a r e l i a b l e i n d i c a t o r of i t s r e l a t i v e  importance;  e s p e c i a l l y when the r e s u l t s from d i f f e r e n t respondents were c o l l a t e d and analyzed.  In order to compensate f o r t h i s incomplete r e p o r t i n g  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 m u l t i p l y i n g that percentage by 15.  The r e s u l t was that the cumulative normalized frequency was  15  for a l l respondents whether or not they a c t u a l l y reported on a l l f i v e software categories. I t was a l s o recognized that the rank ordering of the software categories and the motivations w i t h i n each software category may significant.  be  To convert t h i s information i n t o a numerical form, a  system of weighting was devised.  The weighted value assigned to a  p a r t i c u l a r c i t a t i o n of a m o t i v a t i o n a l category was determined by m u l t i p l y i n g the inverse rank order of the software category and the inverse rank order of the three motivations w i t h i n that category. r e s u l t was that the primary motivation f o r the use of the most favoured software category received a weight of 15 and the l e a s t s i g n i f i c a n t motivation f o r the use of the l e a s t popular software category received a weight of 1.  The weights are summarized i n the  following table. Matrix of Weightings +  +  Motivation Ranking  I  1  |  2  +  I +  _  +  | + |  1  |  15  +  |  10  Software Category Ranking + + + + I 2 | 3 | 4 |  5  | + |  |  3  |  +  |  12  | +  8  9 :  |  |  6  + 6  |  | +  +  4  "I ^ "j z T 3 T ^ T i T  +  -  +  -  +  +  +  +  The  Appendix F / 109 These weighted frequencies were also normalized using an algorithm s i m i l a r to that for the raw frequencies with the e f f e c t that each respondent's normalized weighted frequencies t o t a l l e d The reason f o r recording a l l these v a r i a t i o n s on the  90. raw  frequency was the same as the reason f o r recording the four d i f f e r e n t measures of experience: i t was not c l e a r at the outset which would be the most meaningful measure.  Consequently, frequency data  was  recorded f o r the motivational categories i n each of the four possible forms: -  raw frequency of r e p o r t i n g , normalized frequency, weighted frequency, and normalized weighted frequency.  In the event, the four measures seem to have conveyed the same information w i t h i n 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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054709/manifest

Comment

Related Items