Perhaps the most intuitively obvious need for schools to utilize technology is simply the presence of and access to the technology resources themselves. Some of the key questions identified by the U.S. Department of Education (2002) for assessing technology in schools ask whether the equipment is present, is it available to staff and students, and are personnel available to proved technical support. The state of North Carolina has likewise provided access and infrastructure guidelines for successfully implementing technology in schools through its IMPACT model for media and technology programs adopted through the state’s technology plan (Public Schools of North Carolina, 2007). These include providing technology resources, providing barrier free access to technology resources, and providing support staff to maintain equipment and assist with technical questions. The necessity of these components is further documented in the literature (ISTE, 2002; North Central Regional Education Laboratory, 2000; Milken Exchange, 1998; Benton Foundation, 2003).
Studies support the obvious: if there is no technology present, or the technology is sufficiently out of date to meet the school’s needs, then there little chance that it will be used for teaching and learning. Although it is common for schools today to have a shared computer lab with a computer for each student, availability of the computers is often extremely limited due to scheduling leaving teachers to rely on classroom availability to technology resources for computer use. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for classrooms to be limited to a single computer (Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway, 2003). With computer lab availability often limited for use just once or twice a week, this restricts teachers and students to what is available primarily in the classroom. In a study of characteristics associated with five specific uses of educational technology, O’Dwyer, Russel & Bebell (2005) found that increased availability of technology was significant for predicting four of the five technology uses studied and was likely to result in increased use of technology for delivering instruction, increased teacher-directed use of technology by students during class time, increased teacher-directed use of technology by students to create products, and increased use by teachers for class preparation. In fact, Norris et al. (2003) asserted that a minimal student/computer ratio of 4:1 was necessary for more than sporadic use of technology. In the elementary classroom, Becker, Ravitz, & Wong (1999) found that of those with a 4:1 ratio, 67% of teachers were likely to use computers frequently with their students and even those with little to no computers were more likely than upper level grades to use computers with their students, likely due to increased time spent with students and access to computer labs.
Simply having computers present in a school, however, does not guaranteed that they will actually be used or have an impact on teaching and learning. Surveying teachers across the country, Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway (2003) concluded that the reason for this is a simply a lack of access to computers. Aside from a very limited number of computers in classroom, nearly 64% had one or no classroom computer, nearly the same percentage reported having access to the schools computer lab either only once per week if that. Interestingly enough, Becker (2001) found that secondary teachers with ready access to classroom computers, 5-8 in a classroom, were more than 3 times as likely have their students use computers than those who used the computer lab, despite having a fewer computers per student. Becker argued that “scheduling of whole classes at wide intervals determined well in advance of (academic) need … makes it almost impossible for computers to be integrated as research, analytic, and communicative tools in the context of the central academic work of an academic class.” (p. 3). This is inline with the IMPACT guideline for providing teachers with flexibly access computer labs to ensure that computers are available when needed. This open access, Sugar (2007) found, allowed computer labs to be used more frequently by those wishing to integrate technology into the curriculum.
Availability and access aside, teachers need ready access to technical support and reliable equipment (Milken Exchange, 1998; CEO Forum, 1999; North Central Regional Education Laboratory, 2000). Unfortunately, Ronnkvist, Dexter, and Anderson (2000) reported that very few schools have a single full-time school level computer coordinator or technician, the recommended minimum for North Carolina schools according the state’s technology plan (Public Schools of North Carolina, 2007). In a review of the research, Ringstaff & Kelly (2002) found lack of technical support to be a major barrier to technology use and noted that even teachers who enjoy using computers will stop using technology if the equipment becomes unreliable. Rogers (2000) found that with limited technical support, the likelihood of technology integration decreases if teachers view the technology as unreliable.
Clearly teachers and students need not only the technology available to them, but ready access to reliable technology if schools expect to see a return on their investment. Even teachers with the skills to incorporate technology into instruction will be hesitant to do so if the technology is not dependable or if obstacles such as convenience or technical issues arise.
Becker, H. J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? 2001 Meetings of the American Educational Research Association
Becker, H. J., Ravitz, J. L., & Wong, Y. (1999, November). Teacher and teacher directed use of computers and software. Retrieved October 27, 2007, from Teaching, Learning, and Computing: 1998 National Survey: http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/ComputerUse/html/startpage.htm
Benton Foundation. (2003). The sustainability challenge: Taking edtech to the next level. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from The Benton Foundation: http://www.benton.org/publibrary/sustainability/sus_challenge.pdf
Milken Exchange. (1998). Technology in American Schools: Seven Dimensions for gauging progress. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from Milken Family Foundation: http://www.milkenexchange.org/policy/sevendimensions.pdf
Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education , 36 (1), 15-27.
O’Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., & Bebell, D. (2005). Identifying teacher, school and district characteristics associated with middle and high schools teachers’ use of technology: A multilevel perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 33 (4), 369-393.
Public Schools of North Carolina. (2007, July 4). Technology Plan. Retrieved December 8, 2007, from North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI): http://tps.dpi.state.nc.us/techplan2000
Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment: A review of finding from research. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from WestEd: http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/learning_return.pdf
Rogers, P. L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 22 (4), 455-472.
Ronnkvist, A., Dexter, S., & Anderson, R. (2000, June). Technology support: Its depth, breadth and impact in America’s schools. Retrieved March 3, 2008, from Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations: http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/findings/technology-support/report_5.pdf
Sugar, W., & Kester, D. (2007). Lessons learned from IMPACTing technology integration practices: Four IMPACT model case studies. Computers in the Schools , 24 (1/2), 15-32.
No comments:
Post a Comment