July 27, 2008
TECHNOS QUARTERLY Fall 2001 Vol. 10 No. 3
Technology in Education: The Boom Is Behind Us
by Michael Molenda and Michael Sullivan
The year 2000 was a watershed year for in structional technology as devices became ubiquitous in schools and colleges, and many dreamed that education would truly be transformed. Instead, the economy faltered and companies offering free computers and free software disappeared along with companies offering free delivery of their free lunch. As if joining a parade, schools cut back their high-tech investments, signaling their all-too-familiar budget struggles. Many universities scaled back their distance education business plans to stanch the flow of red ink.
In all sectors of education, signals appeared indicating that the seemingly unending upward curve of computer-based technology adoption was hitting a plateau. This suggests that we may actually be seeing the end of the growth curve for information technology in education. This should not be surprising, but it always seems to come as a shock to the new-media enthusiasts of each generation, who say: “Pretty soon, all lectures will be replaced by radio . . . no, television . . . no, teaching machines . . . no, computers . . .”
Of
course, education often reflects the greater society, and trends were not
that positive for society as a whole. Total expenditures for telecommunications
actually decreased from $860 billion in the first quarter of 2000 to
$837 billion in the first quarter of 2001 (Intelect, 2001a). In addition,
expenditures for PCs and peripherals experienced a similar decrease, from
$20 billion in the first quarter of 2000 to $16 billion in the first quarter
of 2001 (Intelect, 2001b). In fact, PC sales actually declined for the first
time in the Information Age, predicted to sink 6 percent from 2000 to 2001
(Ewalt, 2001, June 8).
It has long been predicted that DVD drives would replace CD-ROM drives in computers and that the DVD would become the medium of choice for educational materials. Certainly DVD sales have increased, but virtually all of the sales have been for entertainment products. At the same time, CD-ROM sales have fallen. In that most new DVD drives will support CD-ROMs, there is no particular technology-based reason for this fall-off. What is becoming increasingly obvious is that the Internet is diluting the demand for off-the-shelf media. Consumers and suppliers are beginning to view software as a service rather than a product.
On the other hand, the long predicted demise of the textbook has not yet occurred. More e-textbooks are being published, with a tenfold increase in titles published between 2000 and 2001. But market demand remains weak. Hardware is one problem: there is not yet an accepted standard for a compact reader, and students resist textbooks that tie them to their computers. Software is another problem: again, standards are lacking and users have difficulty accessing materials and navigating within the e-books. Further, most e-textbooks do not yet incorporate the multimedia features, such as animation, that would make them qualitatively superior to printed texts (Blumenstyk, 2001).
The onset of virtual schools is another prediction that has not come true. This movement has had no noticeable impact on the predominance of traditional public schools. To date, as many public efforts as private ones have been established to serve this still emerging market. Schools themselves have not rushed to install technology-based instructional systems, and home-schoolers have proven an elusive market.
As has occurred throughout the history of education, new technological developments suggest ways to reorganize the delivery of education to become more cost-effective. School and college faculty have traditionally resisted such reorganization when it threatens their core values or basic work processes. That cycle is being repeated with the growth of interest in Internet-based delivery. An example at the K–12 level is the Virtual High School (VHS), a project funded by the U.S. Department of Education to provide online courses and assess their effectiveness. The VHS set a number of quality criteria, including that all participating teachers must complete a 26-week online professional development course to prepare them to develop an online course. They also require close monitoring of students and small class size. VHS is now working with the National Education Association on criteria for judging quality of courses. These criteria will, of course, include student/ teacher ratios and teacher qualifications (Electronic Education Report, 2001, June 6). All these requirements tend to reinforce existing patterns of staffing and compensation, causing overall costs to increase at a time when costs are already increasing at rates greater than inflation.
The federal government has a National Educational Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2000), the first goal of which is to make access to technology universal; the second of which is that “[a]ll teachers will use technology effectively to help students achieve high academic standards.” The plan itself seems to intend this to mean the design and use of rich learning environments. Unfortunately, in practice, the concept of “high academic standards” is often interpreted in terms of content mastery, which is translated as performance on standardized tests. As states implement plans to enforce “standards,” the emphasis on standardized testing increases. Among educators this trend is largely regarded as pernicious—as “teaching to the test”—which tends to suck the life out of lessons. To the extent that technology use is associated with “teaching to the test,” it will suffer the disdain of a large segment of educators.
K–12 Education
Overall, some $10 billion is spent annually on instructional materials used in schools. A hidden factor in this figure is that teachers themselves spend about 13 percent of that amount from their own private funds. A recent estimate is that teachers spend $437 per year of their personal funds to buy materials for their classes (Hance, 2001, January).
The
popular measure of success for technology in schools has become Internet access.
By the fall of 2000, 98 percent of all U.S. public schools were connected
to the Internet (Cattagni & Westat, 2001). Similarly, virtually all schools
have some computers on the premises. Victory has been declared.
On the other hand, spending for instructional technology in U.S. schools actually dropped from $6.7 billion in 1998–99 to $5.6 billion in 1999–2000 (Quality Education Data, 2001) while overall expenditures for education grew during this same period. E-rate reimbursements and other federal and state programs provided a substantial share of these billions, which leads to the inference that state and local commitments to instructional technology are fairly shallow.
- Teacher Computer Use. Teachers actually employ computers
very little in day-to-day practice. A recent illustration is the finding
of a NetDay survey (2001) indicating that only 20 percent of teachers used
the Internet to communicate with parents and only 18 percent posted lesson
plans online. In fact, among teachers who have Internet access, 60 percent
said they spent less than 30 minutes online each day (which is less than
the average user). As access to computer facilities has grown, usage has
grown incrementally. However, this increase does not diminish the generalization
that computers have so far made minimal impact on teacher practice. The
reasons are many and well covered in the literature. One new insight is
provided by Becker and Riel (2000), who categorized teachers according to
their level of professional engagement. They found that those categorized
as the least professionally engaged tended to be more transmission-oriented
in their teaching philosophy (as opposed to a more constructivist posture),
and were far less likely to use computers in learner-centered ways (group
work, projects, or active, cognitively challenging pedagogy).
- Student Computer Use. The apparent ubiquitous state of
Internet access is offset somewhat by the 37 percent of classrooms not connected
to the Internet (Education Week, 2001, 51) and the ratio of students
to Internet-connected computer, estimated to be about 8 to 1 (Education
Week, 2001, 49). This would imply that the typical student is able to
access the Internet no more than one period per day. In fact, a recent poll
of students found that the average student used school computers one hour
or less per week versus five hours of home computer usage. Among
those who attended so-called high-tech schools, only 23 percent used computers
at least five hours per week in school (Harris Interactive, 2001, 4). This
may not be a serious problem for students in that only 7 percent said computer
use was extremely important to how well they do in school (Harris Interactive,
2001, 14).
- Staff Development. Perhaps because of the success in equipping
and wiring schools, there is currently more public attention focused on
professional development. The need is indicated in survey responses that
show that a majority of teachers had not changed the way they teach because
of Internet access nor were they under pressure by administrators to do
so (Electronic School, 2001, June). There is widespread agreement
that training in technology use is a necessary, but frequently lacking,
element in the equation. Schwab and Foa (2001) summed it up well: “[T]here
are still many more thousands of teachers who, while they know how to do
word processing or even search the Internet, don’t have the slightest
clue how to truly integrate technology into their teaching. The problem
for educators nationwide is how to scale up effective training to reach
tens of thousands of teachers quickly.”
Lending urgency to in-service technology training is the finding that it is the single most critical factor associated with improving student achievement when using technology in instruction (CEO Forum, 2001, 9). Despite the demonstrable need, the latest indication is that only 8 percent of technology expenditures are directed toward professional staff development (Topics in Education Group, 2001, May).
- Pre-service Training. Teachers who are entering the profession
with recent degrees in teacher education do seem to be better prepared.
Teachers with three or fewer years of teaching experience were more likely
to feel well prepared than teachers with 20 or more years of experience
(31 percent vs. 19 percent) (NCES, 2000, 75). Further, new national standards
for technology skills for teachers, promulgated by the International Society
for Technology in Education in 2000, are expected to have an influence on
pre-service training in the future. As in-service teachers retire or leave
the profession and are replaced by recently graduated teachers, technological
literacy is expected to rise. However, the larger question of whether this
knowledge will lead to better performance in the classroom is still very
much open. [See “Can Web-Based Collaboration
Reform Education?.” ]
- Technology Support. Survey data gathered by Becker and
his colleagues show that teacher use of technology is highly correlated
with level of support at the building level (Ronnkvist, Dexter, & Anderson,
2000). Support entails a wide range of services: facilities, presence of
a support staff, personal help and guidance, professional development, and
professional incentives. All of these services are problematic. One recent
indicator is that 46 percent of surveyed teachers said that their schools
lacked technical support to help when there are problems (NetDay, 2001).
This reliability or dependability factor is seldom pointed out when identifying
factors impeding the use of technology, but field experience indicates that
teachers are loath to base lessons on technology that may not work when
needed. We anticipate that technology support will be the next major issue
to be identified after staff development is fully addressed.
- Outdated Hardware. Schools, like colleges and universities,
are struggling with the challenge of acquiring and maintaining an information
technology infrastructure. Some of this is attributable to the “one-time
purchase” mentality. In fact, initial purchase costs represent only
about one-quarter of the “total cost of ownership,” and districts,
like colleges, are ill prepared for the long-term costs involved with maintaining
and replacing computer equipment (Fitzgerald, 1999).
- Curricular Match. The dependence on the Internet for instruction has been a mixed blessing for educators. The conventional wisdom continues to be that Internet-delivered content is free and valuable. Indeed, we have seen the demise of most fee-based instructional services. Unfortunately, though, the dot-com crash of 2000 led to the disappearance of many educationally valuable content sites on the Web (Hoch, 2001). Even casual observers are aware that much of the Web is a quagmire of advertising, pornography, politically inspired commentary, and sophomoric humor. Hence, the challenge for schools is not in acquiring computers or obtaining connections, but in finding meaningful and useful content and/or instruction. Education journals supply regular lists of suitable sites for educators, but the issue of teacher time is a major factor restricting usage. The few dependable continuing sites receive regular and constant use. Among the 25 most popular childrenÕs Web sites as of March 2000 were PBS Online, Discovery Online, Thinkquest.org, The Smithsonian Institution, and The Official Home of Sesame Street. None of the other 20 sites indicated any educational content (Human Perspectives, 2001, May).
|
References
|
|
|
Becker, H. J., and Riel, M. M. (2000). Teacher Professional Engagement and Constructivist-Compatible Computer Use. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine and University of Minnesota. Blumenstyk, G. (2001, May 18). Publishers Promote E-textbooks, but Many Students and Professors are Skeptical. Chronicle of Higher Education, A35-A36. Cattagni, A., and Westat, E.F. (2001). Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2000. NCES 2001-071. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. CEO Forum. (2001). Technology Must Be Included in Comprehensive Education Legislation. Washington, DC: CEO Forum on Education and Technology. Education Week. (2001, May 10). Technology Counts 2001: The New Divides. Education Week 20:35. Electronic Education Report. (2001, May 23). Financial Briefs. Electronic Education Report 8:10, 8. Electronic Education Report. (2001, June 6). NEA Working on Criteria That Will Judge Quality of Online Learning. Electronic Education Report 8:11, 3. Electronic School. (2001, June). Teachers Aren’t Using the Internet, Survey Finds. Electronic School, 10-11. Ewalt, D. M. (2001, June 8). PC Industry’s First Decline Predicted.
Information Week. [Online.] Available: http://www. informationweek.com/ Fitzgerald, S. (1999). Technology’s Real Costs. Electronic
School, September 1999. [Online]. Available: http://www. electronic-school.com Hance, M. (2001, January). Top Twenty Trends in K-12 Schools. DataPoints,
quarterly newsletter of Market Data Retrieval. [Online.] Available:
http://www.schooldata.com Harris Interactive (2001). Education Week/Market Data Retrieval/Harris
Poll of Students and Technology. [Online.] Available: http://www.edweek.org/sreports/ |
Hoch, F. (2001, May). Trends 2000 Wrapup. Upgrade, 11. Human Perspectives. (2001, May). The 25 Most Popular Children’s
Web Sites, as of March 2000. Human Perspectives 1:5. [Online.]
Available: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/ Intelect. (2001a). Telecom. [Online.] Available: http://www. intelectmt.com/corp/intelectmt/ Intelect. (2001b). PCs and Peripherals. [Online.] Available: http://www.intelectmt.com/ National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000). Teacher Use of Computers and the Internet in Public Schools. Education Statistics Quarterly: Summer 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. NetDay. (2001). 84% of Teachers Say Internet Improves Quality of Education.
News Release. [Online.] Available: http://www.netday.org/ Quality Education Data. (2001). QED’s Technology Purchasing Forecast, 2000-2001. 6th Edition. Denver: Quality Education Data. Ronnkvist, A., Dexter, S. L., and Anderson, R. E. (2000). Technology Support: Its Depth, Breadth and Impact in America’s Schools. Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine and University of Minnesota. Schwab, R. L., and Foa, L. J. (2001, April). Integrating Technologies throughout Our Schools. Phi Delta Kappan 82:8, 620. Topics in Education Group. (2001, May). Reaching the Classroom through the Internet 1:3, 3. U.S. Department of Education. (2000). E-Learning, Putting a World-Class Education at the Fingertips of All Children: The National Educational Technology Plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. |
Of
course, there are still vendors supplying software for lease or purchase.
The consolidation movement has continued, and a very few large conglomerates
control much of the instructional content business. But few of the software
companies report being profitable. For example, Riverdeep Interactive Learning,
American Education, Heartsoft Inc., and Lightspan all reported net losses,
ranging from a quarter million to 18 million dollars, in the first quarter
of 2001 (Electronic Education Report 2001, May 23). The entire educational
software market shriveled by over 22 percent in one year and is now a rather
paltry $454.6 million. The K–12 institutional market is certainly a very
small part of this.
Conclusions
What is becoming clear is that we are experiencing déjà vu regarding educators’ responses to today’s new media, comparable to the patterns of previous media, such as film, radio, and television. The new medium emerges with great fanfare. Public pressure builds to employ it in education. Schools and colleges acquire the hardware needed to enter the game. Software lags behind. Instructor adoption lags even further behind, eventually grows to substantial proportions before plateauing, but never reaches the levels predicted by the cheerleaders.
We know that hardware penetration is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for productive use of technology in instruction. The key stakeholders decide how quickly and to what extent new technologies are adopted. We know that different stakeholders move at different rates in the various public and private sectors. Their decisions depend greatly on their perception of the personal advantage offered by the new technology as well as their organizations’ demands on them to find ways of making their practice more productive.
| This article is adapted from one to be published by the authors in Educational Media and Technology Yearbook 2002: Volume 27; M. A. Fitzgerald, Editor (Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited). |